We Don’t Want to Play Anymore

Sponsored Content

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About David Olimpio

David Olimpio grew up in Texas but currently lives and writes in Northern New Jersey. He believes that we create ourselves through the stories we tell, and that is what he aims to do every day. Usually, you can find him driving his pick-up around the Garden State with one dog in the passenger seat and the other hiding on the floor behind him. You can follow David on his website, Twitter, and Facebook.

Comments

  1. AnonymousDog says:

    Football is essentially a game of ritualized violence, something like warfare in a pre-technological society.
    Yet it seems to be acceptable for grown men to play football. Do you feel as superior to guys who play football as you do to guys who ‘play cops and robbers’, or the guys who go hunting(you claim) to ‘feel manly’? Your general tone in this essay probably plays very well with folks who are inclined to agree with you to start out, but I doubt it would change the mind of anyone who wasn’t.

    One more question: Do you really think the government would use nuclear weapons to put down some domestic uprising? Or even artillery for that matter? Just who do you think is going to get elected?

    • Regarding nuclear weapons, etc.: that is what I don’t get.
      So, you are saying the 2nd Amendment is outdated because the government has us “outgunned”?
      That is all the more reason to have an armed citizenry.
      -Jut

  2. Hey AnonymousDog! Thank you for your comment.

    I love football. (I also like to box.) I like spy movies. I like games. I just don’t like people carrying handguns.

    Thanks again!

  3. Laws should be based on facts not feelings.
    Tell me do people who carry first aid kits do so because they are eager to use one?
    How many of said homicides were commited with illegal guns?
    If your army is so good against an faction employing guerilla warfare why haven’t you yet wiped out the Taliban?

  4. 1] You say handguns/automatics will make no difference if the government decides to oppress us.
    That is a defeatist line of thinking that does not take tactics into account. The government is unlikely to use nukes domestically because of the fallout and contamination of the land. That leaves air superiority, which can be mitigated by terrain (see Vietnam). Tanks, artillery, and soldiers can be overcome by a dedicated population (see every modern armed revolution and coup). So, yes, an armed militia would make a difference in case of government oppression.

    2] Your entire article implies that handguns are tools to kill, therefore, if they are taken away, then the killing wont happen. You bring up a death statistic to support your claim. It was roughly 60% suicides and 37% homicides for gun deaths, with a total of 31,347 deaths.

    You bring up your own personal experience with suicidal thoughts as if to imply that access to a firearm would more likely turn suicidal thoughts into action. Access does not change the fact that it is a personal choice to take your own life, it would happen regardless of easy access to a firearm or not. You wouldn’t fault the Golden Gate bridge for people jumping off, would you?

    If we put that firearm deaths number (31,347) in context, from your linked source (Table 10, summary on pg 92), there were a total of 2,437,163 deaths, so that makes the percentage of firearm deaths of total deaths equal to 1.29%. If we were to take out the suicides and the murders (suicides would occur anyways and criminals/homicides do not apply, because by definition, criminals do not obey the law), we are left with accidental discharge (554) and discharge with undetermined intent (232), for a total of 786 deaths, or a whopping 0.032% of total deaths. For comparison, that is fewer than the number of deaths from complications in pregnancy (960), hernias (1801), and influenza (2918). Yes, preventable deaths are a tragedy, but that is case for firearms education, not a firearms ban.

    3] The tone of your article and the description of your encounter with the court officer smacks of fearful condescension, especially as you attempt to draw parallels with a children’s movie and video games to imply that gun owners don’t outgrow a romanticized fantasy that the rest of us ‘normals’ do. That they have some kind of hero complex like Zimmerman, tough guy complex like you portrayed the court officer of having, or some kind of mental disorder like the various shooters.

    “It’s simple: If you’re carrying a gun, you’re looking to use it.” Way to generalize, I can do it too, “If you’re Caucasian, you’re a neo nazi” You repeat that “people kill people” and I wholeheartedly agree, so stop blaming the tool for the actions of the user. The majority of gun owners are responsible and are PREPARED to use, not looking to.

