Gun play?

[Lobo_8]

When it comes to firearms regulations no state can ban them completely, but they can make it a pain in the ass. I bought my pistol in Texas, walked in and a half hour later I had a pistol. In DC however you must have a permit to have a pistol (if my understanding is correct, but its been a few years since I looked at DC law) or any other weapon. Rifles and shotgun permits are easier to come by but still difficult and pistol permits are nigh impossible to get with in DC.

On the opposite end of the spectrum you have Alaska where they damn near hand you a rifle when you cross the state line. Or New Mexico which allows you to carry a pistol out in the open. The law varies widely but the state regulations are always more strict than the federal ones.

-Burns

 

[MisterSir]

Two more points - I would say MM's bias goes to 11. But then, he's on the far end of the political spectrum from me. And your question was a good one. Our laws are complex. On the other hand, you have cricket. <G>

I agree with him on some points and even I think he's at least a 7. He's the Democratic equivalent of Fox News.

 

[culloden]

Bah! Another yank who doesn't know his silly mid-off from his deep square leg.

A Brit friend explained cricket to me once. I understood it for a good hour, maybe two.

 

[Homburg]

A Brit friend explained cricket to me once. I understood it for a good hour, maybe two.

Was it really a good hour? Honestly?

 

[Netzach]

It all depends. If I say "look, I have a knife, let's fight." that's one thing. I can conceal my Gerber in one hand. Innocently start to pass you on the street. Open the locking 5 inch blade with one hand in less than a second and plunge it into your belly before you even know I'm hostile.

And if I understand my stats, the stats on "police killed by knife" versus "police killed by shooter" are quite interesting.

We're talking about people perfectly situated not to be killed by things. They're armed and going into a situation on alert.

 

[Netzach]

If you have seen the film, how accurate or unbiased would you say it was?

You know my political affiliations.

How often do lollipops rain down like manna from the skies?

Michael Moore is sort of a Glenn Beck of the left.

 

[culloden]

Was it really a good hour? Honestly?

You got me. It was a rather painful hour of mental gymnastics trying to get my head around concepts such as pitches having to bounce off the ground, the batter choosing whether to run on a hit, and stopping the game for tea. In truth, I went home afterward and shot up the back yard for stress relief.

 

[MisterSir]

You got me. It was a rather painful hour of mental gymnastics trying to get my head around concepts such as pitches having to bounce off the ground, the batter choosing whether to run on a hit, and stopping the game for tea. In truth, I went home afterward and shot up the back yard for stress relief.

I had much the same reaction when somebody tried to teach me about baseball, I think the tipping point came when she made it clear a season in which a player only hits a ball 30% of the time he's even up there was not just good but damn impressive.

 

[YourCaptor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Xj4W2TGQPI

 

[Homburg]

And if I understand my stats, the stats on "police killed by knife" versus "police killed by shooter" are quite interesting.

We're talking about people perfectly situated not to be killed by things. They're armed and going into a situation on alert.

Not that it is completely relevant, but the former cop doing the training I underwent was VERY serious about knives, and made VERY clear that knives were usually much more of a threat than guns. Guns often miss, knives rarely do.

--

You got me. It was a rather painful hour of mental gymnastics trying to get my head around concepts such as pitches having to bounce off the ground, the batter choosing whether to run on a hit, and stopping the game for tea. In truth, I went home afterward and shot up the back yard for stress relief.

Pretty much my thought. I can't imagine how such time could be considered good.

--

I had much the same reaction when somebody tried to teach me about baseball, I think the tipping point came when she made it clear a season in which a player only hits a ball 30% of the time he's even up there was not just good but damn impressive.

Give it a try sometime. It's pretty fucking hard. More to the point, give the statistics a try sometime. Take your aforementioned 30% hitter and put him at bat. How many chances does he get to hit the ball at each time at bat? Oh yeah, three. So a 30% hitter is going to put a man on base pretty much every time you put a bat in his hands. This is why 30% is the good mark.

That said, I find baseball damned near as tedious as cricket to watch. It is a helluva lot more fun to play though.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

How about bullet control?

