Excitement in my quiet little town this morning.

[buddyhu]

Originally Posted by kwakatak

Actually, I was raised to distrust guns by a liberal single mother who moved us to a rural area where people shot wildlife for sport. Many of them had no business handling handguns because they were the kind who would follow practices that some would consider to be poaching.

What really scared me off handguns was when a close friend committed suicide with her father's service pistol. I don't blame the gun for that though; she had "problems" and the gun provided her with a permanent solution to a temporary problem. That's what I meant by "desperate."

As for the ignorant, I'd never personally shot a pistol until I joined the Navy. They gave us dummy pieces to drill with (the barrels were capped and the triggers removed) and taught us to NEVER point ANYTHING that resembled a firearm at another person. On the one occasion where we did fire live ammunition it was under very controlled circumstances where we were given a .22 semi automatic pistol and 4 clips with 10 bullets each. I recall one recruit (a midwestern farm boy) had 48 holes on his target. The recruit next to him (who came from some inner city and prone to shooting his mouth off) only had 8 holes in his target. Instead of being embarrassed, he blamed the gun and said he could have done better with a fully automatic Uzi. Thank God nobody gave him one that day because he likely would have shot somebody purely by accident since he couldn't even control the kickback on such a light weapon as a .22.

That further reinforced my belief that some people should NEVER be around guns. I've only fired a pistol once since for recreation and that time was without ear protection. I decided both that they aren't for me and that I'd like to keep my hearing but I'm not scared of them. I'm more fearful of how fallible people can sometimes feel invincible behind a firearm. I think what is wrong with the world is not that there are too many guns out there, but that there are too many undisciplined people who are drawn to them.

Thanks for this post, kwakatak.

I agree, guns aren't scary...people are. Very thoughtful and clear headed analysis.

In your first post, you identify desperate people and ignorant people as the types that shouldn't have guns. I think we also need to add two more types:

1. people who are substance abusers or who are in the active phase of addiction (actively addicted people are usually estimated to comprise 1/7 of the population of the US; substance abusers are at least as frequent if not more...so we are talking about AT LEAST 25% of the population), as they are very likely to take excessive risks or make choices that are impulsive.

2. People who are over-confident. Not just people like the one described in your post above, but the ordinary version of over-confidence that is so commonly on display in everyday (one only needs to read a few posts on AGF to begin to get an impression of how many people have confidence in excess of their capacity). IMO, there is a pandemic of overconfidence in the US...indeed, one could argue that over-confidence and arrogance have become the norm, and that has a personna rooted in over-confidence can be propelled to very high levels of responsibility that far exceed their capacities or wisdom.

It is a predicament, however, to deal with the person problem without resorting to restriction gun ownership...particularly when the NRA is busy undermining any attempts to provide options to those who want them (e.g. their successful attempts to suppress the sale of "smart guns" in the US).

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by HHP

Sorry, not true in any sense. Most common scenarios are bad guy/bad guy and bad guy/bystander, and bad guy/unarmed victim.

Then problem is always, though, who is the bad guy and who is the good? Is the dumbottom kid who takes his dad's gun to school the 'bad guy'? Is the jilted lover whose self-worth depends on the continued affection of his beloved the 'bad guy'? Is the idealist who takes up arms against a tyrannical regime (the original American revolutionaries) the 'bad guy'? Is the temperamentally unbalanced guy behind the wheel who succumbs to an act of road rage the 'bad guy'? Isn't the whole notion of a 'bad guy,' an 'evildoer,' an antiquated oversimplification to cover any behavior that disturbs the social equilibrium, and one which potentially includes a staggeringly large number of people?

[HHP]

Originally Posted by ewalling

Then problem is always, though, who is the bad guy and who is the good? Is the dumbottom kid who takes his dad's gun to school the 'bad guy'? Is the jilted lover whose self-worth depends on the continued affection of his beloved the 'bad guy'? Is the idealist who takes up arms against a tyrannical regime (the original American revolutionaries) the 'bad guy'? Is the temperamentally unbalanced guy behind the wheel who succumbs to an act of road rage the 'bad guy'? Isn't the whole notion of a 'bad guy,' an 'evildoer,' an antiquated oversimplification to cover any behavior that disturbs the social equilibrium, and one which potentially includes a staggeringly large number of people?

Believe me, you'll know one when you meet one.

[Silurian]

Originally Posted by HHP

Believe me, you'll know one when you meet one.

It's easy to spot the bad guy. He's the one in the body bag or being led to the squad car in handcuffs. Of course by then it's too late for the others in body bags.

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by HHP

Believe me, you'll know one when you meet one.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say there are just 'people,' and some of them get into a terrible mess at times? Wasn't that the powerful and enduring message that emerged from Alfred Hitchcock's 'Psycho' - that the bogeyman was not, in fact, a bloodsucking Dracula, a wild-beast wolfman, or a dammed Framnkenstein monster? That the bogeyman was actually the boy next door?