  5. This is a really interesting piece, David. Obviously not all gun owners or concealed-carriers are nutso’s looking for an opportunity to fire – but it does us no good as a nation to pretend that there AREN’T nutso’s with guns out there, nutso’s who can and will legally obtain a gun.

    I wonder… is there any kind of service or hotline or something out there where civilians can report people who, I dunno, maybe shouldn’t be in possession of a gun? When it comes to the gun control thing, I recognize people’s rights to have a gun and don’t want to tread on those rights (though I agree with you, David, about the outdatedness of the Constitutional provision for this), I’m just trying to brainstorm ways that we might be able to separate the nutso’s from their guns BEFORE they cause harm – even if the gun was purchased legally. And I’m not saying some sort of service where I call in and say “hey can you come take my crazy neighbor’s gun away” but more like “Hey, this person seems a little unstable to me and I’m not sure s/he’s the best person to be wielding a gun, could you look into it?” I know that’s touchy, touchy area when it comes to the 2nd Amendment and all that but still, the optimist in me says there’s gotta be some way we can keep guns out of the hands of people who will use them irresponsibly.

    • AnonymousDog says:

      KKZ,

      Is what you are suggesting that the ‘Authorities’ should be able to impose some kind of prior restraint on a gun owner just on the say-so of a neighbor or acquaintance?

  6. This… this is a parody article, right? This is actually written by a gun activist to make gun control proponents look paranoid and shifty, right?

    >though I think if guys really want to hunt and be manly, a knife or an arrow might be a fairer fight.

    You don’t hunt with knives, even neanderthals knew that was a stupid idea and due to the limitations of spear like weapons they would surround and gang up on prey. Because the idea of “fair” hunting is nosecone. Hunting inherently implies an unfair relationship, a hunter/prey relationship. The wolf isn’t conservative with how many rabbits it slays. The common house cat has no concern about being humane with it’s catches. Humans are. Death by .308 is an almost instant death for a deer if hit anywhere near its “red” zone. Death by arrows can be minutes or even hours of bleeding out: with the deer running away but dying, ultimately being a wasteful even because some pansy legislator thought arrows were more humane or “manly”.

    >They can only amount to bad. If there is a handgun, it wants to be used. It has a purpose, and it’s not to shoot vermin or cans. Its purpose is to kill people.

    Jesus Christ, that bit from American Dad telling his gun to get up and kill people was supposed to be a parody of overly simplistic gun rights arguments. It should never have been able to be used as a legitimate counter argument, but I presumed too much of your intellectual capacity when I started reading.

    >Like it or not, this [armed revolution] is an obsolete idea. It did not anticipate a government with atomic weapons and tanks and fighter jets.

    Which is why the war on terror lasted just a few weeks right? In the very rare but ultimately hypothetical scenario of the US government being tyrannical, it would be counter intuitive to use nukes within the homeland. Throwing baby out with the bathwater doesn’t even begin to describe the economic harm that would cause. To enforce tyranny, you need a police state. You need ground troops. Ground troops can be shot at. Not all of the ground troops would remain loyal. They would use the guns they had to get bigger guns, to get bigger guns, to get bigger guns. This is Asymmetrical Warfare 101: Egypt, Libya, and now Syria are just a few examples of this.

    >I kept on walking ahead of him, but the gun comment nagged at me. Why was this guy carrying a gun in our safe neighborhood? I turned around and I said, “You’re carrying a gun?”

    I don’t not buckle up because I have a car with an excellent crash test safety rating and a road with no history of accidents. The day it become illogical to carry guns is when crime is 0%. When a group of “bored youths” decide to beat someone to death, it doesn’t matter that the town it happened in had a relatively low crime rate.

    >He said he was, then he lifted up his coat and pulled out a large dark handgun from the waistband of his warm-ups. Let me be clear: He didn’t point it at me. He just lifted it up, then slipped it back in, keeping it directed downward. Some people would argue this
    was “polite.”

    Because it was, you asked if he had a gun. He answered it. In Texas a common line of answering is also “oh what kind?”. So it’s common for people to show others in a safe manner what gun they have. By “large dark gun”, a description i would fine keen from a 9 year old, I’m going to guess it was a Glock in one of the larger common defense calibers: maybe .45

    Granted the fact that it was large, does not mean it is more deadly. No one was ever shot with a 9mm and then stated they were glad it wasn’t a .45 ACP.

