That's not that impressive. He's using one hand to hold and one to pump the trigger, he's not aiming, and well.. that's rather slow for a semi-automatic which has a very light trigger pull.
With my semi-auto paintball marker I can pump out rounds at 8-10 rps, and hit a target.
I don't think its modified. It is called "bump firing" where you use the recoil of the gun to fire the next shot on a semi-auto gun. It is wildly inaccurate.
Yeah, those government cats will pop 19 caps in any ass that dares say we have a gun culture in the UK.
a) "The Government" don't carry guns. Big Brown G-man don't have no shooter.
b) We do have a gun culture in the UK. The countryside is full of posh boys carrying shotguns and blasting anything that moves. We also have gangsters shooting each other in the cities.
OK, but where did the 18 bullets go? If they all hit the target that's one thing, but if they were just sprayed randomly that's something completely different and much less interesting.
I think that's a Beretta 92. What the man is doing is called a "bumpfire".
And the comments here from anti-gun people make me ashamed to be a liberal. The intolerance and bigotry towards guns here is staggering. Ugh.
What this man and his friends are doing in the YouTube videos did not result in harm to another living soul, or put anyone in danger. All guns were handled safely.
I'm a flaming liberal Democrat in favor of universal healthcare and gay marriage, and I'm a Buddhist.
I also own several guns, including a civilian defense rifle patterned after the AK-47, a bolt-action rifle with an 800m range, a compact pistol to carry with me, and a combat shotgun. I enjoy practical shooting matches. Of course, I do not hunt.
Gun control is fundamentally a bigoted, racist, sexist, ageist, statist idea that is *so* 20th century. Get with the program.
"Gun control is fundamentally a bigoted, racist, sexist, ageist, statist idea that is *so* 20th century. Get with the program."
What program would that be? The one that results in God-knows how many injuries and fatalities a year in the US, and elsewhere? Guns are nasty little machines, fundamentally designed for killing, and they cause untold misery. No matter how much some people like to have them round as a (twisted) hobby.
I am pretty sure I could kill you with my potato canon, but that isn't why I made it, or why I still have it. But I would also be hard pressed to explain any other reason to own it that doesn't also sound a little silly. I mean really, when will I ever have a practical reason for getting a potato over 200 yards away in a matter of seconds.
But it is an interesting machine built for a very narrow purpose that can provide much entertainment. So can a 12 gauge shotgun (or any other gun, for that matter). By the very nature of being an inanimate object no machine can have intentions of its own. It is the user that gives it purpose.
"The one that results in God-knows how many injuries and fatalities a year in the US, and elsewhere?"
Error of logic: You assume that injuries and deaths resulting from people using guns would not have occurred if guns were removed. Google "substitution effect".
Error of composition #1: Guns are tools. If left on the top shelf of my safe, my 9mm will still be there 100 years later. It will not have grown little legs of its own and run around shooting people.
Error of composition #2: Subset of error of logic above. Societies exist where the overall level of crime and violence is higher, yet guns are banned or tightly restricted.
Error of composition #3: Americans shoot 9,000,000,000 rounds of ammunition yearly, just for practice. There are 13,500 murders by gun each year. Therefore, the primary purpose of guns is not killing humans, but simple recreation.
Why are you being so intolerant of those that make different life choices than you?
It looks to me like he's using his stomach to reflect the recoil of the gun back forwards towards his finger. I thought people usually fired handguns held at arms length.
I've heard of shooting from the hip, but not shooting from the gut.
"I also feel sorry for the #24 buddhist with a combat shotgun. does it get any wierder?"
How backhandedly intolerant of you.
Buddhism is perfectly compatible with armed self-defense:
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." --The Dalai Lama (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)
"If we feel we cannot avoid maiming or killing [in self-defense], we can at least try to do it with regret at having to cause another pain. If our intention to cause harm is weak, the karmic effect of the act will be less." -- Buddhist Union, Oct. 96: 7
Armed resistance to those that would cause you death or harm is a profound service to one's own Buddha-nature.
JL Braun - honestly and truly, much of the rest of the world finds it very difficult to understand your attitude to guns. Not to say it isn't OK, it is of course your country, knock yourselves out. However do you not think there could be a downside?
Deaths by gunshot 1994 per 100,000:
USA 14.24
England and Wales 0.41
Guns being available, or is it the weather over here you think? Sorry if that comes across as preachy (hey, we have our problems with drunken yobbery and general up-tightness - I have no right to any sort of moral high ground), but sometimes it helps to get a bit objective.
And gun-toting Buddhists? An oxymoron if ever there was one.
#17 RUGGERREDHAWK - I like the idea of guns, I used to shoot a rifle on a range and love the technical skill and the physics of the whole thing, I think it's unbelievably elegant. I just don't like a culture that is flooded with guns and repeatedly shown to be immature in the approach and use of them (and I'm not singling out the US here). They are mostly designed for one thing, which I would rather see 100% less of thank you very much. Marksmanship FTW.
#20 101 - I said *such* a gun culture, I am perfectly aware that we have a burgeoning gun culture here, it is very different tho to the good ol' US of A.
As a buddhist and as someone who supports guns, I have to disagree a bit with jlbraun. Buddhism is compatable with self defense, but it should be noted that as a buddhist you should really avoid killing people, and you should your self defense as an opportunity to show mercy and compassion towards your attacker.
Also, I think that the ability of any non-liberated beings such as us to understand the complex hand of karma in our lives to be able to make statements such as 'the intention to cause harm is weak, so the karmic effect of the act is less'. Our perceptions are influenced by karma, so it naturally follows that our beliefs are, too. A seemingly unimportant act, and I don't think harming another in defense of yourself can even be considered unimportant, can have enormous consequences that you aren't aware of. My understanding of Karma is that it is invisible and inconceivable until you are liberated from it.
I believe buddha nature is in all things, and although I would be inclined to defend myself if someone attacked me, I would like to imagine that I would have the wisdom to see that both I and my attacker are the same (ie, the buddha is attacking me, Avaloketishwara is giving me the 1000sand armed smack down), and an attitude of harmlessness would probably sew fewer karmic seeds in both of us than in righteous self defense. As long as we have to die and confront this crap later, why not behave properly now?
What the dalai lama calls "reasonable" is not necessarily the best course of action. It's not like you could be killed anyway, and if you did allow someone to take your life, that's got to help you snag a pretty good reincarnation. Bardic brownie points.
I am also a flaming liberal, however, not being Buddhist or vegetarian or anything, I'm not even opposed to hunting. I think it's unfair to lump this guy in with folks who use guns irresponsibly. I find myself wondering if our 'gun culture' were more pervasive, rather than the current state of things where some folks are totally enamored with them and others who vilify the first group, might the general level of responsible handling be higher?
It's a tough call. On one hand I hate the idea that guns enable someone to kill in an instant without making physical contact, i.e without fully understanding the weight of their action. But then the point of the right to bear arms is for the general populace to be able to protect themselves from oppression, and firearms kind of provide a necessary leveling of the playing field in that regard.
