Return to the Hot Topics Forum

 o
Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
Thu, Dec 20, 12 at 20:33

Before I say anything, I want to say that (the collective) you don't know my heart, so please don't pretend that you do. Some of you would be sure to doubt if I tried to describe the horror and sadness that I and friends/relatives felt as a result of this week's sickening tragedy at Sandy Hook School, but you shouldn't.

I'm not a gun advocate. When it comes to guns, I'm simply pro-choice. If guns are not for you, I'm perfectly happy you've chosen to refrain from owning one. If you do own a gun, that's fine, too. There is no judgment either way.

NEED will always be subjective. We don't need gold rings on our fingers, or diamonds. Who really NEEDS a home larger than 1,000 sq ft, or a swimming pool? How does a family of 2 or 3 justify a Hummer or other large SUV? The fact is, those of you who own these things, or others another might find unnecessary, don't owe anyone an explanation. You don't have to justify your choices, which is as it should be.

This is a Ruger Mini-14 in .223 caliber:
Photobucket

There are hundreds of thousands of these guns in the hands of ranchers, farmers, varmint hunters, and plinkers/target shooters that enjoy the challenge of target shooting at ranges beyond the accuracy limitations of the .22 caliber rimfire cartridge. As long guns go, it's a rather innocuous looking thing, and there is one in the back window of half of the pick-up trucks or behind the seat of half of the cab-over tractors west of the Mississippi, and a fair number of the same east of the Mississippi. Please allow me some latitude in making the point that the gun is widely used as a tool and not often abused. A large number of ranchers/farmers consider this rifle their 'go to work' gun. Some may fail to see the need for a 'go to work gun', but they are probably not ranchers or farmers. Most ranchers and farmers are commonly considered hard-working, stand-up guys.

The route by which the .223 came into being might lend a little insight to the considerable number of posters weighing in that are unfamiliar with small arms. The long guns of WWs I and II were mostly used at ranges under 200 yds. When the US got involved in the jungles of Viet Nam, it became apparent that a lighter gun with an effective range of under 200 yards was preferable to the more powerful guns previously being used by the military. The Remington .222 was and had been a very popular mid-range varmint cartridge used by hunters and mid-range target shooters. Armalite (a gun builder) felt the ballistics of the .222 and .222 Mag were suitable, so they designed a select fire rifle around the cartridge. When they encountered feeding problems with the cartridge, they decided to modify the shape of the cartridge slightly. The result was the military 5.56x45mm cartridge, with Remington quickly releasing a commercial version as the .223 Remington - nothing more than a spin-off of the already widely used .222 Remington cartridge.

That a particular fraction of our population cannot understand how there could be a perceived need for a gun like the Ruger Mini-14 really isn't particularly important. Simply put, the gun is widely used daily for purposes other than killing or maiming people.

Here is the same Ruger Mini-14 as pictured above:
Photobucket

There is no functional difference between the two guns. They both utilize the same action (operate the same way), use the same ammunition, accept the same magazines, and fire one round each time the trigger is depressed. Most reasonable people would admit to the fact that the first rifle pictured is indeed nothing more than a tool that is used without injury to humans every day of every year by a multitude of owners. The second picture, as indicated by general consensus in some places, is ample cause for ululation and hand-flapping in extraordinary measure, yet there is NO difference between the first rifle pictured and the second "accessorized" rifle .... or the AR-15 style rifle associated with this week's tragedy, other than appearance.

There are a large number of other semi-automatic rifles in larger calibers that are used regularly for hunting. The Remington 742 and the older 740 comes to mind. This rifle is available in calibers far more lethal than the .223 Remington (.243, .280, 6mm, 30-06, .308). These calibers, widely available and widely used, would be far more deadly than the lesser .223. If scary-looking guns like the AR-15 and similar are banned because of the emotional response their appearance elicits, there is nothing to stop anyone intent on evil from picking up any one of a multitude of even more deadly substitutes.

Most of you feel that people who want to own guns, and particularly the scary looking ones, are paranoid. They think gun owners are ill-prepared to react to the threat of deadly force. That you have never encountered someone intent on implementing the threat, is not a good reason to conclude there will never BE a threat. If ever there is, I guarantee you'll wish you had the wherewithal to take control of the situation or at least have the means to defend your life or the life of innocents.

With the number of young people between the ages of 16-30 out of work, and with drug use among this group escalating at a dizzying rate, plus our other societal woes, it's a near certainty that violent crime will touch a loved one or someone whose well-being you value highly within the next several years. You can deal with the problem of crime by convincing yourself that you live/work/travel in your own "crime-free" zone(s), but all that does is increase the shock when you finally figure out criminals do not conduct themselves according to your imaginings. When touched by violence, some of you will reevaluate your positions. This I know with a great degree of certainty, because as a concealed weapons instructor and someone certified to teach a variety of firearms disciplines, I've heard the "I used to be soo against guns ...." story more times than I can count. Being victimized or closely associated with victimization changes perceptions.

Doctors, attorneys, business owners, night shifters, mothers, grandmothers, the young, the old, ..... people from all walks of life and from all political persuasions aren't exhibiting paranoia when they reason it's prudent to have the ability to legally protect their lives and property - they're simply trying to prepare themselves for potentialities many refuse to recognize as threats, and acknowledging that they don't have a porthole through which they might view the future.

We don't fault the lion for his fangs, the eagle for his talons, the wolverine for his 100 lbs of ferocity packed into a 45 lb body, or the bee for its sting - yet we fault a human being for wanting an advantage when it comes to defending himself. There are a lot of reasons people feel we should do away with guns, and a lot of reasons people feel they need them. In the end, a gun, any gun, is capable of no evil on its own. A gun can only be MADE to do evil when it's the tool used as an extension of a person's will to do evil. Knife, ball bat, hammer, poison ..... can all wreak the same havoc if the violator is determined enough.

I don't feel the need to defend or justify what I said, and I'm sure what I said will get hammered. I'm not a coward that posts what to this forum will be a controversial view and then heads for the hills, but that there are multiple threads all addressing the same horrific tragedy is enough proof that emotions currently run so high that reason is being forced to the rear, so I may opt out of additional commentary. It will be interesting to see if those who in the past have exhibited a strong bent against hate-speech will try their best to avoid it and put reason at the forefront in its stead.

Al


This post was edited by tapla on Thu, Dec 20, 12 at 20:36


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

"Who really NEEDS a home larger than 1,000 sq ft, or a swimming pool? How does a family of 2 or 3 justify a Hummer or other large SUV? The fact is, those of you who own these things, or others another might find unnecessary, don't owe anyone an explanation. You don't have to justify your choices, which is as it should be."

NO. We live in communities, family, neighborhood, town, city, etc. We are all responsible to each other for the well-being of our community and as such our actions, choices, must be justified. And that's how it should be. Choices that harm the community are not justifiable and the community has a right to sanction it's members who harm the well-being of the community -- it's called a civil society with laws and order.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

It seems odd to me that you would show your Mini-14 without the clip in. It seems to make it appear more innocuous.

"and there is one in the back window of half of the pick-up trucks or behind the seat of half of the cab-over tractors west of the Mississippi, and a fair number of the same east of the Mississippi."

Why wouldn't they choose a more accurate rifle?


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

"That you have never encountered someone intent on implementing the threat, is not a good reason to conclude there will never BE a threat. If ever there is, I guarantee you'll wish you had the wherewithal to take control of the situation or at least have the means to defend your life or the life of innocents."

I say it's overly presumptuous of you to guarantee anything about what others will think or do. Guarantee what you would like about yourself...don't bother thinking you can speak for me.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

it's a near certainty that violent crime will touch a loved one or someone whose well-being you value highly within the next several years.

Not in three generations.

