Man accussed of threatening POTUS gets his 70 guns back.

[RafaelNegrus]

You obviously have way more experience than I do when it comes to these sorts of things, but I think for the sake of this argument that puts you at a bit of a disadvantage. I think for the vast majority of people, the word gun is mostly associated with handguns, rifles, that sort of thing. Your hammer example is very similar. If I ask for a hammer, what I expect is to get something like this: http://home.howstuffworks.com/hammer.htm

That is true but as a general statement it does not work. Hell, it does not work even if I took that into consideration because there is a shotgun adapter (that goes on a regular shotgun) that is meant to clear brush. Also if you say hammer you can mean any of these- http://www.mcmaster.com/#hammers/=hov67y ? plus war hammers and on. Those kinds of general statements just don?t work in the practical sphere.

Technically, it's a claw hammer and I could be handed mjollnir and that would technically be right but that's not the way the word is being meant. You might have an argument with guns meant for target practice, but things like nail guns, stun guns, flare guns etc. are not what is meant by the generic term gun. Notice how they always have the descriptor attached to them (heck, I think you can even get away with just flare, not necessarily flare gun). The language that you are using is technical jargon with a technical definition, what he is using is not.

Think about this, the term gun is incorrectly used. We have HANDguns, LONGguns, SHOTguns, and on. People just cut it down as a general term but it is incorrect. In fact I have to drill into my students heads NOT to use the word gun because it does not mean anything. If you walk into a gun store and say let me try out that gun the attendant is likely going to look at you like you are an idiot.

Okay, I'm going to use an example in my field so I have a little better idea what I am talking about and I like to use my schooling

Say two people were talking about nuclear proliferation, call them person A and person B, and they say this:
Person A: "I'm a realist, so I think nuclear proliferation is a good thing because it will decrease the chance of warfare between all the nuclear armed countries."

Person B: "I'm a realist, so I think that nuclear proliferation is a bad thing because it will increase the chance of mistakes happening."

Person A is using the technical definition of realism, as in a specific view of international politics that revolves around the acquisition of power, whereas Person B is using the non-technical definition of the term but is technically using bureaucratic theory in international relations. Neither term is wrong, and both are applicable, they're just using different definitions.

And those definitions do actually work in the practical sphere. When I was working construction, I could very easily ask for a hammer and get exactly what I want, a claw hammer, and when I was asked to grab another type of hammer it would be specified, sledgehammer being the most often alternate (though never seemed to use it enough).

And you just did the exact same thing in your use of the term gun store. I don't then think of a usual hardware store where I might go and buy nailguns, or any of these other alternatives that you have to specify. I thought of something that has handguns, rifles, that sort of thing. It might be a sporting goods store, or something specifically dedicated to the sale of firearms but we both knew that's what you meant even though technically you didn't specify.

And the difference between them and bows is that bows require more training to use effectively (before you counter, think point blank range), are much harder to conceal, and have had no bad publicity lately (like school shootings and whatnot).

It doesn?t require less training to use a gun it just requires less muscle power (different category of training). It is actually not that hard to conceal a modern composite bow. I will give you the bad publicity though.

Sure, you get a target at range and an adult male and he might need just as much training to hit that target with either a bow or a gun, but in real life there are many more situations than that.

I will once again give the point blank range example, as anyone can put a gun to someone else's head and pull the trigger, and that requires no training (or at the most 30-60 minutes).

And the muscle requirement has much the same effect. It means that even a child that has nowhere near the strength to fire a bow can be a killer with a gun.

(I've actually been studying this in some of my classes, and it exacerbates ethnic warfare, as much more of the population needs to be killed off before fighting capacity is removed. Also many more fighters can be trained up very quickly)

I would very much like to see a picture of a composite bow that is as concealable as a handgun.

Also, this is a more out there situation, but in the case of a long drawn out fight, guns have the advantage simply because their ammo is smaller. How many arrows can an archer hold? 40? How many bullets can a gunman hold? That one I don't actually know.

(That's why long range weapons weren't incredibly impactful until the invention of the gun, they'd get off a few volleys and then run out of ammow.)