Another thought: while I'm generally opposed to prohibition in favor of dealing with the root causes of societal problems like violence, todays story involving the 15 year old MD kid gives me pause.
Google "subsitution effect". There is no indication that a significant number of people killed with a gun would still be alive if guns were banned. (note that I did not say "if guns were nonexistent". Criminals don't obey gun laws.) You're attempting a proof by induction.
Secondly, you have to look at overall violent crime rates, not just gun violence. Of course there was no gun violence in the Roman Empire, but that did not make it any less violent overall.
It's also interesting to note that robberies, assaults, burglaries, and total crimes are actually higher per capita in the United Kingdom. Gun crime in the UK is skyrocketing as well. Though murder rates in the UK are still lower than the US, the US is on a 20 year decline whiles the UK's violent crime rate is going up. Perception of safety is also lower in the UK.
It's the culture. I detest guns being shown on TV in the hands of criminals and thugs, because that promotes an ignorance and callousness towards guns in general.
"and you should your self defense as an opportunity to show mercy and compassion towards your attacker."
Exactly. Buddhism is against *violence* in self-defense, but is OK with *force*. This is why one never shoots to *kill* an attacker, one shoots to *stop* an attacker. Regrettably, the fastest way to stop an attacker is by shooting them center mass and perhaps killing them, but if they cease their attack after being shot, we do not kill a defenseless person.
Secondly, has the attacker not caused his own pain and possible death by attacking? I would not shoot a random person if it wasn't in defense. Has the attacker not killed *himself*?
"I find myself wondering if our 'gun culture' were more pervasive, rather than the current state of things where some folks are totally enamored with them and others who vilify the first group, might the general level of responsible handling be higher?"
I do as well. Smallbore rifle used to be an option in gym class, now it's not because guns r teh evul.
The West Virginia state legislature is working on a bill to require that gun handling be taught in public schools, which I'm in favor of.
Agreed, he probably is bump-firing, a modern day "fanning the hammer". Only easy for him because of his mass. Utterly inaccurate but it will keep heads down and hit by sheer statistical chance.
There are full auto pistols out there
Re: gun control: Of course gun control already exists everywhere. It is a question of how much.
Re: the American "constitutional" argument: nonsense, anyone who can read English knows the intent was never what exists now in terms of guns everywhere.
Or a computer. Or the Internet. Or a car. Or a cell phone. Or...
Should we prohibit these things too? You can do harm with these things too, and quite easily at that.
"the American "constitutional" argument: nonsense, anyone who can read English knows the intent was never what exists now in terms of guns everywhere."
Wrong.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
There's loads more. Anyone who reads the Constitution and thinks that it was meant to disarm rather than protect a right to be armed is wrong.
And remember, if you say that "well, the 2nd is an anachronism and doesn't apply today" then you open the door for those like Bushie to say "well, the 4th, 1st, and 5th are anachronisms since 9-11 changed everything."
...as a buddhist you should really avoid killing people...
Yeah. If you're already fantasizing about defending yourself, you've got a big problem. Violence is a failure. Sometimes we fail, but it's better to do everything humanly possible to avoid it.
It is poor science to look at a complex system with a ton of variables (let alone compare two such systems) and single out one variable as the cause of a complex effect. It is hard enough to compare two cultures in terms of generalities, but to then try to pinpoint one specific point were the two diverge is almost impossible.
Do Americans kill a lot of each other?
Yes.
Are guns used in a lot of those killings?
Yes.
But that isn't nearly enough to create a complete causation. There are most likely deeper reasons why we kill each other. Maybe we have more guns than most other countries (per capita) because a lot of us just want to kill each other? That is about as reasonable an assumption based upon the facts.
Trying to control a problem that is poorly understood is a very difficult thing to do, especially when passions overtake rationality (on either side). The same thing is happening with our drug culture (a culture that I sometimes enjoy, by the way). We've made most drugs illegal, and done are best to forcefully deter drug use, but it still remains a 'problem'.
I guess what I am saying is that I think blaming murder on guns is like blaming obesity on silverware. Perhaps it is easier to find evil/illness in an object than to admit it comes from us.
As for Gun-Toting-Buddhists, as far as I know Buddhists have a long tradition of discipline and defense. Guns are nothing more than a logical progression. I think I would feel a little more comfortable with a Buddhist having a gun than someone of a more reactionary faith (not trying to point any fingers here).
The world is rife with democracies that do not allow every person to go about armed at all times. They function well, no tyranny arises,people are happy and the gun industry survives,albeit smaller.
As for a gun is a tool; yes it is. So are cars, that is why we have driver's licences and traffic laws.
The fact is, you can live a rich, long, comfortable life without ever once firing or owing a gun. They are not neccessary.
"...as a buddhist you should really avoid killing people...
Yeah. If you're already fantasizing about defending yourself, you've got a big problem. Violence is a failure. Sometimes we fail, but it's better to do everything humanly possible to avoid it."
Exactly. You understand the difference between violence and force. As a Buddhist, I disown all forms of violence in self-defense. Force, as I have said above, is OK in self-defense under the Buddhist worldview, because using guns for self defense is not necessarily violence.
And I hope I never have to defend myself with any kind of force, lethal or otherwise, because I'll have to answer for it spiritually.
@jlbraun - I agree with you again, I just find your exact choice of words strange. I think the key to this is that the unpredictability of consequences makes choosing the best course of action difficult - as unenlightened dudes, all we have to go on is faith, intuition and common sense. In this case, it seems to me that it is infinitely preferable to act out of compassion, simply because that sends an unambiguous message not to attackers but to all people who learn about the incident. Any other act will be interpreted by others in a limitless number of ways - the attacker's mother will curse you, Charlton Heston would compliment you, your mother and loved ones would commend you, etc.
Forceful self defense is an understandable reaction to an attack in the same way that panic and misery is an understandable reaction to death.
#38 A favorite quote of mine is "There are three kind of liars. Liars, damn liars, and statisticians." Your statistics are not relevant unless you at the very least also factor in the per capita percentage of gun ownership.
England and Wales have a much higher number and percentage of death by cricket bats then the U.S. There is a relative scarcity of said bats in the U.S.
Also does your gun death statistics include accidental gun death? Deaths when the gun is used in Self Defense? Death caused by Police Officers? Or just gun related homicides? Do those homicides differentiate between immediate deaths and people who die later from there injuries.
A one statistical study I've looked revealed this sort of error when years ago when two nigh identical neighboring counties reported those deaths differently. One county reported ANY death in a crime when a gun was involved as gun related homicide, even if you choked to death on a lollipop whilst waving your gun around. The other county ONLY reported immediate deaths caused by the gun as gun related homicide, if you survived the initial gunshot and died later it was reported differently.
Add to that the political implications of various elected Sherrif and other positions who may under or over report actual crimes depending on their political agenda. (Reporting is not universally mandatory nor always done the same.)
It plays merry hob with getting accurate number, and there is an entire subfield of Criminal Justice merely trying to find out what the "real" numbers are. Hard enough comparing the numbers between city to city, and you want to compare country to country?