We're much more likely to be hurt by unsafe drivers or an earthquake. I've had break-ins, but I wasn't home, and I certainly wouldn't even consider shooting someone over material possessions.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Thu, Dec 20, 12 at 21:38

Even if someone chooses to own a fully automatic machine gun, after meeting the appropriate requirements, how does that harm or threaten the community? There is only the potential to harm the community if I break the law or do something stupid, for which I should be held legally accountable. As a reasonable man, that's extremely unlikely to happen. Trying to eliminate every potentiality that might affect the community is the same as playing the never ending 'what if' game. Today, more than 100 million lawful gun owners harmed or threatened no one.

There is also the potential for good. If it ever came to the point where someone needed a firearm to repel lethal force, they would be doing themselves and the community a service. Additionally, the fact that the potential for almost any person to have a firearm in their possession is a very large deterrent to criminals. Can you imagine how many more criminals there would be and how much more violent crime if criminals knew they could strike anywhere with the assurance of having superior force?

Frank - they're not my guns. I chose a picture sans clip because my intent was to illustrate how deceptive appearances can be. The Mini-14 isn't particularly accurate. I can only guess that most people buy them because they don't break and they are relatively inexpensive to shoot.

Al


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

'Frank - they're not my guns. I chose a picture sans clip because my intent was to illustrate how deceptive appearances can be. The Mini-14 isn't particularly accurate. I can only guess that most people buy them because they don't break and they are relatively inexpensive to shoot."

I gotcha. I will admit that I shoot a 10/22 and I love it. I just remember watching coyote hunters in my area pop off a bunch of shots in a row with a Mini-14 indiscriminately. Then someone who actually knew how to shoot would shoot a bolt-action.

An aside: I hate predator hunting.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Thu, Dec 20, 12 at 22:24

JMC - allow me to rephrase. I can't imagine a situation in which anyone other than someone with a death wish wouldn't wish for the means with which to repel lethal force when when confronted with it. Cell phones and wishing real hard are unlikely to provide anything remedial. You can deny that you might not wish for the means with which to preserve the self here, but a moment's reflection on how strongly we are girded with the will to survive belies that idea. I do apologize for imagining that you would not be different in that regard.

Nancy - Michigan adheres to a Castle Doctrine, which essentially means that as long as a person is in his home he has no obligation to retreat from a threat. Unless there would be overwhelming evidence that the person posed no threat, the homeowner would be justified in using whatever force necessary to repel the threat.

The trouble with saying that you would never shoot someone over belongings or material damage is, you have to take the giant leap of presuming what the intruder's intent might be. It's generally safer to assume that someone entering your home by breaking or force is intent on doing great harm, than it is to assume he's just going to borrow a few dollars or your TV and be on his way. If we knew robbery was the only motive, most reasonable people would refrain from using lethal force, even if justified by law, but I suppose there is little point in pondering whether we would or wouldn't shoot an intruder if we know we aren't going to be armed.

Personally, I would immediately shoot any uninvited intruder that had a gun and that I perceived to have ill intent - without hesitation. My life and my family's life mean too much to me to act in any other manner when the means to defend are at hand. Any intruder without a gun would be required to retreat immediately with the command, "Get out! I have a gun and I will shoot you! The police are on their way!" Any advance after that command would be a poor choice.

Al

This post was edited by tapla on Thu, Dec 20, 12 at 22:27


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

In your OP, you stated that you were not a gun advocate but were only pro- choice.

My, what a quick change in just a few posts!


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

tapla, I read your post and I understand your position
from your point of perception.

This is why so many are having such a hard time right now
and this is such a hot topic.

My voice of reason tells me we have to work on a solution.
I understand the need for protection in the home in this day and time. For some.
Is there an answer ?
What do you suggest??


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Thu, Dec 20, 12 at 22:58

I'm not advocating for or against guns. If you don't wish to own them for any reason, I'm good with that. No matter what your feelings are about guns, I'm good with it. It doesn't matter whether or not I think it would be prudent for you to own a gun and learn to be proficient with it because that is a deeply personal decision. There are many people that should NOT own a gun for self protection.

I'm sorry if it makes you uncomfortable seeing this issue through someone else's eyes. Pro-choice means I'm fine with whatever you decide insofar as what is appropriate for you in regard to gun ownership. It doesn't mean that I'm fine with someone else making that decision for me. That decision is as deeply personal to me as your decision to make your feelings known here.

Al


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Al, I'll repeat again -- I'm in far more danger from unsafe drivers, drunk drivers, crazy down-hill skateboarders, and earthquakes than home intruders. My time is better spent with museum gel, making sure bookcases are anchored to walls, and cabinets are secured than planning what to do if someone tries to enter my home.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Tapla, I assume that your pro-choice extends to abortion and gay marriage. Right? Or are you one of those people whose beliefs miraculously mirror that of the Republican party?


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

frank....you are assuming....that gets people in trouble
sometime.

Tapla could very well be a Democrat.
My cousin Daniel is a big time Democrat and believes in
hunting and does have guns.

Gun-ownership does not have a political side.

Same as Aides does not discriminate.
And idiots do not have a political side.

When someone disagrees with your point of view that
doesn't mean they are from "the enemy camp".

:) My gosh Frank...I just sounded like my mother!!!! lol


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Frank, that's how one derails a thread. The OP is "Gun Choices - The Perception of Need".

Just sayin'. I'm enjoying reading this discussion of the OP subject. If Tapla airs his views on the topics you suggest, the discussion takes on direction that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and it's back to politics.

Just sayin'.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

"My cousin Daniel is a big time Democrat and believes in
hunting and does have guns."

If you paid attention to what I have said here, you would notice that I am also mostly Democrat, own guns, and hunt. So, YOU might want to stop assuming. I actually have complex thoughts that have nothing to do with political parties. Do you?


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Thu, Dec 20, 12 at 23:52

Citywoman - I really don't know what a reasonable solution is. In my heart, I know it's wrong to blame any gun for any senseless act of depravity, no matter what it looks like or how it functions. One side of the argument can't understand why anyone would think they need an "assault rifle". In every case, we have to hope they never do. The other side can't understand how anyone can miss the fact that "assault rifles" as a group are essentially the same in function as millions of other semi-automatic rifles that have been in use for 50-60 years without problems. The ONLY difference is that they LOOK intimidating and large capacity magazines are more readily available for the military style rifles. If by magic we could suddenly make all the scary looking rifles disappear, those intent on harm would simply pick up another more powerful semi-automatic rifle that has been in use for half a century without incident to wreak their madness. Instead of a 30 round clip, they would carry 6 - 5 round clips and the only advantage we would have gained is the 2 seconds it takes to drop a magazine and insert another - same firepower, or more likely an increase in the energy generated by the cartridge because most calibers develop much more energy than the .223 Rem.

Somehow, we have to be able to figure out how to home in on the troubled young people who bear most of the responsibility for these mass atrocities. Emotionally, it seems like a good thing to do, to ban this and that type gun, but we ban drugs and we banned alcohol, and we know how that went. This is a troubled nation, and the trouble goes way beyond guns. Drugs and a wide array of reasons for despair make life less essential. If your own life seems worthless, it becomes more difficult to properly evaluate or respect the life of another.

The gun crowd is so entrenched because they know what a slippery slope is. They saw what happened after tragedies like Oklahoma City and 911, and the impact it had on everyone's freedoms. Part of the concern is that lawmakers will slip language into a bill that for instance allows anyone that has ever had an antidepressant or any type of psychotropic drug prescribed, or answered yes to the question, "Have you ever considered committing suicide" to be disqualified from ever owning a firearm.

If you look at where the bulk of the crime statistics are generated, you'll see it's in the major cities that have strict gun control. NY, Chicago, LA, Boston, Washington DC ..... all contribute mightily to the amount of crime. By disarming the law abiding, we generate victims and empower the thugs who will never give up their guns.

The killer of these innocents is gone. He took the easy and cowardly way out by taking his own life. In a way, he got away with the crime because he can't in any way be held accountable, other than to be reviled, and that there is no one to be held accountable is infuriating to most people, and understandably. Right now, emotions are so high and everyone wants their pound of flesh, but it's just not to be had.

