Only in America...

[Wavex]

My background: I'm a Norwegian, living in Norway. A country where the police do not carry guns unless they are called out to a dangerous situation. Seing a person carrying on the street happens maybe 5-10 times a year at most, and only by police or military personel, and in 9/10 of the cases it is because of some high profile arrangement (politicians or royalty visiting etc). Civilians do not carry guns, not even hidden. I consider myself lucky to be living in such a place.

What puzzles me is - how did USA end up in a situation where Joe Average feels he has to arm himself to ensure his own safety? Is it the result of a country "built with guns" - they were always there to begin with? Is it an arms race between the good guys and the not so good guys? Is the crime rate so high, or is the crime so violent that guns are needed to give the public a sense of security? With my background, I find it strange that there seem to be such a big need for guns.

Note: This is just me trying to understand your society (the US of A), not trying to start a fight...

Didn't you see the Western/cowboy movies? It's a cultural thing...

Just like we have sex/wine/cheese in France, Americans have burgers/guns/Nascar


ok, time for me to run away now lol

 

[NineseveN]

About everyone I know that owns a motorcycle ended up crashing it eventually, and the gear they were wearing served its purpose.

About everyone I know that owns guns tell me they never ever came even close to using it against some "bad guys"...

In statistics, that's what we call both anecdotal evidence and a biased sample. You're relatively young and live in California, a notoriously non-gun-friendly state where the carrying of arms is all but non-existent in private hands of the masses. You only know those you know, and your data is directly influenced by that. Of all the people that I personally know that ride, only 3 have been down (myself included), but of those that I know who own and carry guns, more than 50 have used them defensively (myself included) -this is not to say they shot someone, often drawing and presenting alone stops the threat. Of course, I tend to personally associate with hundreds of gun owners who carry religiously and communicate with hundreds of thousands that do (of which thousands report having been involved in a DGU). Either way, it's a biased sample, which is why I wouldn't use either to make the case. I'm using CDC data and peer-reviewed scholarly studies and objective government reports for people all over this country.

You telling me that ATGATT on a bike is the same as carrying a loaded weapon with you 24/7 is huge stretch IMHO (you may live in a very dangerous area though, and then I take back what I said).

In all fairness, it's only a huge stretch to you because of your personal thoughts on the matter. You do realize that many motorcyclists, perhaps half or even more, think that ATGATT is silly too, right? That's because they don't know anyone that's ever been saved by a helmet (or think it looks silly, is too hot or whatever) and because they don't ride dangerously (which parallels people who think one doesn't need a gun because they live in a "safe" area). This illusion of control (or static safety) is often a reason why one dismisses the need for helmets or arms for self-defense, and in both cases, it's at least equally dubious and based on fallacious thinking.

I'm really not trying to bust your balls here, I'm just trying to keep the argument as intellectually honest as possible. I'm not sure there's much more to say. I wish someone would post a pic of a SQUID poppin' wheelies on his gixxer on the highway so we could all head into that thread and make fun of him and his flip flops and wife-beater.


Cheers man.

 

[Chaosratt]

Havn't read all 10 pages yet, so forgive me if this was mentioned already.

Looks like a cop to me.

On a side note, most states allow you to carry with the weapon in plain view and it is perfectly legal. The only time you need a permit is IF you conceal the weapon. NH allows you to openly carry though it is not recommended because it is "out of the norm" here. Texas allows open carry and many do just that in Texas so it is expected there.

Myself, I'd have been bold enough to approach the guy and politely ask if he was a cop while expressing my concerns about a weapon in the playground. If he's a responsible person or a cop, he'd understand and offer either an explanation or a valid ID. If he is neither and shows an attitude, turn, grab the kids, leave and call the cops.

I was about to call shenanigans on this, but I looked it up.
Glad I did, per opencarry.org's maps, only 8 states expressly forbid open carry for any reason. Most states have no laws express permitting it or forbidding it, so its assumed legal. A small handfull either express allow it, or require a minimum of licensing for it (less strict than concealed permit).


Wavex, per your bio your in Cali. According to OC.org, Open carry is permitted in "rural" areas, however that is defined, but not in city/urban areas.


edit:
Per http://www.opencarry.org/tx.html Texas is one of the 8 stats in which open carry is expressly forbidden by law.