Not at all. Since you're so familiar with the scholarship of the 2nd Amendment, I assumed that you already were familiar is USC 10.311, which defines who is in the militia. I'm in it, and likely so are you. So we're both in a well-regulated militia, or a militia that is codified under law.
-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
"The world is rife with democracies that do not allow every person to go about armed at all times."
Indeed. But our recognizes that the right to arms does not stem from the government, it is an inherent right of a self-actualized and independent human being that exists independent of government. And I like ours better.
When someone tries to tell me (or anyone else) that something is not neccessary based on their own opinions of personal conduct I am reminded of my Grandmother. I has many conversations with her when I was younger about how it is wrong to impose your beliefs on others.
I do believe that we need to live with a system of laws that protect the public good.
But here is a list of a few things that many people find unnecessary based on their own personal beliefs.
Guns
Gay Marriage
Recreational Drugs
Premarital Sex
Sport Utility Vehicles
Integrated Schools
Abortion
A Free Press
Chemistry Supplies
Profanity (which I happen to love, and would miss greatly)
We could all live like the Amish, they seem to be doing alright. But I think I would kind of resent being told to do so, based on the fact that anything else is 'not neccessary'.
The fact that the Dalai Lama supports killing people (under the right circumstances, of course! Of course!) does not indicate to me that killing is permissible. It indicates that, somewhere along the road, Buddhism lost its way.
Guns are not computers or cars and to lump them into the same category is to create something entirely imaginary for the sake of argument. To what purpose were they made? To drive? To calculate numbers?
I cannot see the essential nonviolent functionality of guns. They exist to cause harm. That, not recreation, is their function. Making the argument that more people use them for recreation than for causing harm does not change their nature. If I call a nuclear bomb a pony and attempt to ride it around, it does not become a pony. It does not become a pony even if I convince everyone else in the world that it is a pony. We may not call it a "nuclear bomb," but linguistic semantics do not stop something from exploding. Guns were not created as recreation. If recreation was all people wanted from guns, then no-one would own a bullet-firing weapon and laser tag and paintball would be the most popular sports in the United States.
I think you can feel the power a gun gives over life and death, and that is what you are attracted to, not aesthetic beauty or sport.
@ Learethak - well, yes, I do. Can you accept that there are more murders per capita, and more murders by gun, and more guns floating about in the USA generally? The actual death by firearm numbers are, of course, impossible to accurately establish but even if they are +/- 5%, (a very generous concession to you, I would suggest), there does appear to be something of a strong correlation between gun ownership rates, murder rates and death by gunfire. As for rates of death by cricket bat, I'd guess maybe none in Wales, what, a couple a year in England, if that?
I know, statistics: a drunk supporting a lamppost. That doesn't make them entirely irrelevant.
Some men wrote down some words a few hundred years ago and now their version of reality must NEVER be challenged. It's the law!
This conception of a God-given right to bear arms stems from a Christian understanding of the Universe. How does that strike you, as a Buddhist?
"inherent right of a self-actualized and independent human being"
Who says? I'd like to see the indisputable document these men were referencing when they laid down all the fundamental points of social reality. What was it called? Who wrote it? Where can I find a copy?
"And I like ours better."
Well, since you are God, after all, I suppose this argument is over now.
You know Beergood, I've decided that, for my own safety, I need to keep anthrax in my house. I'm sure you, as my neighbour, will feel safer just knowing that.
"Your statistics are not relevant unless you at the very least also factor in the per capita percentage of gun ownership."
My point is that one shouldn't be looking at "gun violence" as independent from any other type of violence. Killed with a cricket bat is just as dead as killed with a gun, so looking at gun violence independently isn't correct.
...guns in civilian hands are ILLEGAL. Do you think that criminals will respond to a nice telephone survey?
And to put a final coda on this specious line of reasoning, the UN Small Arms Survey (http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/index.html) estimates that 50% of the world's firearms (including all armies) are in the hands of US citizens. According to nationmaster.com (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms), the US accounts for less than 9.3% of the world's firearm murders.
Lastly, according to the CDC there were only 789 accidental firearm deaths in 2005, or 0.7% of all unintentional deaths (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html).
Also, in the age group 0-14 there were only 75 accidental deaths by firearm in the entire US in 2005.
"Well, since you are God, after all, I suppose this argument is over now."
It is, but not for the reasons you think.
;)
"You know Beergood, I've decided that, for my own safety, I need to keep anthrax in my house. I'm sure you, as my neighbour, will feel safer just knowing that."
Fail. Arms are protected by the 2nd. Anthrax is an ordnance and can be regulated.
#64 KICKYFAST - I totally agree with you on the whole inherent nature of the gun, but you lose me on the whole
"I think you can feel the power a gun gives over life and death, and that is what you are attracted to, not aesthetic beauty or sport."
bit tho.
From the point of view of a recreational gun user I am drawn to the skill and science behind the whole process, not to a macho totemistic power. It is too simplistic to have such black and white divisions.
"The fact that the Dalai Lama supports killing people (under the right circumstances, of course! Of course!) does not indicate to me that killing is permissible. It indicates that, somewhere along the road, Buddhism lost its way."
"Guns are not computers or cars and to lump them into the same category is to create something entirely imaginary for the sake of argument. To what purpose were they made? To drive? To calculate numbers?"
I wonder if the successor to the Cheney Presidency (or is it the "Bush Tragedy"?) will have the guts to put the whole gun control question to a real vote?
An interesting sub-point (is that a phrase?): according to some random essay I just read, over 91% of the gun murders in the US are carried out by men.
"only" 75 children died from accidental gunshot in 2005. "Only".
Exactly. And because this ranks so low on the cause of death rankings, the justification for banning guns on this basis falls apart - because if your object is to prevent accidental deaths of children, you'd be better off starting by banning poisons, ladders, plastic buckets, swimming pools, automobiles, and climbable trees.
There are already public safety rules governing all these. What 75 dead children indicates to me is that the rules on guns are 75 times poorer than they should be. If children are dying from the other causes you mention, you can rest assured people are trying their best to do something about it.
I can live with a handgun ban far easier than a ladder, bucket, pool, car and tree ban.
"An interesting sub-point (is that a phrase?): according to some random essay I just read, over 91% of the gun murders in the US are carried out by men."
Sub-point indeed, and a bit of a tautology. Men are more likely to commit most types of crime - they're stronger and faster. Because criminals in most cases need to apply force to get what they want, of course men are going to be more able to apply that force.
That really doesn't contribute to the discussion anyway.
If a buddhist owns a gun, I would expect that he contemplates the good that can come out of his owning it every time he looks at it.
However, since a gun is an inherently dangerous and scary thing (more dangerous than, say, a grapefruit), I personally doubt that most guns are kept around out of any impulse other than a sort of obsessive fear. There are many exceptions, I'm sure. I can see how shooting would be fun, for instance, and I do know that a lot of gun owners are obsessive about safety precautions.
CCTV cameras are to be destroyed with lasers ( a few hundred bucks for a good pen sized 100mw plus) or disabled with paint balls. Or bagged. Or spoofed. No excuse for guns there.