Setting sights on the law abiding gun owners is going to be met with strong opposition. Until we can figure out a way to get the guns out of the hands of the criminals, I don't see a solution. We charge law enforcement with the job of protecting us, and in getting a lid on drugs and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, they have failed mightily. How is riding in on a big white horse and disarming the law abiding going to make reparation for the mess we're in now? Reason tells me it will only make things worse.

Al


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Fri, Dec 21, 12 at 0:02

Nancy says, "I'm in far more danger from unsafe drivers, drunk drivers, crazy down-hill skateboarders, and earthquakes than home intruders", and I generally agree, but I hope she won't be too offended if I add the caveat 'but it depends on where you live'.

Frank - what does it matter what my political bent is. If it really makes any kind of difference, I'd call myself a classic liberal.

Let's at least try to be respectful. BTW - I'm pleasantly surprised at the o/a tenor of the thread so far. Thanks for not being too hard on me. ;-)

Al


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

"Frank - what does it matter what my political bent is. If it really makes any kind of difference, I'd call myself a classic liberal."

You are the one that threw in "Pro-choice". I just want to know how far that goes. You want people to stay out of your gun choices. Do you also want people to stay out of your marriage choices or body (abortion) choices? I want to know how far pro-choice extends for you.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Fri, Dec 21, 12 at 0:17

Frankly, Frank - it's none of your concern. I already explained my thoughts about the very innocuous pro-choice comment as it relates to this thread, and the topic of the thread speaks plainly for itself. We may not agree, but that shouldn't keep us from trying our best to be respectful and remain on topic. Thanks for understanding.

Al

This post was edited by tapla on Fri, Dec 21, 12 at 0:18


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

but I hope she won't be too offended if I add the caveat 'but it depends on where you live'.

What are you talking about?

I wrote of my specific situation, based on where I live. I don't expect someone in Nebraska to spend as much time worrying about earthquake safety as I do in California. I'm also on the edge of the tsunami-impact area, which adds something else to the mix.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

I have remained very respectful. Pro-choice, however, seems to be the crux of your argument. I believe, however, that you are the type of poster that will become more vocal as time goes on. I could be wrong. I believe that you are the type that is only pro-choice as far as guns are concerned.

"it's none of your concern"

Luckily though, this is America and it is my choice to make whatever statement that I want.

You stated that you are pro-choice twice. So, I believe that statement opens you up to questions about how far your pro-choice beliefs extend.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Fri, Dec 21, 12 at 2:26

I'm just not interested in accompanying you on the OT fishing trip. Thanks for the offer.

I will though, offer complete agreement and join you in attesting to the fact we're both lucky this is America and that your guaranteed right to make choices, and any statements you wish, remains a wonderful thing - even if it should be that we don't happen to agree. It probably wasn't necessary for you to call that to anyone's attention, and certainly not mine; but still, being reminded of someone's first amendment rights is something at which no one should ever take umbrage; so thanks for making that effort on our behalf.

.... well past my bedtime ..... good night.

Al


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Franks words:
Tapla, I assume that your pro-choice extends to abortion and gay marriage. Right? Or are you one of those people whose beliefs miraculously mirror that of the Republican party?

Franks words to me:
If you paid attention to what I have said here, you would notice that I am also mostly Democrat, own guns, and hunt. So, YOU might want to stop assuming. I actually have complex thoughts that have nothing to do with political parties. Do you?
********************************************************

Frank, I did pay attention....YOU are the fella that brought up politics with the Republican question. Not I.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Fri, Dec 21, 12 at 2:54

Oh - sorry Nancy, for the misunderstanding. I didn't mean to make you feel pestered. What I meant was, I would generally agree in principle with the idea that 'in most cases a person would likely be in far more danger from unsafe drivers, drunk drivers, crazy down-hill skateboarders, and earthquakes than home intruders', but where that person lived (not meaning you) could hold significant sway over whether the statement could be considered realistic. For instance, Saginaw, MI, where my business is located, has the highest incidence of violent crime against women in the US, and is very near the top (as in worst) in the number of murders per capita, so the statement wouldn't be as applicable there as it might be in Pleasant Town, USA. I had no interest in even thinking about trying to influence you to review your priorities. I get in enough trouble just trying to help people decide what might be best for their plants ..... ;-)

Al


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

I find the repetition of NRA talking points disgusting at this time, while Kindergarten children who were torn in half with an AR-15 are being buried. Actually it is a provocation as is the snide reference to "pro-choice."

There are not as many people in this country who carry or use guns on a regular basis as the NRA wants people to believe, not even those who drive pick-ups.

If you are looking for regional differences in attitudes about weapons, you may want to choose a N/S line like the Mason Dixon rather that E or W of the Mississippi. You'll find more rednecks in that part of the country.

Hunting is part of the past just like the attitudes of those who hunt helpless animals to kill them for sport. To don camouflage and sneak into a forest to kill a helpless creature is something that probably 70% of people would never do and perhaps 47% would find distasteful.

As far as the types of weapons, ammunition and ammunition clips, yea, we need to regulate what people can purchase and own. The AR-15 Bushmaster that chopped those precious children up is not the kind of gun that was around when the Second Amendment was penned. Neither is the kind of lethal ammunition that was used...the kind that stayed in the body and exploded into fragments upon impact.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

I live within blocks of a zip code in which the risk of murder and robbery is considerably higher than the corresponding risks in 48601. Risks of rape and assault are higher in 48601. 48601 is Saginaw MI, I do believe.

My perception of need is that I don't need a gun. I much prefer the freedom that results from not turning my emotional well-being over to fear of "what if". By the way, I'll be in Detroit next week over the holidays as well....yes, Detroit as well as it's burbs. No need for a gun there, either.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

I think that some guns are okay, especially for hunting for the purposes of providing food and when there is a legitimate need as pertains to one's livelihood. As you say though, defining "legitimate need" would probably be hotly debated. Did we really need to wipe out the buffalo in the process of settling the west?

I think people are psychologically addicted to a feeling of power and control that guns afford them; I'm not convinced that control isn't more illusion than reality. Even after someone has been the victim of violent crime, and decides to arm themselves, what is the likelihood that that gun will actually prevent them from being victimized again? At least they'll feel safer.

There are no doubt situations where an armed citizen prevents carnage in a public place because he or she was in the right place at the right time. As well situations where a gun owner defends their home from a violent intruder. But how often does this occur, versus the 100 or so deaths by firearms that occur EVERY DAY (yes over half are suicides), and there must be many more incidents of firearm-related injuries.

People routinely get really rich successfully feeding Americans a line of bull crap about what they need, and I'm pretty sure the profit motive underlies the proliferation of guns in the US to a great extent.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

"I'm not convinced that control isn't more illusion than reality"

I am convinced that control is more illusion than reality. That's perception, the crux of this thread.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

The o.p. looks like a gun ad. I haven't read much of the text or follow up. A picture is worth 1000 words.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

If there are no significant differences between guns, as you argue, then I guess we should just ban ALL guns, huh?

As a practical measure, I have never before argued that ALL guns should be banned, but I always assumed that the reason so many mass killers preferred the type of weapon used in Connecticut is because they are better somehow for wiping out large numbers of people--military-style, you know. But you are telling me that they could just as effectively or even more effectively mass slaughter with a number of other guns. If so, then they ALL have to go, don't they!

Personally, I think there are people out there much more knowledgeable than I am about guns, and I'd be willing to bet they can make distinctions between guns that can easily wipe out a classroom of kindergarters in a few seconds and guns that can't. But if you stick with that "all or nothing" arguement--that all guns have the same potential--then for the sake of the kindergartners of America, we will have to get rid of them all.

I would advise you to help make distinctions between guns and participate in the process of figuring out which ones to ban or provide extremely limited access to. Otherwise, you will just have to live with the choices the rest of us make--FOR THE GOOD OF SOCIETY.

