Gun play?

[Homburg]

But I'm not presenting it like that - holy shit women are more likely to die of gun violence in a home with a gun!

Oh, I know. I didn't want that to seem like I was dogging you. I've just always thought that HCI (for example) using it as some big important thing was kinda weird, and intellectually specious. It's a thing that makes me go "Hmmm...." to paraphrase Arsenio.

I'm asking how much collateral damage is acceptable before we start treating guns maybe an iota more like cars.

I'm on board with this, to an extent. I rather like the idea of licensing shooters, I just don't know how it could be done in a manner that makes sense, works efficiently, and can't be used as de facto gun control.

I am also not fully on board with the whole extent of the knowledge, as it does not take a license to buy a car, just operate one. I am NOT okay with the idea that anyone could walk into a gun store, plunk down $500, and walk out with a gun no questions asked. I'm one of those evil fascists that thinks the Instant Background Check (and we did it here WELL before it was national practice) is a freakishly good idea.

Assuming that a firearms operator's license would be necessary to buy guns and ammo, I'm not too unhappy with the idea.

You can't agree that there's some rational kernel of concern in wondering whether the instant and spontaneous nature of killing self and others with a gun is *different* in some way, some marked way, that it's not just hysterical to ponder?

I can disagree with anything!

Seriously though, no, I don't disagree at all. The gun is a different delivery system, and one that can be very attractive to those in highly charged emotional states looking to get instant surcease for their sorrows. And, honestly, it's a damned shame that people get in those spots. I just don't think that it is relevant to a discussion on licensing and legality. That people *might* suicide with a gun is insufficient reason to deny the right to keep and bear. That people *might* snap and use it to mow down pensioners is likewise a bad idea IMO.

Mostly I see these collateral damages being totally trivialized by people as statistical outliers and "they'd just use a baseball bat anyway" logic applied where it no longer convinces me.

I beg to differ. The guy mugging you would just use a box cutter or a baseball bat or whatever anyway. I'm in agreement on that.

The school/public shooters, they'd get the gun to do it illegally as quickly as legally, IMO. This is a perfect example of fear being used, and people's deaths being used in a gross way to advance an agenda in either direction.

The at-home "snapped" person, who's more common than unabashedly pro second people want to admit, seems the most likely to be slowed down by tighter regulations when it's time to get the permit. The only example of such, IMO. Again, you'll find wide swaths of the world whose attiude is "it's totally safe here, no one gets shot, except for those 2, 5, 10 whatever women whose husbands blew them away."

No one thinks this is a problem?

Sort of. What are the stats though? How often is the wife blown away by hubby, versus how often she's stabbed to death, beat to death, choked to death, etc? From talking to more than a few police officers, their anecdotes (yeah, I know, anecdotes) are more full of angry males killing their SO's with knives, bludgeons, and bare hands.

And I don't personally want to trivialise those margin incidents entirely, but, again, I don't really see them as statistically relevant to a discussion of licensing and legislation. Is Columbine, for example, germane to the discussion on whether or not people should own guns, or is it germane to the discussion of better school security, or taking adolescent whack-jobs seriously, or family awareness, or a dozen other things? Those kids got those guns from a variety of sources, and no law would've stopped them.

I've personally taught as many women to shoot as I have men. And I've made the same offer to each as I did to KC. Come on down, and I'll teach you how to do it, let you use one of mine, provide the ammo, and pay the range fees. And any time they want to refresh or practice, I am still willing to let them use one of mine again. I see this as a way to get the training out there and maybe help one more woman overcome the tactical issue of being smaller and not as a strong. I don't see it as somehow giving them something that can be used by someone else to harm.

 

[ZRT]

On a licensing scheme, I still would like to see what, precisely, that it would accomplish in return for the massive amount of overhead and intrusion it would require into our lives.

Would it prevent accidents? It might reduce them some, but saving perhaps a hundred or two hundred lives a year in exchange for a multi-billion dollar bureaucracy?

And make no mistake, you're talking about something akin to a nationwide DMV here, it's going to cost a huge amount.

Reducing criminal usage? Not going to happen, criminals will continue to acquire illegally as before.

Reducing 'heat of the moment' usage? An asshole who is going to uncork and shoot his wife is going to uncork and kill her some other way. Assuming he's not licensed already. One of the things that came out of the Brady Bill debate was just how people don't 'get mad, go buy a gun, and go kill somebody' to any large extent- murders are committed by people who already had the weapon prior to developing the intent, generally.

What it does impinge, since we're staying on the domestic violence theme, is the ability of a woman who's left an abusive relationship to quickly acquire a means of effective protection without having to jump through a bunch of hurdles.

Basically, the reason a scheme isn't in place is because it doesn't promise to return any bang for the buck.

You want firearms education among the public? I'm down. Teach it in schools. Subsidize Eddie Eagle, for that matter. I had excellent firearms safety training in high school, as part of my JROTC program.

 

[Netzach]

On a licensing scheme, I still would like to see what, precisely, that it would accomplish in return for the massive amount of overhead and intrusion it would require into our lives.