And speaking of the Dalai Lama - I think most people would agree that there are few peoples in the world today more deserving of the right to own guns than the Tibetans - and few people in the world who have more powerfully demonstrated the message of harmlessness than they. They captured the hearts of entire civilized world. What gun can do that?
A long time ago, I saw a British army firearms instructor demonstrate rapid-fire using an unmodified SLR (a semi-automatic rifle). I don't know if he used bump-fire; my recollection is that he was moving his trigger finger quickly, rather than pulling the weapon (as in the Wikipedia description of bumpfire). He certainly emptied the magazine with impressive speed.
His shots were also on target, which is probably not the case in this video.
I could make the argument that semi-automatic firearms / automatic firearms in the hands of citizens are not now tools that - nor could they now potentially be - used to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, nor promote the general welfare. They don't suppress crime, we don't shoot people in the streets after trials, widespread gun ownership doesn't stop riots.
It's the fact that firearms secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity - that clinches them, forevermore, in the realm of "No, you don't get to take away my right to bear arms and you don't get to vote on it either." If the US Government collapses or is hijacked by a fascist military coup or just abandons us (Katrina Aftermath, anyone?) we will need them.
Arms are the first tool for securing one's self, property, family, health and life. Allowing a government to take them away without specifically, in each and every single case, showing due and reasonable cause to do so - is unConstitutional.
I don't believe that I ever mentioned needing a gun for my own safety. I do have one, and I suppose I would use it if I had to. I would rather rely upon my dogs barking to ward off trespassers, and calling 911. I am not even sure if I have any ammunition in the house. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't know where it would be, it's just I don't remember if I have any left. I haven't shot the thing in over three years.
I do find your anthrax argument to be a little silly. I realize that you were probably playing hyperbole for comic effect, but to equate guns to anthrax is stretching it a little bit.
As I said before, we do need to live in a nation of laws. Some things are given up to protect the general safety of the public. And it does suck for the people that have to give those things up. I just think that banning something is a very serious matter.
I also wouldn't be thrilled about my neighbor having a grenade. I did make my share of dry ice bombs when I was a kid (and adult), and they sure were fun. Fireworks are also pretty great. I just can't see any practical purpose or need to own a grenade or anthrax that outweighs the danger of an accident happening. If you could convince me that you were in fact safe/qualified enough to handle a grenade I probably wouldn't have a problem with it (but I doubt that will ever happen). But the margin of error for a grenade is pretty small, and the margin of error with anthrax is so small that it practically doesn't exist. I realize that I am standing on a slippery slope, but I can see a case being made for gun ownership. And as long as I can see a practical case being made for the legality of something I am not to thrilled about the idea of banning it.
Kickyfast has a strong point with this:
"I think you can feel the power a gun gives over life and death, and that is what you are attracted to, not aesthetic beauty or sport."
And I suspect that he is correct in a lot of cases.
I wonder if Mark knew what he was starting with his simple post.
Some of the above comments are just freaking brilliant - damn I love this site for the talenmt of it's readers. A fat guy with a gun - didn't know it could make me laugh so much. Cheers!
You really only need to fire one bullet, properly.
This is the reason someone like 50 Cent was shot 6 times but is still alive. If a guy is going to hold a gun sideways, he probably isn't going to hit the target.
Similarly, this guy fired 18 rounds, but is probably lucky if one hit the target.
"few people in the world who have more powerfully demonstrated the message of harmlessness than they."
When you are facing down the entire Chinese military, have had your guns stripped from you by force, and are living under a repressive police state, you have no *option* but to be harmless.
The "harmlessness" of the Tibetans can hardly be called moral or noble. It's more survival than anything.
@83, JLBraun: ergo, you would have thought, they would have less need of a gun and it should be women who use them. Unless, of course, there is some other factor (insecurity in one's masculinity, say) at play in the mind of the gun lover?
"@83, JLBraun: ergo, you would have thought, they would have less need of a gun and it should be women who use them. Unless, of course, there is some other factor (insecurity in one's masculinity, say) at play in the mind of the gun lover?"
I love when this happens.
Remember when I said "Gun control is sexist"? You just proved why. Men are stronger and faster - thus, removing womens' ability to own guns is abhorrently sexist. Disarm everyone, and men rule. Recognize even womens' and blacks' right to own guns, and an egalitarian society is easier to achieve.
And if any gun owner cared about the gun as penis proxy, they wouldn't carry one with a 3.5" barrel .355" in diameter. And are you saying that women gun owners just wish they had a penis? I don't get anti-gun rhetoric sometimes.
Something tells me hes American.
That was fscking pathetic. Goddamn, sometimes I hope the end is nigh.
Guess he doesn't have to worry much about the recoil anyway.
My guess is that's the only fast thing about him.
Looks like he's holding the grip in his left hand, and bouncing the trigger using his right hand.
Yeah, I suppose that might work for unloading a bunch of lead, but I think I'd prefer to just work on my marksmanship.
Now do this with a revolver, like this other guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3fgduPdH_Y), and I'll be impressed!
Be sure to check out the big fella's other YouTube videos. He and his friends suuuure like their guns.
Is he an alien from a planet with extremely high gravity?
I bet he can eat 18 burgers in 2 seconds, and probably has, many times. I'd love to see footage of him running.
I'm reminded of the opening to IDIOCRACY.
He can shoot an intruder 18 times in the head before he even gets near, but he can't choose a salad once in a while?
@padster: Google "Buck Godot."
Where's the "Video of man firing 18 donuts into his piehole in 1 second"?
Why can't I get any credit for shooting my wad that fast?
Pretty much guaranteed that if this guy is on any grassy knoll, he'll be acting alone.
@ #5 - that is damned impressive, it's the reload bit thats awesome.
still pretty glad we don't have such a gun culture in the UK, although it's prob not too far off, at least for the government...
he has modified the semi auto to full auto
Ok, I'll be the first to actually give the guy his props without calling him fat or an American gun psycho:
Goddamn, he's fast!
\\The rest of you are pathetic little internet bitches who can't make a positive comment about anything.
Who doesn't?
You don't know what you're missing.
That's not that impressive. He's using one hand to hold and one to pump the trigger, he's not aiming, and well.. that's rather slow for a semi-automatic which has a very light trigger pull.
With my semi-auto paintball marker I can pump out rounds at 8-10 rps, and hit a target.
Check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og9ccsb1v6o&feature=related
12 rounds from a revolver / hitting targets, with a reload, in 2 seconds... now THAT is impressive.
I don't think its modified. It is called "bump firing" where you use the recoil of the gun to fire the next shot on a semi-auto gun. It is wildly inaccurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_fire
Yeah, those government cats will pop 19 caps in any ass that dares say we have a gun culture in the UK.
a) "The Government" don't carry guns. Big Brown G-man don't have no shooter.
b) We do have a gun culture in the UK. The countryside is full of posh boys carrying shotguns and blasting anything that moves. We also have gangsters shooting each other in the cities.
OK, but where did the 18 bullets go? If they all hit the target that's one thing, but if they were just sprayed randomly that's something completely different and much less interesting.