However, banning guns is not the main thrust of today's arguments. You are using yesterday's NRA propaganda to try to fight today's concerns. What we really want are limitations with real teeth --that cost you big bucks or time in jail if you violate them. That I would call "responsible gun ownership." Of course, if you are so law-abiding and careful, you would have nothing to worry about since you would not be breaking those laws. No need to argue in defense of guns then. So there would be no need for you to haul out stale and mildewed NRA ideas that are mostly beside today's points.

Kate


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Heri, are you vegan? Otherwise, your constant uninformed blather about hunting is hypocrisy. When are you going to answer my question: how do you think crops can be grown without exterminating animal pests? How do you think that the vast regions of the country where deer are either extirpated or confined to small preserves got that way (where most of the food you eat is grown, btw)?

Al, I agree with your OP. Some people are much more exposed to criminal activity than others. I agree that any person who found themselves exposed to an armed criminal who is intending to kill them would suddenly become a fan of guns used for defensive purposes. That said, rifles like the ones you are talking about are not a particularly good choice for protection from home invasion, are they?

Really there are two separate issues in the gun debate: one is how to reduce the ability of a crazy person from getting hold of any firearm. The other is the right to own firearms for purposes of defense, hunting, varmint control, etc.

A reasonable difficulty has been often mentioned: for a firearm to be an effective tool in defense, especially a home invasion, how can it also be secured from a crazy person?


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

I just do not understand the NRA argument. As I said I am a gun owner and do not see how banning these types of guns that were never intended for everyday Joe will infringe on everyday Joe Second Amendment Right.

The Militia types are laughable. I wish them luck with their ammo when the drone is flying over their head. Maybe their pro-choice is I can kill myself quicker than you can drone me.
They can make a choice of what kills them.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

I'm not advocating for or against guns. If you don't wish to own them for any reason, I'm good with that. No matter what your feelings are about guns, I'm good with it. It doesn't matter whether or not I think it would be prudent for you to own a gun and learn to be proficient with it because that is a deeply personal decision. There are many people that should NOT own a gun for self protection.

I'm sorry if it makes you uncomfortable seeing this issue through someone else's eyes. Pro-choice means I'm fine with whatever you decide insofar as what is appropriate for you in regard to gun ownership. It doesn't mean that I'm fine with someone else making that decision for me.

Your pro-choice argument is faulty. Civil society doesn't work that way. By analogy I will now choose to ignore traffic regulations as I see fit. There's no reason for me (I don't know about you) to come to a full stop at stop signs. I can put a pro-choice flag on my car to let the traffic police know not to bother me when I decide it's OK to run a red light. My spotless driving record makes it obvious that I'm entitled to my pro-choice position.

I've never caused an accident so it's not fair that those rules apply to me. All of us pro-choice drivers have accident free records -- we don't need those regulations. Our cars don't cause accidents, people do!

Our community has a problem, over 80 gun deaths per day. We're on track to have move gun fatalities per year than car accident fatalities by 2015. The community has a right under the circumstances to tell you NO to your pro-choice argument.

The fact that you've attempted the argument in the first place raises serious questions as to your maturity and, given that you own a gun, your status as a responsible member of the community.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Heri, are you vegan? Otherwise, your constant uninformed blather about hunting is hypocrisy.

My posting about hunting is neither constant, uninformed or hypocritical.

Your argument is absurd, that is, if one eats fowl or red meat, that one cannot look at hunting animals for sport with disdain.
Hunting is a remnant of the past that will not be part of society in some future generation. That will take generations perhaps, but eventually our society will get beyond the point where people get a thrill from the kill.

I learned that killing for sport was ugly at a young age and have never forgot the lesson. One day a bunch of childhood friends in my neighborhood, perhaps 10-15 of us young boys, were fascinated with a BB gun rifle that one of our friends was shooting. We went with him on the hunt for something, just to kill, I guess. No one really knew. Eventually the boy with the rifle shot a robin that was perched on a phone line. It came fluttering down in the distance as our gang all ran up in eager anticipation to see the results. It was a pregnant robin, a beautiful bird killed for nothing. I reviled at the sight of it and questioned why, why kill just for fun? I found hunting and hunters to be creepy then and even more so now. Killing animals for fun is not a sport, it is a sickness.

This post was edited by heri_cles on Fri, Dec 21, 12 at 9:49


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

What does a "concealed weapons instructor" do?

I guess pimping for the NRA position on deadly assault weapons is part of the job description.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

so the statement wouldn't be as applicable there as it might be in Pleasant Town, USA.

I don't live in "Pleasant Town" and regularly walk through an area that is gang territory -- without a gun, dog, hammer, mace, or baseball bat.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

I don't live in "Pleasant Town" and regularly walk through an area that is gang territory -- without a gun, dog, hammer, mace, or baseball bat.

So you're the crazy woman who talks to herself and yells at lamp posts...

Even gang members steer clear of her. ;D


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

"Hunting is a remnant of the past that will not be part of society in some future generation."

You will find, within our lifetimes I predict, that your prediction is wrong. In the near future various factors will make it necessary to produce much more food in the eastern half of north america and this massive deer population will have to reduced. You can call that reduction whatever you like. I would say "hunting" is the term most people would understand. People who enjoy killing and eating deer will be accomplishing a necessary task. Since I don't enjoy the former and will not do that latter, I am glad there are others who will do it.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Fri, Dec 21, 12 at 11:30

It's interesting how many use insults and ad hominem attacks in the stead of reason. I actually watched this forum for several days before deciding to post; and my reason for posting was to offer some insight into what the perceptions of gun owners might be. It's also interesting that the same people who decry others for their insensitivity re the gun issue were exploiting the horror of Sandy Hook at this forum within minutes after it happened, and continue still. Apparently, any insult or wild conjecture is justifiable and accepted as highly probable or true if it is levied against anything that has anything to do with guns or people who don't walk in lock-step with a singularly narrow and simplistic way of looking at a very complex problem. Clearly, this is a two-faced case of the pot calling the kettle black ..... and for using that cliche I'll probably be labeled racist as well.

One important thing that concealed weapons instructors do is warn people about feeling empowered by the exercising of their right to carry concealed. It probably would have been a good idea for those teaching some of this forum's contributors how to use a keyboard to have instilled a little of the same restraint. That it's probably within your first amendment rights to be insulting and nasty doesn't mean it looks good on you, no matter how good it feels.

Friedenstag - your analogy is faulty. Your not stopping at a stop sign is clearly against the law - period - and you're not entitled to break it. Presently, if I chose to own a scary black rifle, I would be within the law - sorry. Our form of government is a constitutional republic. I have no idea what form of government a polite society is, but that, we are not. You need look no further than a few recent posts to confirm that fact. In my estimation, most of you would prefer a democracy, which is nothing more than mob rule. That way, if you could manipulate a majority, you could pick and choose the "rights" you'd like to retain for yourself, and deprive others of those you don't agree with. Very clearly, this is your wish. A constitutional republic is specifically designed so even if a group of vocal people who think like you are able to manage attaining majority status, they are still enjoined from trampling on the rights of others.

On this forum, you have a large number of like-minded people who delight in joining to flay alive anyone who dares to disagree with the party line, so I expected that the thread wouldn't likely be received well. I think it's a shame how people who feel and act as though they are so enlightened and PC can be so intolerant of someone who holds an alternate view. Is there really any wonder why there is such a significant divide?

I'm flirting with the edge of the mire here, but I'm smart enough not to follow you in. I like myself better when I'm being tolerant of the views of others, even if I do disagree.

Al


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Eradicating excessive deer population should not be a sport but a science. Shooting a buck for a trophy accomplishes nothing.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

The OP says she(?) will shoot an armed intruder to her home.

Fewer guns, fewer people with guns. More guns, more likely her intruder will be armed -- if only because he expects SHE is armed.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

On a gardening forum, its pretty easy to pick out those who don't garden in deer country.....:-)

As for the OP, I see the point, and the difficulty the question poses.

You say its the same mechanism. Does the wooden rifle take an extended, 30 round magazine?