[HHP]

Originally Posted by ewalling

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say there are just 'people,' and some of them get into a terrible mess at times? Wasn't that the powerful and enduring message that emerged from Alfred Hitchcock's 'Psycho' - that the bogeyman was not, in fact, a bloodsucking Dracula, a wild-beast wolfman, or a dammed Framnkenstein monster? That the bogeyman was actually the boy next door?

No, it wouldn't. Many individuals are prepared to do heinous things to others with little or no thought. When I am forced to deal with one, I am not going to wonder if his potty training went awry or if he lacked a positive male role model or wasn't breast fed. I am only concerned with exiting my encounter in roughly the same condition I entered it.

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by HHP

No, it wouldn't. Many individuals are prepared to do heinous things to others with little or no thought. When I am forced to deal with one, I am not going to wonder if his potty training went awry or if he lacked a positive male role model or wasn't breast fed. I am only concerned with exiting my encounter in roughly the same condition I entered it.

Your contempt for psychological/human understanding is not really the issue here, or at least not the one I was raising. I was suggesting that the 'crazed and unearthly evildoer' who comes knocking at your door might well have been 'one of the good guys' until a series of events showed what he could really do if the right buttons were pushed.

[HHP]

Originally Posted by ewalling

Your contempt for psychological/human understanding is not really the issue here, or at least not the one I was raising. I was suggesting that the 'crazed and unearthly evildoer' who comes knocking at your door might well have been 'one of the good guys' until a series of events showed what he could really do if the right buttons were pushed.

Next time I find a crazed evildoer at my door, I will certainly make it a point to explore all the events in his life that led him to me. I just hope he doesn't kill me before we can work through all his issues.

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by HHP

Next time I find a crazed evildoer at my door, I will certainly make it a point to explore all the events in his life that led him to me. I just hope he doesn't kill me before we can work through all his issues.

Well, see, here's the thing. You're the one who armed him ... because you thought he was one of the good guys!

[HHP]

Originally Posted by ewalling

Well, see, here's the thing. You're the one who armed him ... because you thought he was one of the good guys!

Sorry, never armed anyone but myself in my entire life. And the last time I actually confronted a couple of your former choirboys gone bad, they had knives.

I must confess that in that encounter, I was solely concerned with my future and not their past.

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by HHP

Sorry, never armed anyone but myself in my entire life. And the last time I actually confronted a couple of your former choirboys gone bad, they had knives.

I must confess that in that encounter, I was solely concerned with my future and not their past.

Well, I think it's time someone else had a shot here.

Whoops! Me and my big mouth!

[sled]

Originally Posted by Silly Moustache

I'm afraid that you might have misunderstood your Scottish friend. British police have often carried truncheons, bot any policemn carrying a firearm, illegally would have been in very serious trouble. Even when an armed reponse officer fires his firearm ther is a very big and public investigation.

Nope, no misunderstanding. He told me exactly what he, and others, carried under their coats. Now, I wasn't there so I can't say for sure, but I have no reason to disbelieve him, he is one of the finest men I have ever met... and I can't believe this thread is still open....lol. As far as my take on it, I witnessed what people do to each other on a daily basis for 25 years in Law Enforcement. I've seen the good that is out there, and I have seen the bad that is out there. My take on it...... you will never catch me unarmed.

[Silly Moustache]

Originally Posted by sled

Nope, no misunderstanding. He told me exactly what he, and others, carried under their coats. Now, I wasn't there so I can't say for sure, but I have no reason to disbelieve him, he is one of the finest men I have ever met... and I can't believe this thread is still open....lol. As far as my take on it, I witnessed what people do to each other on a daily basis for 25 years in Law Enforcement. I've seen the good that is out there, and I have seen the bad that is out there. My take on it...... you will never catch me unarmed.

Then, I'm afraid that unless your Scottish friend was a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland, or some special security branch - MOD, SO, or VIP bodyguard service, then he would have been a criminal.

A normal service policeman illegally carrying a firearm is, ibso facto, a criminal, just like anyone else.

I suggest that we end this particular conversation (not the thread) as it may incriminate.

[KevWind]

While I understand self defence ideology and support "regulated" 2 amendment rights.

I think attempting to reduce the vast and complex situation of the human condition, to a very overly simplistic category of either "good guys or bad guys" or "good or evil" , serves little to nothing in the big picture.

I think this is a fairly realistic and somewhat profound observation about the subject.

"An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about life. “A fight is going on inside me,” he said to the boy.
“It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil – he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.” He continued, “The other is good – he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you – and inside every other person, too.”
The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, “Which wolf will win?”
The old Cherokee simply replied, “The one you feed.”

[Silly Moustache]

I've been thinking about the incident, as one might expect. I am unsure about the facts, but I believe that even an armed response team are permitted to carry the firearms usually locked in the car or station, unless they have good reason to believe that the person(s) they are about to encounter has a weapon, and is likely to use it.

I've just browsed our local news outlets, and whilst there was some sort of violent siege involving an ARV in a town some 50 miles away, no mention has yet been made as to what we saw yesterday.

Curiouser and curiouser.