@ #5, I wouldn't want to make that guy angry.
I'm sure that dude could absorb all those shots. And yes, he sure does seem to love this guns.
I feel sorry for him in more than one way.
I also feel sorry for boingboing to promote this b###shit.
regards duskiboy
ps #16: he IS actually a fast fat american gun psycho.
I think that's a Beretta 92. What the man is doing is called a "bumpfire".
And the comments here from anti-gun people make me ashamed to be a liberal. The intolerance and bigotry towards guns here is staggering. Ugh.
What this man and his friends are doing in the YouTube videos did not result in harm to another living soul, or put anyone in danger. All guns were handled safely.
I'm a flaming liberal Democrat in favor of universal healthcare and gay marriage, and I'm a Buddhist.
I also own several guns, including a civilian defense rifle patterned after the AK-47, a bolt-action rifle with an 800m range, a compact pistol to carry with me, and a combat shotgun. I enjoy practical shooting matches. Of course, I do not hunt.
Gun control is fundamentally a bigoted, racist, sexist, ageist, statist idea that is *so* 20th century. Get with the program.
@16
Pointing out his immunity to recoil is perfectly valid.
Here is a video of someone else bump firing. No skill, no accuracy, not impressive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MydCuTfgt0k
@#26
Well, bumpfiring is fun even if it's not accurate.
:)
I also feel sorry for the #24 buddhist with a combat shotgun. does it get any wierder?
@#s 23 and 26:
Much appreciation for backing my point, people.
@jlbraun
"Gun control is fundamentally a bigoted, racist, sexist, ageist, statist idea that is *so* 20th century. Get with the program."
What program would that be? The one that results in God-knows how many injuries and fatalities a year in the US, and elsewhere? Guns are nasty little machines, fundamentally designed for killing, and they cause untold misery. No matter how much some people like to have them round as a (twisted) hobby.
@padster123: I can tell you're knocking something you've never tried. This is a recipe for failure.
I am pretty sure I could kill you with my potato canon, but that isn't why I made it, or why I still have it. But I would also be hard pressed to explain any other reason to own it that doesn't also sound a little silly. I mean really, when will I ever have a practical reason for getting a potato over 200 yards away in a matter of seconds.
But it is an interesting machine built for a very narrow purpose that can provide much entertainment. So can a 12 gauge shotgun (or any other gun, for that matter). By the very nature of being an inanimate object no machine can have intentions of its own. It is the user that gives it purpose.
Also, that guy sure is fat.
"The one that results in God-knows how many injuries and fatalities a year in the US, and elsewhere?"
Error of logic: You assume that injuries and deaths resulting from people using guns would not have occurred if guns were removed. Google "substitution effect".
Error of composition #1: Guns are tools. If left on the top shelf of my safe, my 9mm will still be there 100 years later. It will not have grown little legs of its own and run around shooting people.
Error of composition #2: Subset of error of logic above. Societies exist where the overall level of crime and violence is higher, yet guns are banned or tightly restricted.
Error of composition #3: Americans shoot 9,000,000,000 rounds of ammunition yearly, just for practice. There are 13,500 murders by gun each year. Therefore, the primary purpose of guns is not killing humans, but simple recreation.
Why are you being so intolerant of those that make different life choices than you?
It looks to me like he's using his stomach to reflect the recoil of the gun back forwards towards his finger. I thought people usually fired handguns held at arms length.
I've heard of shooting from the hip, but not shooting from the gut.
"I also feel sorry for the #24 buddhist with a combat shotgun. does it get any wierder?"
How backhandedly intolerant of you.
Buddhism is perfectly compatible with armed self-defense:
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." --The Dalai Lama (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)
"If we feel we cannot avoid maiming or killing [in self-defense], we can at least try to do it with regret at having to cause another pain. If our intention to cause harm is weak, the karmic effect of the act will be less." -- Buddhist Union, Oct. 96: 7
Armed resistance to those that would cause you death or harm is a profound service to one's own Buddha-nature.
I'm just trying to figure out how he got his sausage finger into the trigger guard.
This is what you get for trying to take his Doritos.
JL Braun - honestly and truly, much of the rest of the world finds it very difficult to understand your attitude to guns. Not to say it isn't OK, it is of course your country, knock yourselves out. However do you not think there could be a downside?
Deaths by gunshot 1994 per 100,000:
USA 14.24
England and Wales 0.41
Guns being available, or is it the weather over here you think? Sorry if that comes across as preachy (hey, we have our problems with drunken yobbery and general up-tightness - I have no right to any sort of moral high ground), but sometimes it helps to get a bit objective.
And gun-toting Buddhists? An oxymoron if ever there was one.
#17 RUGGERREDHAWK - I like the idea of guns, I used to shoot a rifle on a range and love the technical skill and the physics of the whole thing, I think it's unbelievably elegant. I just don't like a culture that is flooded with guns and repeatedly shown to be immature in the approach and use of them (and I'm not singling out the US here). They are mostly designed for one thing, which I would rather see 100% less of thank you very much. Marksmanship FTW.
#20 101 - I said *such* a gun culture, I am perfectly aware that we have a burgeoning gun culture here, it is very different tho to the good ol' US of A.
In my defence, the quote from the Dalai Lama wasn't posted before I composed. Interesting. Perhaps I need to rethink that bit.
Laugh, little people. He's armed and hungry. After the apocalypse, you may be his dinner.
As a buddhist and as someone who supports guns, I have to disagree a bit with jlbraun. Buddhism is compatable with self defense, but it should be noted that as a buddhist you should really avoid killing people, and you should your self defense as an opportunity to show mercy and compassion towards your attacker.
Also, I think that the ability of any non-liberated beings such as us to understand the complex hand of karma in our lives to be able to make statements such as 'the intention to cause harm is weak, so the karmic effect of the act is less'. Our perceptions are influenced by karma, so it naturally follows that our beliefs are, too. A seemingly unimportant act, and I don't think harming another in defense of yourself can even be considered unimportant, can have enormous consequences that you aren't aware of. My understanding of Karma is that it is invisible and inconceivable until you are liberated from it.
I believe buddha nature is in all things, and although I would be inclined to defend myself if someone attacked me, I would like to imagine that I would have the wisdom to see that both I and my attacker are the same (ie, the buddha is attacking me, Avaloketishwara is giving me the 1000sand armed smack down), and an attitude of harmlessness would probably sew fewer karmic seeds in both of us than in righteous self defense. As long as we have to die and confront this crap later, why not behave properly now?
What the dalai lama calls "reasonable" is not necessarily the best course of action. It's not like you could be killed anyway, and if you did allow someone to take your life, that's got to help you snag a pretty good reincarnation. Bardic brownie points.
I am also a flaming liberal, however, not being Buddhist or vegetarian or anything, I'm not even opposed to hunting. I think it's unfair to lump this guy in with folks who use guns irresponsibly. I find myself wondering if our 'gun culture' were more pervasive, rather than the current state of things where some folks are totally enamored with them and others who vilify the first group, might the general level of responsible handling be higher?