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

I don't think we live in a mob democracy (conjuring up scary images of the "hordes" taking over!). We live in a Constitutional Democracy--which means there are rules, checks and balances, etc.

tapla, since your ideas on guns are repulsive to a number of posters, why did you expect this forum to embrace them and praise your views? Or did you think this forum is just an academic exercise in debate which we couldn't have unless you came along and filled in the missing side of the argument? And since you are here, we can all debate now just for the fun of it--as an academic exercise divorced from everyday life? Wrong.

When it comes to issues like guns, we are all too aware that this is an issue that impacts everyday life--as it did most tragically in Conneticut, and by extension, across America. Every time I think of a pile of dead kid's bodies due to a mass slaughter with a weapon of war I want to scream in outrage at people who say tut, tut, it is just violent videos that are the problem. No it isn't. It is a gun that is capable of mowing down a whole class of kindergartners in a couple seconds! That is the problem I want to address!

I just listened to the NRA "press conference" (actually, an advertisement for their organization) in which the speaker argued for a policeman posted at every school in America and rebuilding every school in America so that it is a fortress impenetrable by an intruder like the killer in Connecticut.

I wanted to throw up when I heard that. That is the vision of the land of the free and the brave that the NRA wants to celebrate. Barf!

Kate


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

I garden in deer country and am faced with local gentry and grad. school aversion to lethal force to drive away the dozens of deer browsing a formal rose spiral as well as any other plants the deer desire. So cute! NOT

I can't even put up 8-foot electrified fencing to slow the deer down.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Love you, Heri. Your thoughts on killing animals for fun is not a sport, it's a sickness. AMEN!

I wonder if Adam Lanza tortured and shot animals as his introduction to madness. I don't read of him having a pet. Maybe mom should have bought him a puppy rather than assault guns.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Marshall, if some of our forum friends could see what a herd of deer can do to a garden in one night. Let alone every night.

Ok, well if the NRA thinks rebuilding all the schools and putting an armed policeman at each one is the solution, let them lobby for a tax on ammunition to pay for it all.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Friedenstag:
The fact that you've attempted the argument in the first place raises serious questions as to your maturity and, given that you own a gun, your status as a responsible member of the community.

Gee, Fried.....I think your attitude just showed yours.
**********************************************************

Tapla, I don't know you and my opinion means nothing on this forum to some but I want you to know I respect your
opinion and I completely see your view and understand why you feel the way you do.

I am not blaming the NRA for anything.
To me it seems so juvenile to blame an organization for
the actions of the perpetrators.

I own a small pistol but I know nothing about assault
rifles and personally can't understand the need for one but
saying that......I have to say I had just never given
much thought to rifles or thought of rifles as a hobby
for many....... which I understand.

I also have hobbies just not guns.
If assault rifles were banned , it might possibly prevent
another massacre but I'm not so naive to think a person
bent on destruction is not going to find another method.

I don't have an answer tapla but thank you for sharing
another side.
My view is not popular but my attitude has always been,
its the person behind the gun, the bomb, the knife, the
plane, the base-ball bat, the poker, the steering wheel
drunk, the steering wheel texting on and on.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Friedenstag - your analogy is faulty. Your not stopping at a stop sign is clearly against the law - period - and you're not entitled to break it.

And you missed the point, again. Your initial premise upon which you based this post is wrong.

The fact is, those of you who own these things, or others another might find unnecessary, don't owe anyone an explanation. You don't have to justify your choices, which is as it should be.

The community has the right to require you to justify your choices and insist on specific behavior for the well being of all. The community did that in regulating how we use automobiles -- that was my point, and right now the community is considering how to best do the same with guns. And right now it looks like most of us want better and tighter regulation. You're "pro-choice" argument is wrong. We the people have the right to make that choice and that includes the right to change positions held in the past if we believe it's necessary for the greater good.

Pro-choice means I'm fine with whatever you decide insofar as what is appropriate for you in regard to gun ownership. It doesn't mean that I'm fine with someone else making that decision for me.

And a civil society means I'm fine if we pass a law prohibiting ownership of assualt weapons and I'm fine insisting that such a law will apply to you should it hopefully be reinstated.

When the ban on assualt weapons was in force you supported that as fine with you because it was the law? Right? If it becomes the law again you'll be fine with that, right?


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Fri, Dec 21, 12 at 13:37

Chisu - Fewer guns = fewer people with guns (maybe), but not necessarily fewer criminals with guns. Don't forget that reducing the number of guns in existence will not have a significant impact on the number of guns in the hands of the lawless.

More guns, more likely her intruder will be armed -- if only because he expects SHE is armed. Criminals prefer to enter unoccupied buildings and would only forgo the use of a gun when one is available for specific reasons. One reason is the stiffer penalty imposed when a firearm is used in the commission of a felony, the other might be when the intruder feels certain he has the advantage in force. If a criminal has reason to believe a homeowner is home and armed, it's very probable he will move to what he expects to be a nonconfrontational target, after all, criminals don't want to risk being shot. The number of guns in the hands of lawful owners won't significantly increase the likelihood that an intruder would be armed, and it won't change the number of guns in the possession of criminals. I WOULD expect that it might increase the number of crimes committed in unoccupied dwellings or in dwellings in which the advantage of superior force is known in advance to favor the criminal.

Dublinkay - I didn't say we live under democratic rule. I said our form of government is a constitutional republic. Democracies fail because once any notable prosperity is realized the citizens have always voted themselves bounties from the public treasuries, simply because they can. In a democracy, when it's 4 against 5, the 4 always loses, but a constitutional republic protects the rights of the 4 from being violated by the 5 by recognizing that certain rights are unalienable. See below.

Al

Here is a link that might be useful: Republic


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by rilie Z5 Eastern Canada (My Page) on
    Fri, Dec 21, 12 at 14:03

*I learned that killing for sport was ugly at a young age*

And factory farming is oh so pretty.... are you vegetarian/vegan or not? Hunting for food using a rifle and your own hands is a "sickness", but the torturous and cruel treatment of factory farmed animals isn't??

*eventually our society will get beyond the point where people get a thrill from the kill"

If you're eating meat, someone killed an animal. And if that that animal was factory raised, it was probably a pretty horrific death. Make your robin story look like a fairy tale.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

When armed police provide the protection and farmers far away the sustenance, it is real easy to have the zero-violence zero-harm attitude. A little too easy.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

If you're eating meat, someone killed an animal. And if that that animal was factory raised, it was probably a pretty horrific death.

Meat processing plants raise and kill animals to produce meat for public consumption and profit for their business.They don't get off on it like the weekend warrior/creep who dresses up in camouflage to shoot an animal.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

I didn't say we live under democratic rule. I said our form of government is a constitutional republic.

I know you didn't say it. I SAID IT! I live under a CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY-which is just another way of saying it is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC-- since our government includes BOTH. It is the CONSTITUTION that makes the difference, and the Constitution applies to both the democratic aspects and the republican aspects.

My point was that you are creating a false division by implying a democracy has no relation to our Constitution and therefore degenerates into mob rule. If you study your history, the founding fathers put in all sorts of checks and balances so that democracy would not become mob rule. They also put in all sorts of checks and balances so that republican states rights can't take over and become little dictatorships. All those checks and balances are detailed in our country's founding documents.

Yes, I know your t-party type believes only republics are constitutional. I'm also telling you that you can believe that only by totally distorting what a democracy is in our country--a Constitutional democracy--same rights and restrictions as a Constitutional republic has.

Kate


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

I AM a vegetarian, since age 19, that would be 34 years, and I have no problem with people hunting for food - as long as they are trained and properly licensed, and they are skilled enough to kill the animal humanely. In fact, just like growing a garden, I think it's admirable that hunters are self-sufficient, providing themselves and their families with healthy and economical choices - excellent!

People who kill animals because they are sadistic and cruel, for a thrill, or to feel like they're oh-so-powerful because they are using a freakin' firearm against an animal are sick and pathetic. I consider them animals with 2 legs.