 

[BiBunny]

How about bullet control?

Heh. Master has a friend who makes his bullets for him. So we're straight.

 

[MisterSir]

Give it a try sometime. It's pretty fucking hard. More to the point, give the statistics a try sometime. Take your aforementioned 30% hitter and put him at bat. How many chances does he get to hit the ball at each time at bat? Oh yeah, three. So a 30% hitter is going to put a man on base pretty much every time you put a bat in his hands. This is why 30% is the good mark.

Ah, not true. I get it all now, the occasion I mentioned was a few years ago now, but the .300 mark represents his hitting percentage just when he's at-bat, not for individual balls. What it really means is he puts a man on base every three times he's up, not every three pitches he's thrown. Chances are, somebody's calculated a stat for the latter, but the batting average isn't it.

 

[Homburg]

Ah, not true. I get it all now, the occasion I mentioned was a few years ago now, but the .300 mark represents his hitting percentage just when he's at-bat, not for individual balls. What it really means is he puts a man on base every three times he's up, not every three pitches he's thrown. Chances are, somebody's calculated a stat for the latter, but the batting average isn't it.

Ah, you said 30%, not .300. Different animal, thus my confusion. The last time I played for a team (*cough*Little League*cough*), the coach just tracked us with percentages. So I actually got used to thinking of batting in terms of straight percentage.

 

[culloden]

I had much the same reaction when somebody tried to teach me about baseball, I think the tipping point came when she made it clear a season in which a player only hits a ball 30% of the time he's even up there was not just good but damn impressive.

You've got cricket and tea, we've got baseball and coffee. May I suggest we find middle ground with beer or scotch? <G>

 

[culloden]

How about bullet control?

You mean aiming well?

 

[mickyp123]

When it comes to firearms regulations no state can ban them completely, but they can make it a pain in the ass. I bought my pistol in Texas, walked in and a half hour later I had a pistol. In DC however you must have a permit to have a pistol (if my understanding is correct, but its been a few years since I looked at DC law) or any other weapon. Rifles and shotgun permits are easier to come by but still difficult and pistol permits are nigh impossible to get with in DC.

On the opposite end of the spectrum you have Alaska where they damn near hand you a rifle when you cross the state line. Or New Mexico which allows you to carry a pistol out in the open. The law varies widely but the state regulations are always more strict than the federal ones.

-Burns

It would be interesting to see statistically how gun crime / shootings vary between states that insist you carry a firearm where it can be seen, against those that require them to be carried covertly

Personally i love the sport and i feel this country was a safer place when we had legally owned firearms, as villains never knew who else had one

 

[Netzach]

It would be interesting to see statistically how gun crime / shootings vary between states that insist you carry a firearm where it can be seen, against those that require them to be carried covertly

Personally i love the sport and i feel this country was a safer place when we had legally owned firearms, as villains never knew who else had one

This fantasy of arms as deterrent - is just that.

*Personal* protection is a great reason to carry if you choose to. If you think you're contributing to the overall safety of everyone around you, that an armed populace is one that stays in check - look at heavily armed populaces in the US. Think about the past. The Wild West. NYC in the 30's? Wouldn't want to live there. Go stroll through a neighborhood with heavy regular gang activity - I think a gun will only calm the delusional in that context.

 

[culloden]

This fantasy of arms as deterrent - is just that.

*Personal* protection is a great reason to carry if you choose to. If you think you're contributing to the overall safety of everyone around you, that an armed populace is one that stays in check - look at heavily armed populaces in the US. Think about the past. The Wild West. NYC in the 30's? Wouldn't want to live there. Go stroll through a neighborhood with heavy regular gang activity - I think a gun will only calm the delusional in that context.

It isn't just about guns. It's cultural. I'll sit in a redneck bar in the middle of Texas where most everyone is armed and not feel threatened.

 

[Netzach]

It isn't just about guns. It's cultural. I'll sit in a redneck bar in the middle of Texas where most everyone is armed and not feel threatened.

This is the subtext I eventually keep hitting my head on. "White rural people with guns are good."