It's a tough call. On one hand I hate the idea that guns enable someone to kill in an instant without making physical contact, i.e without fully understanding the weight of their action. But then the point of the right to bear arms is for the general populace to be able to protect themselves from oppression, and firearms kind of provide a necessary leveling of the playing field in that regard.
Another thought: while I'm generally opposed to prohibition in favor of dealing with the root causes of societal problems like violence, todays story involving the 15 year old MD kid gives me pause.
And yes I know I'm probably contradicting myself.
@38
You've got happy slapping, a bit of idiocy that, AFAIK, hasn't yet made its way to the US.
@Pat Dodds:
Google "subsitution effect". There is no indication that a significant number of people killed with a gun would still be alive if guns were banned. (note that I did not say "if guns were nonexistent". Criminals don't obey gun laws.) You're attempting a proof by induction.
Secondly, you have to look at overall violent crime rates, not just gun violence. Of course there was no gun violence in the Roman Empire, but that did not make it any less violent overall.
It's also interesting to note that robberies, assaults, burglaries, and total crimes are actually higher per capita in the United Kingdom. Gun crime in the UK is skyrocketing as well. Though murder rates in the UK are still lower than the US, the US is on a 20 year decline whiles the UK's violent crime rate is going up. Perception of safety is also lower in the UK.
It's the culture. I detest guns being shown on TV in the hands of criminals and thugs, because that promotes an ignorance and callousness towards guns in general.
@songe
"and you should your self defense as an opportunity to show mercy and compassion towards your attacker."
Exactly. Buddhism is against *violence* in self-defense, but is OK with *force*. This is why one never shoots to *kill* an attacker, one shoots to *stop* an attacker. Regrettably, the fastest way to stop an attacker is by shooting them center mass and perhaps killing them, but if they cease their attack after being shot, we do not kill a defenseless person.
Secondly, has the attacker not caused his own pain and possible death by attacking? I would not shoot a random person if it wasn't in defense. Has the attacker not killed *himself*?
that's awesome. he looks like a Dick Tracy villain.
I would rather not get shot, but at the same time, it's not all about me, you know? Anybody with me?
"I find myself wondering if our 'gun culture' were more pervasive, rather than the current state of things where some folks are totally enamored with them and others who vilify the first group, might the general level of responsible handling be higher?"
I do as well. Smallbore rifle used to be an option in gym class, now it's not because guns r teh evul.
The West Virginia state legislature is working on a bill to require that gun handling be taught in public schools, which I'm in favor of.
Only if you've a head the size of a planet.
Agreed, he probably is bump-firing, a modern day "fanning the hammer". Only easy for him because of his mass. Utterly inaccurate but it will keep heads down and hit by sheer statistical chance.
There are full auto pistols out there
Re: gun control: Of course gun control already exists everywhere. It is a question of how much.
Re: the American "constitutional" argument: nonsense, anyone who can read English knows the intent was never what exists now in terms of guns everywhere.
No one "needs" a gun.
@#41 Antinous: Or he could be mine.
@takuan
"No one "needs" a gun."
Or a computer. Or the Internet. Or a car. Or a cell phone. Or...
Should we prohibit these things too? You can do harm with these things too, and quite easily at that.
"the American "constitutional" argument: nonsense, anyone who can read English knows the intent was never what exists now in terms of guns everywhere."
Wrong.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
There's loads more. Anyone who reads the Constitution and thinks that it was meant to disarm rather than protect a right to be armed is wrong.
And remember, if you say that "well, the 2nd is an anachronism and doesn't apply today" then you open the door for those like Bushie to say "well, the 4th, 1st, and 5th are anachronisms since 9-11 changed everything."
...as a buddhist you should really avoid killing people...
Yeah. If you're already fantasizing about defending yourself, you've got a big problem. Violence is a failure. Sometimes we fail, but it's better to do everything humanly possible to avoid it.
It is poor science to look at a complex system with a ton of variables (let alone compare two such systems) and single out one variable as the cause of a complex effect. It is hard enough to compare two cultures in terms of generalities, but to then try to pinpoint one specific point were the two diverge is almost impossible.
Do Americans kill a lot of each other?
Yes.
Are guns used in a lot of those killings?
Yes.
But that isn't nearly enough to create a complete causation. There are most likely deeper reasons why we kill each other. Maybe we have more guns than most other countries (per capita) because a lot of us just want to kill each other? That is about as reasonable an assumption based upon the facts.
Trying to control a problem that is poorly understood is a very difficult thing to do, especially when passions overtake rationality (on either side). The same thing is happening with our drug culture (a culture that I sometimes enjoy, by the way). We've made most drugs illegal, and done are best to forcefully deter drug use, but it still remains a 'problem'.
I guess what I am saying is that I think blaming murder on guns is like blaming obesity on silverware. Perhaps it is easier to find evil/illness in an object than to admit it comes from us.
As for Gun-Toting-Buddhists, as far as I know Buddhists have a long tradition of discipline and defense. Guns are nothing more than a logical progression. I think I would feel a little more comfortable with a Buddhist having a gun than someone of a more reactionary faith (not trying to point any fingers here).
This is why I love Boing Boing! where else could you go from Fat guy with gun, to Buddhist self defence, to happy slapping? truly awe inspiring.
I see you skip over the "well regulated " part.
The world is rife with democracies that do not allow every person to go about armed at all times. They function well, no tyranny arises,people are happy and the gun industry survives,albeit smaller.
As for a gun is a tool; yes it is. So are cars, that is why we have driver's licences and traffic laws.
The fact is, you can live a rich, long, comfortable life without ever once firing or owing a gun. They are not neccessary.
@antinous
"...as a buddhist you should really avoid killing people...
Yeah. If you're already fantasizing about defending yourself, you've got a big problem. Violence is a failure. Sometimes we fail, but it's better to do everything humanly possible to avoid it."
Exactly. You understand the difference between violence and force. As a Buddhist, I disown all forms of violence in self-defense. Force, as I have said above, is OK in self-defense under the Buddhist worldview, because using guns for self defense is not necessarily violence.
And I hope I never have to defend myself with any kind of force, lethal or otherwise, because I'll have to answer for it spiritually.
#47 made me laugh the most.
@jlbraun - I agree with you again, I just find your exact choice of words strange. I think the key to this is that the unpredictability of consequences makes choosing the best course of action difficult - as unenlightened dudes, all we have to go on is faith, intuition and common sense. In this case, it seems to me that it is infinitely preferable to act out of compassion, simply because that sends an unambiguous message not to attackers but to all people who learn about the incident. Any other act will be interpreted by others in a limitless number of ways - the attacker's mother will curse you, Charlton Heston would compliment you, your mother and loved ones would commend you, etc.
Forceful self defense is an understandable reaction to an attack in the same way that panic and misery is an understandable reaction to death.
#38 A favorite quote of mine is "There are three kind of liars. Liars, damn liars, and statisticians." Your statistics are not relevant unless you at the very least also factor in the per capita percentage of gun ownership.
England and Wales have a much higher number and percentage of death by cricket bats then the U.S. There is a relative scarcity of said bats in the U.S.