The current meat industry in the US with it's inhumane CAFOs and total disregard for the suffering of sentient creatures is disgusting!!


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Fri, Dec 21, 12 at 14:46

Friedenstag - "The fact is, those of you who own these things, or others another might find unnecessary, don't owe anyone an explanation. You don't have to justify your choices, which is as it should be."

Stop me when I'm wrong - It IS a fact that those of you who lawfully own these things (big houses, big vehicles, expensive jewelry, swimming pools - things that many may perceive as 'unnecessary') do not owe me, or anyone else an explanation as to why you own them. That is how it should be.

If you don't agree, then please provide an explanation immediately that clearly states your justification for owning any one or more of these things, because obviously you owe me one. How silly of me would that be if I was serious?

If new laws are passed, there is no question that I will be forced to comply with them, and I'll explain to others why they must too comply. I won't like it, but I would comply. The reason I won't like it is, I am about as far from a threat to society as you can get. Many of you are horrified because you think I represent the worst of gun owners because I have a voice, but I'm one of the guys preaching safety and pounding restraint into people's heads so everyone is safer. Someone has to train these people, and the NRA that everyone despises is instrumental in training people who train people.

Al


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by kwoods Cold z7 Long Is (My Page) on
    Fri, Dec 21, 12 at 15:35

I don't understand this line of argument considering Adam Lanza's mother was the first to be murdered and she was a gun owner, exercising her 2nd amendment rights, armed to the teeth with automatic weapons. It seems she herself was "no threat to society". Her guns were still used to murder and they don't seem to have protected her sufficiently from violence. How can the rest of us be assured the same would not happen with your guns Al? Your word? We need better protections than that considering what happened in CT.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

I wish Cheney was here shooting deer. Presuming we could have a head's up so we could all stay inside that day....


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

The apathy of those not exercising a particular right over the restriction of that right is shocking to me. And the related inability to extrapolate that if rights they're not exercising can be restricted, so could the ones they are.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by kwoods Cold z7 Long Is (My Page) on
    Fri, Dec 21, 12 at 16:37

purpleinopp, I have no problem with your rights until they infringe on mine. 2nd amendment isn't inherent, doesn't confer an absolute right, there are already restrictions. Given context, present circumstances we need to revisit those restrictions and determine if there need to be additional regulations put in place to protect the public good.

Your individual rights don't supersede our collective right to safety.... and quite frankly LIFE. So, get your archaic interpretation of the second amendment out of my pursuit of life, liberty and happiness and we're all good.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Rilie...Haven't eaten meat in 30 years. I wish all meat eaters would visit a slaughter house and see what horror the animals endure.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

If you don't have the tools to defend yourself, you don't have the right to exist.
I exercise my second amendment right not only for my own safety, but for the well-being
of the community...to defend the lives of others who have chosen not to own weapons or who
are unable to act on their own behalf. My sense of duty to my compatriots is also something
born of the study of history. Tyrants ever seek to disarm citizens in order that they might
be made into subjects, and that is something that must not be allowed to happen to a People
who espouse Liberty and Justice. There was a time, not too long ago, when men, women, and children
were murdered and burned in ovens....all for the crime of having Jewish blood. My family came
through those fires of holocaust, and we will not let that happen again.

All evidence supports the fact that gun violence is less in areas where more people are armed;
and gun violence is highest in areas where guns are most heavily restricted.


Josh


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

God help you all.......


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by kwoods Cold z7 Long Is (My Page) on
    Fri, Dec 21, 12 at 17:46

"If you don't have the tools to defend yourself, you don't have the right to exist."

Ok, that attitude right there is why I don't want some people owning a gun.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Because you're afraid of burning your finger you would deny me the matches to light my stove?
If you don't trust yourself with the responsibility of a firearm, don't own one. Let those of us
with a well-developed sense of duty and obligation to Humanity handle the heavy lifting for you.


Josh


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

If you kill a family member of mine and the 5th amendment allows you to be silent about it, I might feel that my rights were infringed, my right to justice. Would I have cause to call for the repeal of the 5th?


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Josh, what does that argument have to do with a pile of small children's bodies mowed down by a military type weapon that can wipe out a whole classroom of kindergarterners in a couple seconds? That is what the current issue is. You are hauling in old-time NRA propaganda and arguments that have nothing to do with the current situation. You have heard about the mass slaughter in Connecticut, haven't you? Please address it--not yesterday's NRA talking points that have nothing to do with this situation.

Come on--get up to date. (Which is to say that we are not impressed with what a great NRA "hero" you are--though obviously you are.)

Kate


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Posted by greenman28 NorCal 7b/8a (My Page) on
Fri, Dec 21, 12 at 17:55

Because you're afraid of burning your finger you would deny me the matches to light my stove?
If you don't trust yourself with the responsibility of a firearm, don't own one. Let those of us
with a well-developed sense of duty and obligation to Humanity handle the heavy lifting for you.

Josh

*

That's the problem--more and more of a smaller segment of society is doing the heavy lifting for those that are capable of lifting and pulling their own weight--but choose not to.

Those seem to be the most vocally judgmental of those that are doing the lifting for them.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by noss Zone 9a Lafayette, L (My Page) on
    Fri, Dec 21, 12 at 18:08

I have always wondered about people who would work in a meat producing plant and the way many of them treat the animals who are going to be killed and used for food. Those are living creatures. They will die. Some of those companies act like it doesn't matter how they're treated because they are going to die anyway. What kind of people think like that and how much trouble would it be to treat them humanely? What kind of people need laws to make them treat living creatures with regard for their lives? It's the mindset of --They're only going to die anyway, so what difference does it make how they're treated--that appalls me.

At least with hunters, most of the prey gets away and most hunters offer a quick kill because they don't fancy having to track the animal all over the place to collect the meat.

For me, it's what is in the heart of man in the first place. Someone who went out and killed a robin for the "fun" of killing something is bordering on cruel and also is immature. The one here who did that realized that a living creature died just because some boys wanted to kill something. I think he grew up some that day.

What about the adults who work in slaughterhouses? What about their total disregard for the creatures that are killed to feed us? Why would anyone need a law to make them treat food animals humanely?

I've heard that Native Americans would offer thanks to the animal for giving its life to feed them.

If a hunter went out to the woods and recklessly slaughtered everything in sight just for fun, he should never be allowed near guns. True hunters don't do that.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is foolish and simplistic. We don't need to toss the baby just because the bathwater is dirty. Knee-jerk reactions serve no purpose and when something like the murders of those babies happens, it's hard to think straight, but getting overemotional doesn't help to solve anything. There aren't any easy answers--There never are.

When I read about the elementary school murders, I was numb and filled with grief. I still am to a point, but now I'm angry. My first thoughts after I read what happened was it was too bad there wasn't an armed guard there who might have stopped it dead in its tracks, but we cannot be protected all the time, but why babies who were too young to have harmed anyone and had their whole lives ahead of them?.

It's interesting that the government was talking about banning guns before these mass shootings started happening. I'm wondering about mind control and subliminal messages put into those violent video games. I see the movies that are coming out--How violent most of them are. Same with TV programs. There's going to be a new one on TV soon about serial killing.

Young minds are more susceptible to evil things because they are young. Why is it people gloss over such things the kids are exposed to like that and think nothing of it?

It all starts in the minds and hearts of people themselves. Garbage in--Garbage out.

Why is bullying so rampant in schools these days? The kids get away with it. The school looks the other way. The bullied kids suffer.

I was taught to be good to people who were different, not taunt them, or hurt them. My parents taught me to be good to others, that they have feelings and can feel pain just like I could. I was asked how I would feel if someone hurt me and taught others are no different.

Animals will attack those in their groups who don't act just right and even kill them. The way it looks to me is that kids who are bullies are acting in an animalistic way, not human.