 

[DefyInertia]

WAVEX just got OWNED! :Flip:

In statistics, that's what we call both anecdotal evidence and a biased sample. You're relatively young and live in California, a notoriously non-gun-friendly state where the carrying of arms is all but non-existent in private hands of the masses. You only know those you know, and your data is directly influenced by that. Of all the people that I personally know that ride, only 3 have been down (myself included), but of those that I know who own and carry guns, more than 50 have used them defensively (myself included) -this is not to say they shot someone, often drawing and presenting alone stops the threat. Of course, I tend to personally associate with hundreds of gun owners who carry religiously and communicate with hundreds of thousands that do (of which thousands report having been involved in a DGU). Either way, it's a biased sample, which is why I wouldn't use either to make the case. I'm using CDC data and peer-reviewed scholarly studies and objective government reports for people all over this country.

In all fairness, it's only a huge stretch to you because of your personal thoughts on the matter. You do realize that many motorcyclists, perhaps half or even more, think that ATGATT is silly too, right? That's because they don't know anyone that's ever been saved by a helmet (or think it looks silly, is too hot or whatever) and because they don't ride dangerously (which parallels people who think one doesn't need a gun because they live in a "safe" area). This illusion of control (or static safety) is often a reason why one dismisses the need for helmets or arms for self-defense, and in both cases, it's at least equally dubious and based on fallacious thinking.

I'm really not trying to bust your balls here, I'm just trying to keep the argument as intellectually honest as possible. I'm not sure there's much more to say. I wish someone would post a pic of a SQUID poppin' wheelies on his gixxer on the highway so we could all head into that thread and make fun of him and his flip flops and wife-beater.


Cheers man.

Just like we have sex/wine/cheese in France, Americans have burgers/guns/Nascar

Oh come on now. We must do something right otherwise you woudln't live here, right?

 

[Wavex]

In statistics, that's what we call both anecdotal evidence and a biased sample. You're relatively young and live in California, a notoriously non-gun-friendly state where the carrying of arms is all but non-existent in private hands of the masses. You only know those you know, and your data is directly influenced by that. Of all the people that I personally know that ride, only 3 have been down (myself included), but of those that I know who own and carry guns, more than 50 have used them defensively (myself included) -this is not to say they shot someone, often drawing and presenting alone stops the threat. Of course, I tend to personally associate with hundreds of gun owners who carry religiously and communicate with hundreds of thousands that do (of which thousands report having been involved in a DGU). Either way, it's a biased sample, which is why I wouldn't use either to make the case. I'm using CDC data and peer-reviewed scholarly studies and objective government reports for people all over this country.



In all fairness, it's only a huge stretch to you because of your personal thoughts on the matter. You do realize that many motorcyclists, perhaps half or even more, think that ATGATT is silly too, right? That's because they don't know anyone that's ever been saved by a helmet (or think it looks silly, is too hot or whatever) and because they don't ride dangerously (which parallels people who think one doesn't need a gun because they live in a "safe" area). This illusion of control (or static safety) is often a reason why one dismisses the need for helmets or arms for self-defense, and in both cases, it's at least equally dubious and based on fallacious thinking.

I'm really not trying to bust your balls here, I'm just trying to keep the argument as intellectually honest as possible. I'm not sure there's much more to say. I wish someone would post a pic of a SQUID poppin' wheelies on his gixxer on the highway so we could all head into that thread and make fun of him and his flip flops and wife-beater.


Cheers man.

You make good points... both our data is grossly wrong (you're comparing raw numbers of moto accidents with raw CDC DGU data without considering any proportions in the baseline... there are trillions of guns in circulation in the US... certainly much less motorcycles....).

Wow, sounds like you live in a tough place... pulling your gun on ppl on a regular basis is scary!!! at least to me...
Guess I need to go down to the grocery store and buy myself a shotgun and a couple automatic weapons then... problem is that I will need to put them in a locked safe in the garage due to my toddlers going through everything, and I really wouldn't want to pack an unloaded gun 24/7, so they'd be useless anyway... I am doomed!!! who will save me from the bad guy?





you mean something like this?