Also does your gun death statistics include accidental gun death? Deaths when the gun is used in Self Defense? Death caused by Police Officers? Or just gun related homicides? Do those homicides differentiate between immediate deaths and people who die later from there injuries.
A one statistical study I've looked revealed this sort of error when years ago when two nigh identical neighboring counties reported those deaths differently. One county reported ANY death in a crime when a gun was involved as gun related homicide, even if you choked to death on a lollipop whilst waving your gun around. The other county ONLY reported immediate deaths caused by the gun as gun related homicide, if you survived the initial gunshot and died later it was reported differently.
Add to that the political implications of various elected Sherrif and other positions who may under or over report actual crimes depending on their political agenda. (Reporting is not universally mandatory nor always done the same.)
It plays merry hob with getting accurate number, and there is an entire subfield of Criminal Justice merely trying to find out what the "real" numbers are. Hard enough comparing the numbers between city to city, and you want to compare country to country?
"I see you skip over the "well regulated " part."
Not at all. Since you're so familiar with the scholarship of the 2nd Amendment, I assumed that you already were familiar is USC 10.311, which defines who is in the militia. I'm in it, and likely so are you. So we're both in a well-regulated militia, or a militia that is codified under law.
In case you need a refresher:
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
"The world is rife with democracies that do not allow every person to go about armed at all times."
Indeed. But our recognizes that the right to arms does not stem from the government, it is an inherent right of a self-actualized and independent human being that exists independent of government. And I like ours better.
How did you find Bowling For Columbine?
When someone tries to tell me (or anyone else) that something is not neccessary based on their own opinions of personal conduct I am reminded of my Grandmother. I has many conversations with her when I was younger about how it is wrong to impose your beliefs on others.
I do believe that we need to live with a system of laws that protect the public good.
But here is a list of a few things that many people find unnecessary based on their own personal beliefs.
Guns
Gay Marriage
Recreational Drugs
Premarital Sex
Sport Utility Vehicles
Integrated Schools
Abortion
A Free Press
Chemistry Supplies
Profanity (which I happen to love, and would miss greatly)
We could all live like the Amish, they seem to be doing alright. But I think I would kind of resent being told to do so, based on the fact that anything else is 'not neccessary'.
The fact that the Dalai Lama supports killing people (under the right circumstances, of course! Of course!) does not indicate to me that killing is permissible. It indicates that, somewhere along the road, Buddhism lost its way.
Guns are not computers or cars and to lump them into the same category is to create something entirely imaginary for the sake of argument. To what purpose were they made? To drive? To calculate numbers?
I cannot see the essential nonviolent functionality of guns. They exist to cause harm. That, not recreation, is their function. Making the argument that more people use them for recreation than for causing harm does not change their nature. If I call a nuclear bomb a pony and attempt to ride it around, it does not become a pony. It does not become a pony even if I convince everyone else in the world that it is a pony. We may not call it a "nuclear bomb," but linguistic semantics do not stop something from exploding. Guns were not created as recreation. If recreation was all people wanted from guns, then no-one would own a bullet-firing weapon and laser tag and paintball would be the most popular sports in the United States.
I think you can feel the power a gun gives over life and death, and that is what you are attracted to, not aesthetic beauty or sport.
@ Learethak - well, yes, I do. Can you accept that there are more murders per capita, and more murders by gun, and more guns floating about in the USA generally? The actual death by firearm numbers are, of course, impossible to accurately establish but even if they are +/- 5%, (a very generous concession to you, I would suggest), there does appear to be something of a strong correlation between gun ownership rates, murder rates and death by gunfire. As for rates of death by cricket bat, I'd guess maybe none in Wales, what, a couple a year in England, if that?
I know, statistics: a drunk supporting a lamppost. That doesn't make them entirely irrelevant.
I was under the impression that the Second Amendment pre-dates USC 10.311.
Oh yay! NRA paranoid bullshit propaganda on boingboing.
It's funny how the commentary went from fifty "ha, that guy is fat as hell"s to actual informed discussion. Decreasing entropy?
@61-
Some men wrote down some words a few hundred years ago and now their version of reality must NEVER be challenged. It's the law!
This conception of a God-given right to bear arms stems from a Christian understanding of the Universe. How does that strike you, as a Buddhist?
"inherent right of a self-actualized and independent human being"
Who says? I'd like to see the indisputable document these men were referencing when they laid down all the fundamental points of social reality. What was it called? Who wrote it? Where can I find a copy?
"And I like ours better."
Well, since you are God, after all, I suppose this argument is over now.
You know Beergood, I've decided that, for my own safety, I need to keep anthrax in my house. I'm sure you, as my neighbour, will feel safer just knowing that.
@songe
"Your statistics are not relevant unless you at the very least also factor in the per capita percentage of gun ownership."
My point is that one shouldn't be looking at "gun violence" as independent from any other type of violence. Killed with a cricket bat is just as dead as killed with a gun, so looking at gun violence independently isn't correct.
Secondly, in most of the countries on this list:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
...guns in civilian hands are ILLEGAL. Do you think that criminals will respond to a nice telephone survey?
And to put a final coda on this specious line of reasoning, the UN Small Arms Survey (http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/index.html) estimates that 50% of the world's firearms (including all armies) are in the hands of US citizens. According to nationmaster.com (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms), the US accounts for less than 9.3% of the world's firearm murders.
Lastly, according to the CDC there were only 789 accidental firearm deaths in 2005, or 0.7% of all unintentional deaths (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html).
Also, in the age group 0-14 there were only 75 accidental deaths by firearm in the entire US in 2005.
FYI: he shoots that fast because he rigged the trigger with a rubber band.
"Well, since you are God, after all, I suppose this argument is over now."
It is, but not for the reasons you think.
;)
"You know Beergood, I've decided that, for my own safety, I need to keep anthrax in my house. I'm sure you, as my neighbour, will feel safer just knowing that."
Fail. Arms are protected by the 2nd. Anthrax is an ordnance and can be regulated.
"only" 75 children died from accidental gunshot in 2005. "Only".
#64 KICKYFAST - I totally agree with you on the whole inherent nature of the gun, but you lose me on the whole
"I think you can feel the power a gun gives over life and death, and that is what you are attracted to, not aesthetic beauty or sport."
bit tho.
From the point of view of a recreational gun user I am drawn to the skill and science behind the whole process, not to a macho totemistic power. It is too simplistic to have such black and white divisions.
"The fact that the Dalai Lama supports killing people (under the right circumstances, of course! Of course!) does not indicate to me that killing is permissible. It indicates that, somewhere along the road, Buddhism lost its way."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
"Guns are not computers or cars and to lump them into the same category is to create something entirely imaginary for the sake of argument. To what purpose were they made? To drive? To calculate numbers?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
"I cannot see the essential nonviolent functionality of guns. They exist to cause harm. That, not recreation, is their function."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
"I think you can feel the power a gun gives over life and death, and that is what you are attracted to, not aesthetic beauty or sport."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
I wonder if the successor to the Cheney Presidency (or is it the "Bush Tragedy"?) will have the guts to put the whole gun control question to a real vote?