As an NYC Jew, I beg to differ on how comfortable and safe-feeling the "redneck bar in TX" experience actually is, and stick to Sixth St, Austin. Where they have the signs asking politely that you leave your firearms outside.

They're familiar, as I live in the second state to go concealed carry. Our violent crime has seen no significant dip attributable to that.

Again, I absolutely believe that one should have the right to carry and own for personal protection. It's this creepy subtext that I have issues with over and over. Not everyone espouses it, and not everyone I met who participates in gun safety/sport etc is white, and obviously they're comfortable enough in those circles.

But I keep hitting my head on this. This is what it sounds like to me. And it makes me want to have nothing to do with the gun rights lobby. As long as this remains an issue of "real vs fake America" and the people in fake america who need real personal protection remain an afterthought, no one's getting my money or voice.

 

[Homburg]

This is the subtext I eventually keep hitting my head on. "White rural people with guns are good."

As an NYC Jew, I beg to differ on how comfortable and safe-feeling the "redneck bar in TX" experience actually is, and stick to Sixth St, Austin. Where they have the signs asking politely that you leave your firearms outside.

While I agree with you on the standpoint of the racial subtext of the issue and the debate, I am one of those people that feels perfectly safe around rednecks. It's a cultural thing. I grew up around them, and understand them.

Think about Jane Goodall. Willowy woman hanging out with these monster gorillas and she feels perfectly safe. Why? Because she can read them. She can read their body language well enough to know when it is a good idea to back down. Rednecks (and any given subculture) are the same way. When you know how to read them, you understand the difference between mock aggression and the real thing.

And in Virginia, happily, it is illegal to take a firearm into a bar, concealed carry permit or not. The only solid exception is a police officer, and he better be on duty. Back when I worked security, if I was working armed at a place that served alcohol, I was outside, period. If I wanted to go inside to go to the bathroom, I had to have an inside employee escort me, otherwise it was utterly illegal. Even with the escort it was shaky. This is a law that I am seriously on-board with.

They're familiar, as I live in the second state to go concealed carry. Our violent crime has seen no significant dip attributable to that.

Most states that went to shall-issue saw a dip in certain interpersonal crimes, but then it leveled out. The good thing that I can say about it is that shall-issue did not precipitate a wave of civilian bad shoots like its' detractors predicted.

Again, I absolutely believe that one should have the right to carry and own for personal protection. It's this creepy subtext that I have issues with over and over. Not everyone espouses it, and not everyone I met who participates in gun safety/sport etc is white, and obviously they're comfortable enough in those circles.

I can honestly say that gun shows around here are as cosmopolitan and integrating as anything you could want. And everyone is really polite and friendly. The hardest of knuckleheads will smile and say "excuse me" if he bumps into you. And the dealers have no problem selling to anyone. I've certainly never seen anyone refused or treated poorly. And same goes for ranges.

But I keep hitting my head on this. This is what it sounds like to me. And it makes me want to have nothing to do with the gun rights lobby. As long as this remains an issue of "real vs fake America" and the people in fake america who need real personal protection remain an afterthought, no one's getting my money or voice.

But this is the problem. They do set up this idiot dichotomy because their primary constituency is made up of rural white people. Those rural white people like hearing how real they are, how good they are, how patriotic they are. Fortunately there are groups like the JPFO, Democrats for the Second Amendment, and the Pink Pistols.

 

[sadangel]

Google is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder


That's a hard question to answer, because I don't know what you mean by the term.

"Split personality" is a piece of professional jargon that came into being to describe the split often observed in schizophrenics between how they think and how they feel. A lot of people think that "schizophrenia" refers to people who have more than one personality. It doesn't. Oh, it's a serious mental disorder, all right, and the people who suffer from it face serious challenges, but it doesn't involve having two personalities.

Having more than one personality at a time used to be called "Multiple Personality Disorder;" it was renamed to "Dissociative Identity Disorder" several years ago.

Do I mean "split personality?" No, not if we're talking about the professional term. As for the way laypeople use the term, that has no settled definition, so your question is essentially unanswerable as it stands.