:rof:

 

[NineseveN]

My background: I'm a Norwegian, living in Norway. A country where the police do not carry guns unless they are called out to a dangerous situation. Seing a person carrying on the street happens maybe 5-10 times a year at most, and only by police or military personel, and in 9/10 of the cases it is because of some high profile arrangement (politicians or royalty visiting etc). Civilians do not carry guns, not even hidden. I consider myself lucky to be living in such a place.

What puzzles me is - how did USA end up in a situation where Joe Average feels he has to arm himself to ensure his own safety? Is it the result of a country "built with guns" - they were always there to begin with? Is it an arms race between the good guys and the not so good guys? Is the crime rate so high, or is the crime so violent that guns are needed to give the public a sense of security? With my background, I find it strange that there seem to be such a big need for guns.

Note: This is just me trying to understand your society (the US of A), not trying to start a fight...

That's an exceptionally thoughtful post. I know some shooters form Norway, there's a lot of guns on your continent due to the huge number of hunters and sport shooters (though my impression is that sport shooting is on the decline somewhat due to tougher regulations with the gun laws passed in 2009). Differences in population, economies, the proliferation of drugs, crime and the efficiency and reach of domestic law enforcement all influence American views on domestic self-defense. But there's also an aspect of defense against corrupt or tyrannical government at play, since the United States was founded by doing just that (taking up arms against a tyrannical king). The right to bear arms is a very complex idea in the US, but it's at the cornerstone of the type of government that we have; it means that we can only be ruled by the government with our consent. That's just our way of doing things based on American experience.

 

[Wavex]

WAVEX just got OWNED! :Flip:

Dude, I am getting my *ss handed to me in here Guess I should have expected it huh? :rof:

Oh come on now. We must do something right otherwise you woudln't live here, right?

Sure, they pay me much much more, and the weather and roads rock down here! :BLAA:

 

[Sparky10]

Yeah, because a pistol and a nuclear bomb are obviously basically the same thing, what with one being a common tool in usage by millions of people all across the country, and the other being something used to indiscriminately kill anything within its blast radius.

No, a gun should illicit no more of an emotional reaction than a hammer. Sure, it someone lost a loved one to a shooting, or what shot themselves, there would likely be some reaction there. But if someone had a loved on bludgeoned to death with a hammer, or was attacked with one themselves, there would likely be some reaction there.

If those frightened by this common tool would just live their lives with their fear and leave me alone to live my life, there would be no problem. But too often people use their irrational fear of firearms to restrict my rights.

The gun is not the villain. The person who used the gun improperly is the villain. If somebody wants to be afraid of guns, then by all means, live with your fear. But do not use your fear to justify violating my rights. Unfortunately, too many people with this irrational fear see it as a perfect justification to do just that, and our rights in this country are violated as a result.

 

[Sparky10]

Sure, they pay me much much more, and the weather and roads rock down here! :BLAA:

Taking my bike cross country to spend some time on the cali roads is definitely on my bucket list.

 

[Tailgate]

I'm just wondering---does anybody lube a firearm with Shell Rotella full synthetic? What are FZ6 Forum gun owners using?

 

[NineseveN]

Dude, I am getting my *ss handed to me in here Guess I should have expected it huh? :rof:





Sure, they pay me much much more, and the weather and roads rock down here! :BLAA:

But Europe gets better bikes.

 

[NineseveN]

I'm just wondering---does anybody lube a firearm with Shell Rotella full synthetic? What are FZ6 Forum gun owners using?

Mobil 1 Synthetic, actually.

 

[Wavex]

Yeah, because a pistol and a nuclear bomb are obviously basically the same thing, what with one being a common tool in usage by millions of people all across the country, and the other being something used to indiscriminately kill anything within its blast radius.

No, a gun should illicit no more of an emotional reaction than a hammer. Sure, it someone lost a loved one to a shooting, or what shot themselves, there would likely be some reaction there. But if someone had a loved on bludgeoned to death with a hammer, or was attacked with one themselves, there would likely be some reaction there.

If those frightened by this common tool would just live their lives with their fear and leave me alone to live my life, there would be no problem. But too often people use their irrational fear of firearms to restrict my rights.