"Anthrax is an ordnance and can be regulated."
Not the point JLBraun, but then you knew that.
An interesting sub-point (is that a phrase?): according to some random essay I just read, over 91% of the gun murders in the US are carried out by men.
"only" 75 children died from accidental gunshot in 2005. "Only".
Exactly. And because this ranks so low on the cause of death rankings, the justification for banning guns on this basis falls apart - because if your object is to prevent accidental deaths of children, you'd be better off starting by banning poisons, ladders, plastic buckets, swimming pools, automobiles, and climbable trees.
if you intend to use "fallacy of argument" answers, please review your own first
Tak-kun,
What if we only use our guns to shoot out CCTV cameras?
There are already public safety rules governing all these. What 75 dead children indicates to me is that the rules on guns are 75 times poorer than they should be. If children are dying from the other causes you mention, you can rest assured people are trying their best to do something about it.
I can live with a handgun ban far easier than a ladder, bucket, pool, car and tree ban.
"An interesting sub-point (is that a phrase?): according to some random essay I just read, over 91% of the gun murders in the US are carried out by men."
Sub-point indeed, and a bit of a tautology. Men are more likely to commit most types of crime - they're stronger and faster. Because criminals in most cases need to apply force to get what they want, of course men are going to be more able to apply that force.
That really doesn't contribute to the discussion anyway.
If a buddhist owns a gun, I would expect that he contemplates the good that can come out of his owning it every time he looks at it.
However, since a gun is an inherently dangerous and scary thing (more dangerous than, say, a grapefruit), I personally doubt that most guns are kept around out of any impulse other than a sort of obsessive fear. There are many exceptions, I'm sure. I can see how shooting would be fun, for instance, and I do know that a lot of gun owners are obsessive about safety precautions.
"if you intend to use "fallacy of argument" answers, please review your own first"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
"If children are dying from the other causes you mention, you can rest assured people are trying their best to do something about it."
Even though I don't belong to the NRA, they indeed are trying to do something about it:
"What is The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program?"
http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/
CCTV cameras are to be destroyed with lasers ( a few hundred bucks for a good pen sized 100mw plus) or disabled with paint balls. Or bagged. Or spoofed. No excuse for guns there.
And speaking of the Dalai Lama - I think most people would agree that there are few peoples in the world today more deserving of the right to own guns than the Tibetans - and few people in the world who have more powerfully demonstrated the message of harmlessness than they. They captured the hearts of entire civilized world. What gun can do that?
A long time ago, I saw a British army firearms instructor demonstrate rapid-fire using an unmodified SLR (a semi-automatic rifle). I don't know if he used bump-fire; my recollection is that he was moving his trigger finger quickly, rather than pulling the weapon (as in the Wikipedia description of bumpfire). He certainly emptied the magazine with impressive speed.
His shots were also on target, which is probably not the case in this video.
I could make the argument that semi-automatic firearms / automatic firearms in the hands of citizens are not now tools that - nor could they now potentially be - used to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, nor promote the general welfare. They don't suppress crime, we don't shoot people in the streets after trials, widespread gun ownership doesn't stop riots.
It's the fact that firearms secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity - that clinches them, forevermore, in the realm of "No, you don't get to take away my right to bear arms and you don't get to vote on it either." If the US Government collapses or is hijacked by a fascist military coup or just abandons us (Katrina Aftermath, anyone?) we will need them.
Arms are the first tool for securing one's self, property, family, health and life. Allowing a government to take them away without specifically, in each and every single case, showing due and reasonable cause to do so - is unConstitutional.
@Patrick Dodds
Howdy Neighbor!
I don't believe that I ever mentioned needing a gun for my own safety. I do have one, and I suppose I would use it if I had to. I would rather rely upon my dogs barking to ward off trespassers, and calling 911. I am not even sure if I have any ammunition in the house. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't know where it would be, it's just I don't remember if I have any left. I haven't shot the thing in over three years.
I do find your anthrax argument to be a little silly. I realize that you were probably playing hyperbole for comic effect, but to equate guns to anthrax is stretching it a little bit.
As I said before, we do need to live in a nation of laws. Some things are given up to protect the general safety of the public. And it does suck for the people that have to give those things up. I just think that banning something is a very serious matter.
I also wouldn't be thrilled about my neighbor having a grenade. I did make my share of dry ice bombs when I was a kid (and adult), and they sure were fun. Fireworks are also pretty great. I just can't see any practical purpose or need to own a grenade or anthrax that outweighs the danger of an accident happening. If you could convince me that you were in fact safe/qualified enough to handle a grenade I probably wouldn't have a problem with it (but I doubt that will ever happen). But the margin of error for a grenade is pretty small, and the margin of error with anthrax is so small that it practically doesn't exist. I realize that I am standing on a slippery slope, but I can see a case being made for gun ownership. And as long as I can see a practical case being made for the legality of something I am not to thrilled about the idea of banning it.
Kickyfast has a strong point with this:
"I think you can feel the power a gun gives over life and death, and that is what you are attracted to, not aesthetic beauty or sport."
And I suspect that he is correct in a lot of cases.
I wonder if Mark knew what he was starting with his simple post.
Some of the above comments are just freaking brilliant - damn I love this site for the talenmt of it's readers. A fat guy with a gun - didn't know it could make me laugh so much. Cheers!
You really only need to fire one bullet, properly.
This is the reason someone like 50 Cent was shot 6 times but is still alive. If a guy is going to hold a gun sideways, he probably isn't going to hit the target.
Similarly, this guy fired 18 rounds, but is probably lucky if one hit the target.
"few people in the world who have more powerfully demonstrated the message of harmlessness than they."
When you are facing down the entire Chinese military, have had your guns stripped from you by force, and are living under a repressive police state, you have no *option* but to be harmless.
The "harmlessness" of the Tibetans can hardly be called moral or noble. It's more survival than anything.
of course he did
@83, JLBraun: ergo, you would have thought, they would have less need of a gun and it should be women who use them. Unless, of course, there is some other factor (insecurity in one's masculinity, say) at play in the mind of the gun lover?
Re: Tibet; they had ancient guns, few of them, were facing the entire Chinese army and were betrayed by CIA promised help that never came.
"@83, JLBraun: ergo, you would have thought, they would have less need of a gun and it should be women who use them. Unless, of course, there is some other factor (insecurity in one's masculinity, say) at play in the mind of the gun lover?"
I love when this happens.
Remember when I said "Gun control is sexist"? You just proved why. Men are stronger and faster - thus, removing womens' ability to own guns is abhorrently sexist. Disarm everyone, and men rule. Recognize even womens' and blacks' right to own guns, and an egalitarian society is easier to achieve.
And if any gun owner cared about the gun as penis proxy, they wouldn't carry one with a 3.5" barrel .355" in diameter. And are you saying that women gun owners just wish they had a penis? I don't get anti-gun rhetoric sometimes.
A real life application for button mashing!
Tibet
http://www.intotibet.info/aboutthebook.html
100! Count em, 100 comments generated by 1 fat dude bump firing his beretta!
Yay America!