Do I mean more than one personality inhabiting the same body? Yes, that's what I mean. This is NOT called "split personality," and I think "Jekyll and Hyde" is disrespectful -- these are real people we're talking about here, real people who've already had more trouble heaped upon their heads than any one human being should have to deal with in a lifetime.

Thank you for this post. As one who was diagnosed with DID more than 15 years ago, I'm glad that someone finally realizes that schizophrenia and DID are NOT the same thing. That split personality and DID are NOT the same thing.

I'm fortunate that I have not switched in about 8 years, which is surprising given the situation I was living in for 8 years. My Sir knows about it and we've discussed it. He knows it could happen, but we're both agreeing that the likelihood is that it won't since it didn't happen while I was in such an abusive relationship before He came along. (My alters are not integrated. We are what some call "co-conscious" as in that I'm aware of them and they are aware of each other and work together to do what needs to be done. Before the decision was made to NOT integrate...I switched constantly. Once all knew that integration was not an option even by my counselor and psychiatrist...the switching ceased almost immediately. )

Especially thank you for the comment on the Jekyll/Hyde comment. That one didn't sit well with me but I was going to ignore it. You addressed it so thank you.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

Most states that went to shall-issue saw a dip in certain interpersonal crimes, but then it leveled out. The good thing that I can say about it is that shall-issue did not precipitate a wave of civilian bad shoots like its' detractors predicted.

I followed the rest of your post but what do you mean by 'shall-issue' exactly please?

 

[Homburg]

I followed the rest of your post but what do you mean by 'shall-issue' exactly please?

"Shall-issue" is a bit of a buzzword concerning a change in concealed carry permit laws that tell localities that they shall issue a concealed carry permit barring a compelling reason to not issue (such as criminal record or the like). Many jurisdictions were allowed to issue or not on the discretion usually of the local police chief or sheriff. If the person in that position was personally against concealed carry, they would simply deny every permit that came in. Investigations were done and it showed the retired cops were getting denied, active duty military, people with exemplary records and jobs that required the to be trained with firearms.

Shall-issue changed that, and the result is that more permits have been issued. In my case, I got mine well before the shall-issue laws came out. Some people were surprised at this, as I'd not taken the specific concealed carry course that the city liked, but I was working armed security at that point, and had gone through a DCJS course on gun-handling and good-shoot/bad-shoot, so they probably took that as a substitute.

 

[culloden]

This is the subtext I eventually keep hitting my head on. "White rural people with guns are good."

As an NYC Jew, I beg to differ on how comfortable and safe-feeling the "redneck bar in TX" experience actually is, and stick to Sixth St, Austin. Where they have the signs asking politely that you leave your firearms outside.

They're familiar, as I live in the second state to go concealed carry. Our violent crime has seen no significant dip attributable to that.

Again, I absolutely believe that one should have the right to carry and own for personal protection. It's this creepy subtext that I have issues with over and over. Not everyone espouses it, and not everyone I met who participates in gun safety/sport etc is white, and obviously they're comfortable enough in those circles.

But I keep hitting my head on this. This is what it sounds like to me. And it makes me want to have nothing to do with the gun rights lobby. As long as this remains an issue of "real vs fake America" and the people in fake america who need real personal protection remain an afterthought, no one's getting my money or voice.

That's an interesting point. And honestly, I am white, and I've always lived in a rural area. The white, rural people around me have always had guns, and I've always been comfortable with that.

If we're talking culture, the fact is that I've never been threatened in that white, rural atmosphere. Which is not to say it couldn't happen - it just hasn't.
And frankly, the times in my life when I have been threatened were by young black men in urban areas such as Chicago, Bridgeport, and NYC. I try very hard not to draw broad conclusions from those specific experiences.

I wouldn't call either of those cultures the real America, although I know where I belong. We're such a big country that our range of experience is all over the map, so to speak. I see this as a huge issue going forward, and it explains the political divide we face. There's a frightening Balkanization going on, and I don't have a clue how to address it.