Man, that's quite a lot of guns. Must have a big house, or garage, or murder closet.

Or he just did this

Spoiler

0.0 What if they fall?

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Yeah i know there are knives made for that purpose. He commented that the kitchen could be called the murder closet. I told him my kitchen is full of knives for cutting fruit. There are knives that are made for killing. Youd be weird for keeping on in your house though. I love target shooting and i keep my gun down at the range under lock and key. Its a good system. Ill give you that though, im talking about house guns for self defence. Its still a killing tool. Treating a gun as anything else is dangerous, its a deadly weapon and it demands respect.

Have you not heard? Guns are actually an effective method of painting fences and writing poetry.

This harkens back to the original patent, GUN is actually an an acronym for "General Utensil for Nuns", therefore owning many makes you a better person..because nuns.

Yeah, how dare people deny the artistic merits of fully automatic Haikus.

 

[Keymik]

Why would you need so many guns? That's just kind of batshit mental.
I wouldn't even have one in my house.

Where would you put seventy guns?
`Pop that in the murder closet, would you dear?`

Some people collect stamps, coins, automobiles, guns, etc.

Doesnt necessarily means theyre all in working order or operational. I know many people who collect guns from major wars that have been decommissioned but allowed to own. As for where to put them...how about a gun safe. People who have collections generally keep them locked up for protection.

murder closet...really? its bullshit and ignorant statements like that which give gun ownership bad press. a knife is a deadly weapon, but im sure your kitchen is stocked with an ample supply and you dont go calling it the murder drawer...

im glad you dont have a gun. immature people are dangerous with gun responsibility.

I'm going to start calling my knife drawer the murder drawer from now on xD

 

[Ickorus]

What I don't get is why some people insist on saying "POTUS" when "President" or the person's name will usually suffice, and seems much less like the name of some dangerous experimental drug.

Meh, it's an international audience so President of the United States is clearer. I could have said Obama, but I didn't. I don't think it's terribly taxing to glean the meaning.

I'm English and honestly I only clicked this thread because I didn't know what the fuck POTUS meant.

OT: I don't know the full story but if all he did was make a passing statement about how easy it would be to shoot the president I don't think he was a threat in the first place, just a guy thinking perhaps security was a bit lax.

It's much like when this big boating event that happens where I live rolls around and some members of the British royal family make an appearance I think that because the crowds are so huge surely it would be easy for some nut-job to smuggle a bomb in and cause some serious damage if they were so inclined to do so, I have no intention of doing anything but I still think how easy it'd be for someone to do it.

 

[sheah1]

If everybody has guns...

Then nobody has...


[sub]I don't think that quote translated well...[/sub]

All that matters is that you tried.

 

[Souleks]

69 that are useless at any one time (unless he dual wields).

I beg to differ.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

Why would you need so many guns? That's just kind of batshit mental.
I wouldn't even have one in my house.

Where would you put seventy guns?
`Pop that in the murder closet, would you dear?`

Well, my grandpa has about 18 that he keeps in some cases in the living room of his house ,along with all the deer antlers and trophy bass.....If you couldnt tell, my grandpa hunts and fishes alot, although I do think that 70 is complete overkill (whatever, if he can afford all of them), which brings us to.......

OT: This guy should NOT have gotten his guns back. If he was found innocent of threatening the Pres, then sure, but if he is convicted for this, get a dumptruck and load'em up.

........

Why did I know that Farson would be in this tread......

 

[Biodeamon]

I didn't know the heavy had his own law enforcement...

see what i did there?

 

[Aur0ra145]

70 guns is a good start to a collection. I don't see why the amount of firearms is relevant.

 

[RafaelNegrus]

And those definitions do actually work in the practical sphere.

Because they are both practical definitions. Trying to argue that all guns are used to kill people once we exclude all the guns that are not used to kill people is intellectually dishonest.

When I was working construction, I could very easily ask for a hammer and get exactly what I want, a claw hammer, and when I was asked to grab another type of hammer it would be specified, sledgehammer being the most often alternate (though never seemed to use it enough).

