New law permits Arizonans to bring guns into bars

[rmnunez]

Not so infrequent if anyone could board with their favourite pistol, I suppose machine guns would have to be allowed too and that would mean several of those windows could get broken at the same time.

If someone had a gun, but nobody knew it, then it really doesn't matter, I don't care what someone has in his pocket. I think people carrying concealed weapons do have a different mentality. If a perceived threat induces them to arm themselves, they are more affraid, perhaps a bit paranoid, likely they draw courage from the fact they are secretely armed. I suppose there are 'normal' people who carry concealed weapons, they derive pleasure in secretely knowing they are fully exercising their constitutional right, and ready to spring into action if anyone gets out of hand.

Its hard to iamgine the sort of people who would carefuly conceal a weapon as they get ready for church on sunday, to watch the kids in a school play or off deal with some government bureaucrat... What's the gun for? Just in case? In case of what?

I'm glad I can argue about this online with people like Apeman, because if we were discussing it over beers at the local somewhere in Arizona, I could provoke him too much and get shot.

[Angry Citizen]

I'm glad I can argue about this online with people like Apeman, because if we were discussing it over beers at the local somewhere in Arizona, I could provoke him too much and get shot.

Or a meteorite can come through your roof right now and bury itself in your heart. Unlikely things occur; they're just unlikely. Your post bespeaks a level of ignorance towards the mentality of gun-owners. It is full of false assumptions intended to dehumanize them. Convenient if you're trying to reinforce your preconceived notions, but unlikely to persuade anyone.

[Thanatos]

I'm glad I can argue about this online with people like Apeman, because if we were discussing it over beers at the local somewhere in Arizona, I could provoke him too much and get shot.

YouTube - Gun DISARM (EXECUTION STYLE)

YouTube - Bojuka Gun Self Defense Technique - How to Disarm an Armed Attacker

This works a whole lot better than you'd think. In trials conducted with an airsoft pistol I discovered that I'm good at this whole gun-grabbing thing. I think the conservatives are on to me though.

AC, you're not an idiot so stop acting like one. There are people who happen to own guns and then there are gun owners. Gun owners tick me off and if you think about it enough they'll probably start to tick you off too.

[rmnunez]

The mentality of gun owners? Didn't know there was one, figured gun owners have the same sort of mentality everyone else does. Are gun owners invariably very meticulous, particularly conscious of their safety, handy with tools, avid legal positivists....? There must be some of them who are, others are evidently nuts. Lots of criminals own guns, what mentality do they share with other gun owners? Don' tell me gun owners are respectful, law abiding patriots, some certainly are, but there is no "gun owner's mentality". There are lots of good reasons to own and use a gun, but a sensible person can see there should be limitations, guns are deadly weapons, they are designed to kill. What mentality does someone need to have to carry a concealed tool to kill with?

[Angry Citizen]

AC, you're not an idiot so stop acting like one. There are people who happen to own guns and then there are gun owners. Gun owners tick me off and if you think about it enough they'll probably start to tick you off too.

Could you explain the difference to me please?

[RickSp]

For those who can't bear the thought of leaving the house without packing heat, who are convinced that they need to be armed at their neighborhood Chilis - why don't you wear body armor?

Guns, despite claims to the contrary, are lousy defensive weapons. You can block a sword with a sword, but you can't stop a bullet with a bullet. A gun is useful as a defense against another shooter only if the person shooting at you misses and you don't. Given that cops only hit their targets about 25% of the time, there is high probability that you will not hit the person firing at you.

So if you are really that afraid of being attacked why not wear body armor. Unlike a gun, it will stop or slow a bullet coming at you and won't give you Glock foot.

[Angry Citizen]

Guns, despite claims to the contrary, are lousy defensive weapons.

That's bullshit and you know it.

You can block a sword with a sword, but you can't stop a bullet with a bullet.

Guns are not meant to stop hit-and-run style attacks. I'm assuming you have arguments against gun ownership that don't suck?

A gun is useful as a defense against another shooter only if the person shooting at you misses and you don't.

Depends. If a guy pulls a gun on you, and you can duck under cover real quick and pull your own gun, you stand a far higher chance of survival than if you were not packing heat. This is not war. People rarely pull guns and instantly open fire. In such a scenario, yes, a gun is nearly useless. But those scenarios don't happen.

Given that cops only hit their targets about 25% of the time, there is high probability that you will not hit the person firing at you.

So you're saying that over seventy five percent of all shootings end without anyone being hit? I wish I lived in fantasy land too.

So if you are really that afraid of being attacked why not wear body armor. Unlike a gun, it will stop or slow a bullet coming at you and won't give you Glock foot.

*RickSp voice* But body armor doesn't cover forty percent of your body! Additionally, many large calibre and high power weapons can easily penetrate body armor! Therefore, all guns are useless and you're a silly gun-crazed fool for thinking they possess an ounce of defensive power. Additionally, in spite of them being apparently totally worthless for defense, they are incredibly useful offensive tools, and should be banned -- don't point to that 25%-hit-rate! That only applies for cops and people acting in self-defense! */RickSp voice*

[RickSp]

That's bullshit and you know it.