I have a cousin who is slightly retarded and we were pals when young. I could see what my parents taught me was true. My cousin wasn't quite "right", but he had feelings and thoughts and needed love just like anyone else does. And I love my cousin. I would have watched out for my cousin, though I was younger.

Don't get me wrong--If someone broke into my home to do harm, though I hope that will never happen--I would defend myself by any means handy.

I would never kill "just for fun," because I have regard and respect other living creatures and that special spark of life in them.

There are many others who don't think like that and we are all in danger from them.

There are no easy answers.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

"If you don't have the tools to defend yourself, you don't have the right to exist."

That, pretty much in a nutshell was the Comanche view of others, and the Hun, and the Viking, and all predatory tribes through human history, and even now, I suspect.

If they can kill and pillage you and yours, they will. At times. Now we don't have the Comanche, we have nut bars.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Fri, Dec 21, 12 at 18:35

This thread has just gone to la la land ... if I don't have a gun you are doing the heavy lifting for me ?

If I don't have a gun I have no right to exist ?

Do I hear the bird call of the wackadoodledoo?

The OP looks like something sent out in a mass email from the NutRifleArms folks.

The world did not end today, calm down.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

All evidence supports the fact that gun violence is less in areas where more people are armed: and gun violence is highest in areas where guns are most heavily restricted.

Citations please.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Hunting is part of the past just like the attitudes of those who hunt helpless animals to kill them for sport. To don camouflage and sneak into a forest to kill a helpless creature is something that probably 70% of people would never do and perhaps 47% would find distasteful.

As far as the types of weapons, ammunition and ammunition clips, yea, we need to regulate what people can purchase and own. The AR-15 Bushmaster that chopped those precious children up is not the kind of gun that was around when the Second Amendment was penned. Neither is the kind of lethal ammunition that was used...the kind that stayed in the body and exploded into fragments upon impact.

Ya know, I promised my wife I wouldn't get involved in this forum until I get my own laptop back from being repaird. But reading this revolting upchucking BULLSH*T was just too much.

Heri, you accuse US of politicizing this issue, but then you exaggerate like this for maximum emotional oolitical effect? Same old heri-- projecting their own BS on others. Like everyone that disagrees with Obama is a racist.

First, what happened in Newtown was an abomination against humanity. but no specialty ammo was used-- Rgular full metal jacket ammo was used-- not fragmenting or hollow point (as has been erroneously reported--0 there is NO SUCH THING as hollow point 5.56mm ammo)

As for the dying sport of hunting-- the reports of its death are highly premature and exaggerated. Also, it wasn't the AR-15 Bushmaster. In fact, it's the other way around-- it's the Bushmaster AR-15. Bushmaster is the name of the manufacturer-- like Colt, or Winchester.

last. one thing that scares me-- you all are worried about the AR's. Al is right. Below is a picture of 3 rounds.

Photobucket

The bottom (smallest) round is a 5.56mm-- the bullet used in an AR-15. The middle one is a 30/30 round. The top one is a 30/06. The top two are (now) hunting rounds (although both originated from military weaponry) What do you think would happen if someone were to go into a crowd with a semi auto 30/06 and open fire? With a round that would go through 5-6 people before it came to a stop. as opposed to that little 5.56 round?

I wish I could stick around to answer the responses I know that will come, but until I get my own laptop back (I spilled a full cup of coffee on it) I can't spend too much time here.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Demi, to balance highlighting points of contention, a confluence of agreement, of which I'm sure there are many others:

"Those seem to be the most vocally judgmental of those that are doing the lifting for them."

Bravo! Peace.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Why is it that a large number of criminals are arrested and found carrying a stolen weapon? Where did they steal them from?

How many criminal types actually go out and buy a gun from a regular dealer, then have that gun registered in their real name, address, etc?

It's easier to steal one from a gun nut that has a gun (or several) for protection.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Kate, is this your first pile of dead children?
Get up to date. There's a whole world of monstrous mass murder, and most of it imposed on populations
that have been stripped of their essential right to self-defense. I guess I just pay a little more attention,
have that extra bit of exposure to temper my world-view....something your kind could sorely use,
and be better for it, to boot.

Secondly, Kate, don't be ridiculous; and please quit your sophomoric attempts to pigeon-hole me.
I've never been a part of the NRA in my life. Those tools don't speak for me, and neither do I speak
for them. Do you really think that I'd blame something like movies or video games?

No, Pnbrown, my view is that when the Viking comes with a sword, let the villagers have swords, too.

Bill Vincent, Noss, and Demifloyd, well said each. You have your heads on straight, I can see.
Purple, I think you're in agreement, too.


Josh


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Josh, I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you.

But I will, if you want. It's the reason I come here, to be disagreeable.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Pnbrown, I thought, in essence, that you were comparing my view to the views held by various "predatory tribes"?
Did you mean something different? I am curious to understand your comparison more fully.

I follow that old adage, "Never pay the Danegeld." Never encourage a bully. Always fight back.

I would prefer a constructive back-and-forth dialogue, rather than dismissals and insults ;-)
Healthy disagreement can be good and edifying.


Josh


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

You are still trying to change the subject. A mass killer of tiny kids with a military style weapon that can wipe out an entire class of kindergartners in a couple seconds--that is what we are talking about.

If, like the NRA (I never said you were a member--you are "like" them in your deflections off the main topic), you want to talk about everything else except that fact--while doing your macho posturing to make sure I'm impressed with what a tough guy you are -- then you qualify as an "NRA type." Like you, they are especially good at the tough guy belligerent swagger while deflecting off the subject of tiny school kids slaughtered in a couple minutes by a legal military type weapon.

Take your insults somewhere else. I'm 70 years old and not impressed with macho NRA types or your so-called vast knowledge of the world, kiddo! Wait til you've lived a couple more decades before you start claiming such world-wide knowledge of life.

Now, can we get back to the subject of today's concern--mass slaughter by military style weapons in our schools and other public places.

Try hard to stay on topic. I know you can if you try.

Kate


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

You don't go clay pigeon shooting with an assault weapon. You don't go target practice with an assault weapon. You don't go big game hunting with an assault weapon.

Assault weapons are for killing people...lots of people. Assault weapons are for killing people in an efficient, effective, quick, lethal way. No more, no less.

There is no place in our society for this type of weapon in the hands of civilian populations.

I've written my representatives with suggestions. I encourage others to do the same. The NRA is NOT a level-headed mom-and-pop organization. Their history shows that they are an effective enabler of lethal assault weapons.

-Ron-


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Well said, Kate.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

(((HUGS))) for Kate, Valiant Defender of Our Geriatric Set. Josh, that sort of bluster delivered against Kate will get my back up. You do not want that, trust me.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Shoulder to shoulder! Thanks marshall -- and Lily.

Kate


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Kate, is this your first pile of dead children?

Well said Kate.... any one that speaks like that needs a good talk. I would put my head in the oven if I referred to this tragedy as a "pile of dead children". That is not immaturity that is just ignorance and ignorance is a personal problem. There is a difference between men and boys and a gun will not make you a man.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Sun, Dec 23, 12 at 0:00

"Why is it that a large number of criminals are arrested and found carrying a stolen weapon?"

Because they're criminals and they stole them? How much responsibility are you willing to shoulder if you leave your keys in your vehicle inside a locked garage and a drug-crazed thief steals your car and mows down a sidewalk full of pedestrians?

"How many criminal types actually go out and buy a gun from a regular dealer, then have that gun registered in their real name, address, etc?"

Would that be NONE? .... because they can't pass the background check. They buy them off the street so they can remain anonymous, which is why gun confiscation will drive crime through the roof - because criminals will be the only ones with guns. Who could possibly want to see a scenario like that implemented?

Kate - actually YOU are changing the subject. The topic is the perception of need for a gun. I don't mind that you're so far afield, but you probably should know you've been drifting, too.