But you are not talking about a general tool. You are discussing a very special circumstance. If you walk into my garage and tell me to hand me a hammer I will look at you like you are an idiot. In this discussion the statement ?all guns are meant to do is kill people? has no basis because they were not talking about ?guns? they were talking about only a very specific type of gun.

From your earlier examples, I think we can say that you were definitely implying that they can be considered as such: "You have to be because they are all guns. You are making a general statement about an entire class of tool. If you were correct then I could say that a ball peen hammer is made for hammering nails while a carpenters hammer is made for metal work. They are all hammers but they are tool for completely different jobs."

So I can get a claw hammer just by asking for a hammer, just like if someone you cared about woke you up in the middle of the night saying "Quick, I need a gun!" You would pass them a gun like the one we're thinking of, a gun used to kill people. (Or if you say you would ask "what kind?" And would be incredibly surprised if they said a flare gun, or something for clearing brush)

Besides, when addressing issues around gun control, it's not like we're working with a small amount of guns here. There are at least 270 million civilian owned guns in the US [http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-summary-EN.pdf] and I bet most of those are the dangerous type that we are thinking of.

And those definitions do actually work in the practical sphere.

Because they are both practical definitions. Trying to argue that all guns are used to kill people once we exclude all the guns that are not used to kill people is intellectually dishonest.

When I was working construction, I could very easily ask for a hammer and get exactly what I want, a claw hammer, and when I was asked to grab another type of hammer it would be specified, sledgehammer being the most often alternate (though never seemed to use it enough).

But you are not talking about a general tool. You are discussing a very special circumstance. If you walk into my garage and tell me to hand me a hammer I will look at you like you are an idiot. In this discussion the statement ?all guns are meant to do is kill people? has no basis because they were not talking about ?guns? they were talking about only a very specific type of gun.

And you just did the exact same thing in your use of the term gun store. I don't then think of a usual hardware store where I might go and buy nailguns, or any of these other alternatives that you have to specify.

You can buy flare guns, stun guns, less than lethal rounds, duck bill chokes, and on in a gun store. I personally have never seen a hardware store that caters exclusively to people who buy nail guns.

I will once again give the point blank range example, as anyone can put a gun to someone else's head and pull the trigger, and that requires no training (or at the most 30-60 minutes).

And the muscle requirement has much the same effect. It means that even a child that has nowhere near the strength to fire a bow can be a killer with a gun.

Unless that particular child is trying to fire a DA only firearm. In which case there is a significant chance they will not even be able to pull the trigger. And of course there is the fact that a child would likely not even be able to use the slide on the gun. So he/she cannot fire or even load the gun.


Or there is my HK45 which has an integrated safety lock that I turn on when I am not using it and it can only be turned off with a key (and trust me when I say that most people would not be able to figure that out until it is too late). Then you have firearms with double safeties that inexperienced people don?t know how to use.

To put is simply, firearms are FAR more complicated to use than what the media tells you. I am a nationally ranked rifle shooter. I have built, broken down, shot, and competed with more rifles than I can count. I was hired as the shotgun merit badge instructor at a BSA camp and I was flummoxed when I looked at that shotgun. I couldn?t figure out how to break the damn thing down and I was having a hell of a time hitting the targets. My experience eventually won out but you see my point right?

They have the potential to be, but there are still stories all the time of children accidentally killing themselves and others, here's four of them:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/14/10684036-boy-3-kills-self-with-gun-inside-car?lite
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/gretchen-crooks-dead-iowa-boy-kills-mom_n_1384825.html
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-02-22/news/chi-boy-15-shot-in-englewood-neighborhood-20120221_1_dcfs-custody-brother-chicago-comer-children-s-hospital
http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/134381/cops_son_shoots_kills_7yearold

As you yourself said, there are hundreds of accidental deaths from guns every year. Apparently they need to be more complicated.

Not as concealable as a handgun but damn close-

Spoiler

Still not as concealable as this:

Spoiler

Also, this is a more out there situation, but in the case of a long drawn out fight, guns have the advantage simply because their ammo is smaller. How many arrows can an archer hold? 40? How many bullets can a gunman hold? That one I don't actually know.