Would it prevent accidents? It might reduce them some, but saving perhaps a hundred or two hundred lives a year in exchange for a multi-billion dollar bureaucracy?

And make no mistake, you're talking about something akin to a nationwide DMV here, it's going to cost a huge amount.

Reducing criminal usage? Not going to happen, criminals will continue to acquire illegally as before.

Reducing 'heat of the moment' usage? An asshole who is going to uncork and shoot his wife is going to uncork and kill her some other way. Assuming he's not licensed already. One of the things that came out of the Brady Bill debate was just how people don't 'get mad, go buy a gun, and go kill somebody' to any large extent- murders are committed by people who already had the weapon prior to developing the intent, generally.

What it does impinge, since we're staying on the domestic violence theme, is the ability of a woman who's left an abusive relationship to quickly acquire a means of effective protection without having to jump through a bunch of hurdles.

Basically, the reason a scheme isn't in place is because it doesn't promise to return any bang for the buck.

You want firearms education among the public? I'm down. Teach it in schools. Subsidize Eddie Eagle, for that matter. I had excellent firearms safety training in high school, as part of my JROTC program.

It matters when you know or care about one of those 200 300 odd people, who I'd say are more, significantly more because a murder suicide by firearm is virtually a weekly byline in local newsies.

I'd be interested in stats on murder/suicides versus murders. I'm talking about two different kinds of incidents, not guy sociopathically offs wife and goes on about his life. That person has every intention of living and living well after the fact.

I'm thinking about this kid I knew in camp. Her and her whole family of like, 6, were blown away by an uncle who killed himself when he was done. One of her friends found them when they were supposed to go sledding together.

I have to wonder if someone like that might have opted instead to save everyone the trouble and just jump off something himself in a more restrictive environment. I find that a worthwhile thing to wonder. I don't think asking that is fearmongering or save the childrening beyond logic.

I don't know what, precisely, a licensing scheme would prevent, in the way of these incidents, but neither do the people insisting it'll prevent nothing.

I don't think it's necessarily the best response, but I absolutely reject that the idea of putting something like this on the table is because I can't grasp the value of liberty adequately.

 

[JMohegan]

Speaking of personal freedom, Netzach - I laughed long and hard when I read this from your favorite rep:

"That's why people need to continue to go to the town halls, continue to melt the phone lines of their liberal members of Congress, and let them know, under no certain circumstances will I give the government control over my body and my health care decisions."

What are the stats though? How often is the wife blown away by hubby, versus how often she's stabbed to death, beat to death, choked to death, etc?

You'll find quite a bit here. Scroll to the bottom for numbers on gun vs. knife, blunt object, etc.

 

[Netzach]

Speaking of personal freedom, Netzach - I laughed long and hard when I read this from your favorite rep:

"That's why people need to continue to go to the town halls, continue to melt the phone lines of their liberal members of Congress, and let them know, under no certain circumstances will I give the government control over my body and my health care decisions."

You'll find quite a bit here. Scroll to the bottom for numbers on gun vs. knife, blunt object, etc.

Nothing new there. Freedom is control, up is down, socialism is fascism, everything I don't like and its brother is now a Nazi.

 

[Homburg]

You'll find quite a bit here. Scroll to the bottom for numbers on gun vs. knife, blunt object, etc.

Apparently, boyfriends get stabbed. The variance there was shocking.

It was overall what I assumed. Guns are used more by comparison. The gun/non-gun charts were interesting largely from the change in difference. Significantly more gun deaths in 1975 versus other sources, and gun/non-gun today is parity or close. Still, logically, to get to that parity point, all non-gun sources were lumped together.

It is also interesting to see that, so long as you aren't a white woman, murder by intimates is way down over the past 30 years. Probably not too surprising, as white women are statistically likely to be married to white men.

 

[OwnedWhoreGirl]

I must preface this by saying I've never done anything with gun play, but I have thought about being raped by gun point before, so I will write from fantasy.

I think for me to have any enjoyment in gun play, I'd have to be genuinely scared for my life. I'd have to be in that terrified jibbering mess, willing to acquiesce to any command just to save my hide. The gun would have to be loaded, and likely shot off to prove it was. Maybe loaded in front of me. I would want to know it is real--that or the play was arranged by someone who is a stranger to me, so I don't doubt the authenticity of the threat. It needs to feel completely real, otherwise it would be laughable and lame.

Luckily for me, I'm pretty easy to scare. I'm so much like a small child at times in terms of how easily I become frightened. I'd want to be used, raped, and hurt. The gun would only be a prop in getting me to feel absolute terror.

I want to feel shame in how pathetic I am, how ease I am to manipulate to the desire of a sadistic psychopath. I want to see how far I could degrade myself, simply because I am that scared.

I think that's really the only way it would work. I can't see someone I know (and love) just holding a gun to me and making me scared by that alone, especially if it was all consented to. How boring and dull would that be? It needs to feel extremely real. It needs to be violent.

 

[Lovespink69]

I couldn't agree more that guns should not be used in sex play.

I have taken dates to gun ranges and taught them the basics of gun safety and use. I've even bought guns for some of my girlfriends. It is a very real and honest way to get to know someone.