Maybe you should learn the meaning of the word defensive.

Guns are not meant to stop hit-and-run style attacks. I'm assuming you have arguments against gun ownership that don't suck?

I am not making any argument against gun ownership. I guess you missed that.

Depends. If a guy pulls a gun on you, and you can duck under cover real quick and pull your own gun, you stand a far higher chance of survival than if you were not packing heat. This is not war. People rarely pull guns and instantly open fire. In such a scenario, yes, a gun is nearly useless. But those scenarios don't happen.

Those scenarios don't happen? Call us when you return to this planet.

So you're saying that over seventy five percent of all shootings end without anyone being hit? I wish I lived in fantasy land too.

That is a well established statistics. Look it up. And no. The statistic is based on each bullet. Keep squeezing the trigger and you are sure to hit someone.

*RickSp voice* But body armor doesn't cover forty percent of your body! Additionally, many large calibre and high power weapons can easily penetrate body armor! Therefore, all guns are useless and you're a silly gun-crazed fool for thinking they possess an ounce of defensive power. Additionally, in spite of them being apparently totally worthless for defense, they are incredibly useful offensive tools, and should be banned -- don't point to that 25%-hit-rate! That only applies for cops and people acting in self-defense! */RickSp voice*

Wow, that was dumb. I have to say you've impressed me AC. This sort of bullshit rant is stupid enough to be rather amusing. Thanks for the chuckle.

[Angry Citizen]

I have to say you've impressed me AC. This sort of bullshit rant is stupid enough to be rather amusing.

Interesting. At least I backed my points up. The only rebuttal in your entire post seems to be summed up in the following sentence:

Wow, that was dumb.

Or maybe in the following personal attack:

I am assuming that you aren't always this stupid.

Way to show class.

[Thanatos]

Could you explain the difference to me please?

Forgive me for my wonky definition but one gets pissed at the very concept of less-lethal projectiles for home defense while the other does not.

Seriously, that's the easiest way to ask how they feel about killing people without asking. You see, if you ask them directly if they want to kill people just for the godlike thrill of dispensing justice they'll deny everything.

Rubber bullets aren't really non-lethal; they're merely less-lethal. Israelis and incompetent cops kill people with them all the time. I got out a tape measurer and there's just enough space along my most probable angles of fire for an intruder to be beyond the manufacturer's minimum safe distance. Barely. I think this is good enough for my purposes, and if it's not, well, rubber was expensive and the rest of the shells in the magazine are filled with plain lead.

I'm actually safer because it's much more statistically likely that I'll have a conflict with someone I know - and that I might be reluctant to shoot. Besides, I have an ace in the hole in case someone uses it against me or on themselves.

This pisses gun owners off for one very specific reason that is relevant to this discussion. I would actually pass up the opportunity to kill a criminal even if it was within my legal rights to do so.

There are other arguments against less-lethals. It is my choice to ignore them because of my overriding concern for human life.

Gun owners define their masculinity in terms of their weapons and their willingness to kill. They think I'm a cocksucking cowardly limp-wristed limp-dicked liberal. I fit the part too; I was born with a lisp that still occasionally creeps back. My revenge is that where I like women, they're almost all closet homosexuals... I mean, it's fine for them to get together while hunting or after a long day at the gun range, but it's still hilarious.


People who happen to own guns don't have their set of issues even if they still do go hunting and occasionally practice at gun ranges. They're not defined by weapons and death. These people may not agree with my choice of ammo, but they usually understand my motivation in choosing to use it because at base they're decent people.

[Angry Citizen]

I see. I agree with the distinction, even if I don't think it's as common as you portray. Most people that you would label 'gun owners' are likely just ignorant of the stopping power of a rubber bullet. I've never had one shot at me, but I know for a fact that that much kinetic energy concentrated on a small area would hurt like a sonovabitch.

And some people have something of a macho, "Don't fuck with me or I'll put a bullet in you" attitude. Is that commendable or detestable? Obviously, I would trend towards the latter, as would you. Some people trend towards the former. That just displays ignorance, not malice.

[Thanatos]

I see. I agree with the distinction, even if I don't think it's as common as you portray. Most people that you would label 'gun owners' are likely just ignorant of the stopping power of a rubber bullet. I've never had one shot at me, but I know for a fact that that much kinetic energy concentrated on a small area would hurt like a sonovabitch

Meh, they don't even have to agree with me about the actual effectiveness of rubber bullets as long as they're okay with their design philosophy. It's a subtle distinction borne of a need to talk about one thing while actually talking about another.

And some people have something of a macho, "Don't fuck with me or I'll put a bullet in you" attitude. Is that commendable or detestable? Obviously, I would trend towards the latter, as would you. Some people trend towards the former. That just displays ignorance, not malice.

I see we're back on the same page, or at least using the same textbook.