Your average soldier goes into battle with 210 rounds of ammunition. Most of that ammo when fired misses. There is a reason most nations hesitated to implement semi and fully automatic firearms and that was because the thought was that soldiers would just waste ammo. That is true. A Comanche warrior on horseback can effectively hit 30 targets in battle in a minute. A soldier armed with a rifle statically has more range but less accuracy.

I never questioned whether the Comanche warriors could hit effectively, I was questioning how long the archer could actually fire before running out of ammo. And I wouldn't use them as examples, because didn't they get beaten? In fact didn't every civilization in the Western hemisphere get wiped out, in large part due to lack of guns?

But anyways, thank you for saying that yes, gunmen can carry more ammo than archers.

(That's why long range weapons weren't incredibly impactful until the invention of the gun, they'd get off a few volleys and then run out of ammow.)

Actually ranged attacks were very effective. Agincourt is the most lopsided example.

I didn't say effective, I said impactful, and yes there are exceptions. Carrhae is another one. But they are exceptions because they made specific tactical decisions that greatly increased the effectiveness of their ranged troops (Carrhae the general kept supplying his horse archers with new arrows constantly, and Agincourt the terrain was so bad the French could never utilize their numbers effectively and were afraid to use their own archers for fear of hitting their own men-at-arms).

And honestly, if guns aren't so deadly, why does every military force in the world arm basically all their troops with guns?

 

[Lionsfan]

... No. One. Needs. Seventy. Guns. Period.

No. One. Needs. Video. Games. Period.

No. One. Needs. Television. Period.

No. One. Needs. I could go on if you feel like it. But the number is irrelevant to the story. What if his family has collected guns and passed them down through generations? Or what if he just likes to go target shooting as a hobby? Pick any hobby, and you can say that they don't need that many of one object. He has permits for all of them, and they were all legal, so again, the number isn't relevant

I love how this thread was supposed to be aimed at how a guy spent 30 days in jail for making a comment about assassinating the President, but everyone here is going nuts about the amount of guns.
Priorities, Escapist, learn to have some.

Or what about the multiple comments about what constitute a gun as a weapon or as a tool compared to a knife? Or whether a gun is created with the purpose of killing someone, and what a weapon is and isn't.

And people say Daystar [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/view/Daystar+Clarion] is the king of derailing topics....

 

[Zaik]

a knife is a deadly weapon, but im sure your kitchen is stocked with an ample supply and you dont go calling it the murder drawer...

"its bullshit and ignorant statements like that which give gun ownership bad press."

A knifes purpose is not to harm or to murder. It is to cut fruit. A gun is a tool designed to harm and kill things. It is a device that if used for its intended purpose, its ONLY practical purpose, will kill things. It is not comparable to a multi functional knife.

I think guns should be allowed. But cmon the comparison of a usefull house hold tool like a knife and a thing designed to kill people is similar to me saying "You have a pencil, why cant i have genetically altered super anthrax in my house?"

Moral semantics.

I could just as easily say that a gun is capable of providing necessary animal protein for food, while knives are just for mutilating formerly living plant life.

It sounds ridiculous, but it's the exact same statement flipped to a moral system that values plant life over animal.

Intent dictates the purpose of any tool, period.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Or he just did this

Spoiler

Wow...

A. Are those his guns, your guns, or somebody else's?

B. Why are so many of them bolt action?

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

They have the potential to be, but there are still stories all the time of children accidentally killing themselves and others, here's four of them:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/14/10684036-boy-3-kills-self-with-gun-inside-car?lite
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/gretchen-crooks-dead-iowa-boy-kills-mom_n_1384825.html
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-02-22/news/chi-boy-15-shot-in-englewood-neighborhood-20120221_1_dcfs-custody-brother-chicago-comer-children-s-hospital
http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/134381/cops_son_shoots_kills_7yearold

As you yourself said, there are hundreds of accidental deaths from guns every year. Apparently they need to be more complicated.[/spoiler]

On average, accidents guns do cause hundreds of deaths, 600 a year on average. In terms of accidental deaths in the US that is behind cars, falls, poisoning, being a pedestrian, drowning, fire, and suffocation. And 600 deaths a year of a 300 MILLION population, 0.00002% of the people dying while being an idiot isn't that much.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html

Still not as concealable as this:

Spoiler

Spoiler: This is not quite THAT small, but it comes pretty close

May I point out that your extra small pistol, your going to have a hard time getting a bullet larger than .32 special in a gun that size. It is not THAT lethal, it won't kill most people instantly if it doesn't hit the heart or head, if a person gets medical attention fast enough.