The gun is not the villain. The person who used the gun improperly is the villain. If somebody wants to be afraid of guns, then by all means, live with your fear. But do not use your fear to justify violating my rights. Unfortunately, too many people with this irrational fear see it as a perfect justification to do just that, and our rights in this country are violated as a result.

Your statements show again the massive difference in culture and background you and I have... not bad or good, just way different... that you consider a gun to be no more or less than a hammer or screw driver is unbelievable to me... and what's even more crazy to me is that while you make virtually no distinction between a gun and a screw driver, you on the other hand agree that an Uzi or RPG or nuclear bomb are totally different.

I just don't understand your logic If a gun is not the villain, why would the Uzi be? or the RPG or the nuclear bomb? or hand grenade? Aren't these basically the same thing? Aren't the ppl who use these weapons improperly the villains too? What's the difference between an automatic handgun and a bigger automatic weapon?
Why can I buy a shotgun from the grocery store and walk down to the kindergarten and shoot everyone in there, but I can't buy a grenade and do the same thing? Makes no sense to me how you guys put a line between "this weapon is 100% perfectly fine and is just a tool and no-one should ever react emotionally to it" and the next weapon is "completely unnacceptable"... they all exist for ONE single sole purpose: kill people.

Is it so wrong for me to fear things that are designed to kill people? Why do you think your rights to bear arms is more important than my right to think they suck and should be banned?


BTW, would you carry an unloaded gun in a kids park?

 

[Fred]

Your argument is weak... less guns obviously doesn't mean less bad guys... but it does mean less ppl dying as you stated...

I never said that.

Morality:

- more guns = more dead ppl
- less guns = less dead ppl

Wasn't your point (and others) that if more ppl had guns we would all be safer (meaning there would be less dead ppl)?

Not at all. Let me correct your logical statements to reflect my beliefs.

more guns in the right hands = more dead bad guys
less guns in the right hands = more dead good guys

I don't like dead good guys.
I like dead bad guys.

I'm hopping out of this thread, as I doubt if anything will be decided here. I'll simply close with this.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TMbA6y_GSc]YouTube - Calico Rapid Fire[/ame]

Fred

 

[NineseveN]

You make good points... both our data is grossly wrong (you're comparing raw numbers of moto accidents with raw CDC DGU data without considering any proportions in the baseline... there are trillions of guns in circulation in the US... certainly much less motorcycles....).

I'm not so sure you want to go there, those numbers would merely show that there are more accidents and injuries per motorcycle owned than DGU/homicide/suicide/assault per gun owned, making your choice to ride a motorcycle but not own a gun seem completely irrational.

Either way, the numbers show that you're safer owning a gun than riding a bike.

 

[Sparky10]

Your statements show again the massive difference in culture and background you and I have... not bad or good, just way different... that you consider a gun to be no more or less than a hammer or screw driver is unbelievable to me... and what's even more crazy to me is that while you make virtually no distinction between a gun and a screw driver, you on the other hand agree that an Uzi or RPG or nuclear bomb are totally different.

I just don't understand your logic If a gun is not the villain, why would the Uzi be? or the RPG or the nuclear bomb? or hand grenade? Aren't these basically the same thing? Aren't the ppl who use these weapons improperly the villains too? What's the difference between an automatic handgun and a bigger automatic weapon?
Why can I buy a shotgun from the grocery store and walk down to the kindergarten and shoot everyone in there, but I can't buy a grenade and do the same thing? Makes no sense to me how you guys put a line between "this weapon is 100% perfectly fine and is just a tool and no-one should ever react emotionally to it" and the next weapon is "completely unnacceptable"... they all exist for ONE single sole purpose: kill people.

For me, the difference in control of the outcome of employing said tool. A firearm can be used to only put a whole in what is required to stop whatever threat that necessitated using the firearm in the first place. With a bomb, that control is not there. Anything in the vicinity will be destroyed.

By the way, I do not agree that an Uzi, or any other fully automatic weapon, is any different. There is not a difference between "an automatic handgun and a bigger automatic weapon" (I think you meant SEMI automatic handgun, but I digress).