    >Something snapped. I said, “Why are you carrying a gun … here?”
    >He just said, all matter-of-fact: “Because I like to.”

    Again, the “seatbelt” argument. When crime is 0 and all that. Besides, some towns have even encouraged everyone to be armed because it reduced crime. It’s arguably not a matter of why do people carry guns if crime is low, but crime is low because people carry guns.

    >My head exploded, and I did the only reasonable, rational-minded thing I could think of: I called him a “fucking idiot.”

    You sure showed that NRA shill what for. No kevlar vest could prevent the penetration of that sick burn.

    >Probably because I had just turned my back on a man I’d never met before with a large handgun in his warm-ups and who I had just called a “fucking idiot.” It was entirely possible that this man was one of our locally-grown Down Home American Crazy Motherfuckers.

    While rarely a good argument, this may be one of the instances where I can accuse a gun control activist of projection. You were suicidal and could trust yourself with a gun, so everyone else must be as messed up in the head.

    >I stopped, figuring I was at a relatively safe distance. Okay, so the man was a cop. My head exploded again. I said, “If you’re a cop, that makes it worse. You just pulled your gun on a civilian. I should report you. I stand by my previous assertion. Good day to you, sir.”

    Jesus, do you have any social skills? Were you “that” kid who sat at “that” table at school. He didn’t pull a gun on you. He answered a question in a non threatening manner. He presumed too much of you, didn’t think your knees would get weak at the sight of a firearm. Call someone an epithet, run off, then say you’re going to call an authority figure over a non-issue. I can see how this might have translated to experiences you in the 1st Grade.

    >There’s little doubt in my mind, in fact, that it [alleged racism in the TM shooting] played a factor in the whole thing.

    You mean even with the complete lack of evidence of racial profiling or racist or discriminatory insinuations in the case f any sort except for “creepy ass cracka”? Trayvon Martin is dead because he savagely attacked a man then threatens to kill him after he saw his gun. Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with George Zimmerman walking free. Im sorry you have to live in a world where self defense is legal, even against 6 foot tall, athletic, 17 year old “children”.

    >I probably wouldn’t have been shot or even pursued by George Zimmerman

    You’re forgetting the variable of savagely beating and bashing Zimmerman’s head to the sidewalk. Black had nothing to do with this.

    >I mean, why did george Zimmerman have a gun in the first place? Who determined it was okay for this guy to be patrolling a neighborhood with a gun? He wasn’t a cop. And he was even explicitly told (by cops) to stand down.

    Well one, he clearly needed it. He was savagely attacked and might have died or been put into a trauma-induced coma without his gun. Two, the state of florida and also the fact he wasn’t patrolling at the time, he was driving home and saw suspicious activity. Three, irrelevant. Four, 911 dispatch is not the police. Five, he wasn’t explicitly told anything, 911 dispatch is not authorized to command anything.

    > It’s simple: if you’re carrying a gun, you’re looking to use it.

    Well this argument came from no where and is completely substantiated by evidence. I carry, I hope to hell I never have to use it. Killing a man is an unpleasant thing, but self defense takes priority over your delusional concerns. Do you get more reckless with kitchen cooking because you have an extinguisher? Do you decide to go 90mph on the highway by virtue of the fact you have good insurance? It’s a precaution we are not looking to have to use. I hope at the end of my life my carry gun never gets any use in that kind of situation, but that is because I hope I never have to defend myself. But if such an incident arose, me crying about “but this is a safe neighborhood” is not going to change anything. Me having a gun is.

    We are not looking to play around. Self defense is not a game. Killing out of necessity is not a game. One would presume that this entry you wrote would argue with psychological sources that CCW permit holders have “little man syndrome” or some other nonsense like that. Unfortunately the summary is “I almost killed my self cause I was unstable, I saw a big scary gun and called a gun owner a dumb dumb head then thought he would shoot me cause gun owners are unstable like me, wah muh Trayvon Martin not saying it was racism but it was”.

    You didn’t even begin to argue the point. You just stated it.

Speak Your Mind