 

[Von Strimmer]

Because a gun and a bow were not designed for utility.

Yes they were. I mean do honestly not know of the massive number of uses we have put the bow into? The bow is one of the most ubiquities designs in engineering.

They were designed as weapons.

How can you tell a gunsmith that he designs guns to be weapons when he has already told you otherwise?

They are weapons. It is their function. Their one function. To actively be used as or practiced as weapons.

What about a nail gun? By definition that is a gun. How exactly can you say that is a weapon? What about a flare gun? And on.

But i think youre disrespecting a dangerous tool if you dont act as if what youre holding in your hand is a weapon. Id never treat my gun as anything else other than a weapon. Or my bow. They are dangerous. I could very easily take lives with them if i was careless and inconsiderate to their abilities. They are fantastic weapons with that said. Awesome to practice with. But not the same at all as a tool of utility. They are both tools. But the purpose of said tools is massively different.

A chainsaw is a dangerous tool that must be respected. I would never consider the chainsaw I use for cutting wood as being a perpetual weapon. Why are guns so different?

One demands you treat it carefully because its made to be dangerous. It was designed with the purpose of doing something dangerous. To destroy something effictively. Be it a target or a person.

Actually there are plenty of guns that are not designed to destroy a target. Less than lethal rounds would be rather poorly named if they destroyed the target.

Im FOR owning guns. I just think the attitude of "This is no more dangerous than a household applience" is fucking stupid. No one with that inability to understand the responsibility of owning a weapon (see: killing tool) should own one. It isnt the same as popping down to the shop and buying a regular household knife. Or a tissue box. Or a tooth pick. Its got more weight to it than that.

I have seen more people cut themselves with knives than shoot themselves with guns. And I am not talking about little paper cuts here. I have had to drive more than a few people to the hospital because they were not paying attention. I am a certified RSO (Range Safety Officer) and I have NEVER had a person shot on my range. Which if more dangerous? In my mind anything is dangerous when you have idiots at the helm.

As an Australian I have no real need for a gun, or find them useful in any way. But seriously dude who are you kidding?

Did the man who created the first gun think "I shall use this to cut down trees". No it was used to kill and win wars/hunt animals. Yes guns have evolved, all technology evolves, saying a nail gun or flare gun is the same as a gun that fires bullets is the same as me saying a Ford Mondeo is the same as driving a tank. Sure both are vehicles to drive and can be used to kill, but a car is a tool and a tank is a weapon, same as a gun and a flare or nail gun. The original use for a gun is to protect yourself and/or kill someone/something.

Also the designer of the chainsaw didnt think of using it as a weapon did he? (Possible exceptions include Cliffy B). Also more people have knives than guns, and tend to not be as serious with knives as guns. Because they see the knife as a tool, and the gun as a weapon.

 

[enzilewulf]

Why would you need so many guns? That's just kind of batshit mental.
I wouldn't even have one in my house.

Where would you put seventy guns?
`Pop that in the murder closet, would you dear?`

Some people collect stamps, coins, automobiles, guns, etc.

Doesnt necessarily means theyre all in working order or operational. I know many people who collect guns from major wars that have been decommissioned but allowed to own. As for where to put them...how about a gun safe. People who have collections generally keep them locked up for protection.

murder closet...really? its bullshit and ignorant statements like that which give gun ownership bad press. a knife is a deadly weapon, but im sure your kitchen is stocked with an ample supply and you dont go calling it the murder drawer...

im glad you dont have a gun. immature people are dangerous with gun responsibility.

Oh for fucks sake it was a joke, lighten up.