Is it so wrong for me to fear things that are designed to kill people? Why do you think your rights to bear arms is more important than my right to think they suck and should be banned?

Because the supreme law of the land says so.

BTW, would you carry an unloaded gun in a kids park?

Nope. My gun is loaded pretty much everywhere I go. But there is only one way you will know that I have it. And if that happens, you will likely be very glad that I did (unless you are the dumb bastard that makes me pull it:Flip.

 

[Wavex]

more guns in the right hands = more dead bad guys
less guns in the right hands = more dead good guys

How's that been working for you in the US?

According to statistics available from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, of nearly 31,000 firearm-related deaths in 2005, suicides account for 55 percent of deaths in the United States whereas homicides account for 40 percent of deaths, accidents account for three percent, and the remaining two percent were legal killings.

Gun politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So guns aren't use as protection... they're used to kill yourself, to kill someone else illegally, and to kill ppl accidentally... only the minority of gun killings are actually legal (I assume that's self-defense).

:thumbup:

 

[Wavex]

I'm not so sure you want to go there, those numbers would merely show that there are more accidents and injuries per motorcycle owned than DGU/homicide/suicide/assault per gun owned, making your choice to ride a motorcycle but not own a gun (or be against gun ownership) seem completely irrational.

Either way, the numbers show that you're safer owning a gun than riding a bike.

lol! Way to tweak the debate!

Your point was to say that ATGATT on a moto is the same as carrying a gun 24/7. I merely said that in my experience of 30 years of living on this planet in multiple countries, I have never had the need to pull a gun on someone... I did need my gear a few times though
Different debate than whether it's safer to own a gun or ride a motorcycle... :thumbup:

 

[CCHOUSEKY]

Wavex, I'm gonna blow your whole "you can figure out where people are from just by their opinions on this topic" idea...lol.

I hate guns. I grew up around them, haven't ever had a bad experience with one, but what I have been exposed to is stupid-ass rednecks who care only about their right to a gun. FYI, I'm from Kentucky, born and raised, so I know my rednecks.

Would I have called the police on the guy with the gun in the park? Maybe, maybe not. Would I have immediately left? Yes. I agree with the others who have said all you really do is make yourself an unnecessary target by showing that you're carrying.

And whoever said you'd be more likely to need your gun for defensive purposes than you would your gear on the bike...wow, I don't want to live where you live. I don't care what your damned statistics say...I can pull statistics out of my butt to support anything I damn well please, that doesn't make them true. And if you're pulling your gun on others that much, then you either need to move or someone needs to call the cops on YOU.

Oh, and one last point I'd like to make. My grandmother, who kept a revolver on the kitchen chair next to her my entire life (and knew how to use it), was murdered within arms reach of that gun. It didn't help her, did it? She didn't even get a chance to use it. Oh, what's that you say? She should've been carrying it on her hip? Ah...yeah, that's what the problem was.

The fact is, crap happens. There are bad people in this world and some of you (with or without a gun) are gonna get hurt, maybe even killed. It happens. The Constitution was written 225+ years ago and has a hard time coping with today's world. That's what the Supreme Court is there for...to figure out how it applies TODAY.

I'll leave you with one thought. That document that allows some of you to cling to your guns so vehemently? When it was written, it also considered an African American to be 3/5's of a human being. Point being? It's not always right.

 

[Wavex]

Because the supreme law of the land says so.

The supreme law you refer to has already been CONSIDERABLY restricted and thank god for that. We don't live in the 18th century anymore...

Nope. My gun is loaded pretty much everywhere I go. But there is only one way you will know that I have it. And if that happens, you will likely be very glad that I did (unless you are the dumb bastard that makes me pull it:Flip.

See, while you may be a level headed, responsible, smart human being, how many out there are packing just like you and are depressed, and/or in anger management classes and/or drunk? Don't you agree that most ppl are nuts? Don't you agree that most ppl shouldn't be allowed to operate guns?

That thought scares me more than the "bad guy" or "zombies" or whoever you guys shoot at :BLAA: Seriously, I am scared that one day I'll burn a stop sign by mistake and some pissed dude pulls a gun on me and shoots me between the eyes for no good reason....