Ron - because a gun looks all black and scary, and elicits an emotional response from some people, doesn't mean its only function is as a killing machine. As I noted in the original post (see 2 pictures of the same gun), the difference between what you call an 'assault rifle' and an every day 'go to work gun' for thousands of ranchers and farmers, is cosmetic. ALL semi-automatic rifles function the same way - 1 press of the trigger = 1 round fired. There are millions and millions of OTHER semi-automatic rifles that are far more dangerous than the AR-15. If you ban it, it won't matter to someone that is bent on destruction. That is something you might consider.

***************************************************

Actually, the NRA is very level headed. You may not like their message, or that they represent sportsman and gun owners, but their message is always calm and to the point. This thread, on the other hand, contains a lot of ululating and hand flapping that is more indicative of people who can't control their need to vent. Yes, a couple of gun owners have felt that need after witnessing so many posters sending insult, sarcasm, exaggeration, and ad hominem attacks in as their first responders, but it doesn't take a deep thinker to carry on in such manner.

Josh said something I thought was rather erudite. "I would prefer a constructive back-and-forth dialogue, rather than dismissals and insults ..... Healthy disagreement can be good and edifying."

A sign of an intelligent individual is the ability to listen and to try to understand another's position, even if the attempt to understand it is a preparation for a rebuttal. THAT type of person is actually worth listening to - even if you don't agree and actually never reach agreement. The people that just empty their head in emotional outbursts, are a BIG part of the problem, and a big part of the reason the divide between pro and anti is so wide and entrenchments so deep.

There is little doubt that if I wanted to engage some of the more hateful posters on this thread, that I could use their own words to make them look stupid, but that kind of hate isn't in me. I can't hate a person because they have a different view than mine or because they can't control their anger, but I can easily withhold respect and disregard their opinions. I mean what kind of person gets off on insulting another human being, or cruises the Hot Topics forum looking for opportunities to diminish someone?

A moment of levity - particularly funny was the blatant threat sent to Josh just upthread a couple of posts. I can't imagine making myself appear so utterly impotent as I would if I was to threaten someone with my keyboard.

Al

This post was edited by tapla on Sun, Dec 23, 12 at 2:10


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

What threat, Al? An when you cite a brief passage from an otherwise confrontational rant, expect a response in kind addressed to the ranter about the real message delivered in the rant.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

You're digging the NRA's grave.

And I'm with Kate.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Our new friend Al said "Actually, the NRA is very level headed. You may not like their message, or that they represent sportsman and gun owners, but their message is always calm and to the point."

I know we are all entitled to our opinions, but really...it is just as feasible that my opinion is that we'll be invaded by Martians any day now, but what are the chances?

Give me strength!


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

I'm not a gun advocate...

But let me go into some detail and explain to all you nonerudite what 'responsible' gun ownership is all about.

Stick to figs with notto.

-Ron-


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Josh, my point is that there are eras and regions where one does as in Rome. If one is an Anglo-american 19th century settler of Texas, one's chances of survival were greatly increased by having the most up to date weaponry. Some such settlers were sometimes, inexplicably, unarmed, possibly due to arriving at the frontier with a mindset based upon a romantic and completely wrong idea about the Plains Indians that prevailed in the eastern part of the US at that time. Many of them paid by seeing their families massacred. At that time and place exceedingly few doubted whether it was appropriate to be armed to the maximum, even though undoubtedly there must have been plenty of accidental killings.

My above example is relevant because there are still places in the world nearly that hostile. Generally the opposing sides are not so evenly matched, though, in numbers and will, and the vast majority of us are not facing that kind of risk. IMO, when the greatest risk is the remote possibility of a home invasion, then the risk of an accident due to having a firearm in the house greatly outweighs. I'd rather be murdered, frankly, than explain to one of my daughters why I had a loaded revolver in the drawer that killed my grandchild.

That's because we face almost zero risk of violence. If, OTOH, we lived in some place where muggings and shootings are an everyday occurrence, where the grandchildren are facing all kinds of constant mortal dangers in any case, then I'd be armed, you bet.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

My point was that at this point in time society is concerned about mass killings of young school kids and related issues and what to do about them, and your broad general approach that ignores (by your own admission in the beginning) the specific problem the rest of society is concerned about is a tried and true NRA tactic to deflect attention away from the issue society actually wants to deal with today. Instead it becomes some abstract issue about ALL guns--no connection with a specific social problem the rest of us are concerned about. Your whole topic, in my opinion, is "off-topic."

And I can't imagine you expect us to believe that a "pro-choice" argument is NOT an NRA argument. That is one of their favorites. I don't know if you are an NRA member or not, but you talk just like the NRA types do--so that makes you an NRA type in our book, whether you admit it or not.

Quit taking us off-topic or nothing will get done--as usual--about the specific problem of school kids being slaughtered by military style weapons in the hands of mass killers. But of course that is the point of the NRA style deflections--get everyone bogged down in general, abstract, theoretical, academic arguments so that their attention is distracted from a specific area where some actual action may be taken--ways society might "defend" itself, as it were, from the mass killers with assault type weapons. Changing the subject to the unlikelihood of a petty thief breaking into your house with a gun and an intent to murder you isn't any help in dealing with mass killers with assault type weapons.

Kate


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

There is no reason not to attempt to increase control over certain weapons, but to believe that will make any serious impact on the frequency of the shootings in any time frame shorter than decades is naive.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Let's not do anything until we have the *perfect* solution.

Nah, let's copy some other first world nations and ban the sale to the public of guns designed, manufactured and sold to kill people. It's better than the current situation -- for everyone except the buggy whip makers, er, gun lobby.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Pnbrown, thank you for explaining what you meant.

Marquest, you know me well enough to address me by name. Don't go putting your head in any ovens now.
And, moreover, I certainly hope you weren't implying that I should 'kill myself' for merely using the phraseology
of your disputatious comrade, Kate. If you'll notice, my "shocking" statement was a mere co-opting of the language
already thrown at me. To wit, Marquest: "Josh, what does that argument have to do with a pile of small children's bodies..."
___________________________________________________________

Alas, Kate, if only you'd put those 70 years to some manner of worthwhile self-improvement....
but never fear, for there's still time for you to shed these perishable old thoughts and to come
round, and rightly, to a mature and measured way of thinking. I have faith in your natural abilities
and mental faculty, and would rather see you advocating for the causes of Justice.

As it stands, I perceive the intricacies of this topic far more than you do, and have stayed on topic.
The Thread is about "gun choices - the perception of need," and I explained my perception in a clear,
articulate way.

Twice I've had individuals attempt to break into my house, and one time three individuals succeeded.
Thankfully, they were not armed, and I was able to chase them out of my home to gain a description
and a direction of flight for the police (who were of absolutely no use). You say 'unlikelihood' -
but I've had intimate experience with these situations, whereas I've never been involved in a mass-shooting
featuring semi-automatic rifles. With the number of mass-shootings on the decline, it is even less likely
that I'll be involved in a mass-shooting.


Josh


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Fri, Dec 21, 12 at 12:06, the first use of the word pile in this thread. Kate.

The head-in-oven thing, Marquest.

You two are "on the same side" and somehow Josh got caught up in it.

We need calm, thought. Not emotional reactions to misunderstandings or taking something out of context and blowing it up, especially incorrectly.

I'll repeat it too...

"a constructive back-and-forth dialogue, rather than dismissals and insults ..... Healthy disagreement can be good and edifying"


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

So now the diversionary tactics of choice are semantics and pedagogy. Okay, got it. At 75, I am sure I can learn new words and complex phrasing.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Sun, Dec 23, 12 at 14:00

Of course this thread has morphed into something I was originally trying to avoid. I started the thread, and the topic of the thread was about a gun owners perception of need for a gun. If I strayed from the topic, it was in following someone else to address a concern that only a precious few have eve made an attempt to address logically or without a measure of vitriol greater than any other part of the message. That, is an emotional and reflexive response that a large number on this forum substitute for reason - your 'go to' tactic.

You speak of your concerns for gun violence at this point in society and what I should be talking about (don't forget how fond all of you are of your first amendment rights, which you can thank a gun and the constitution for), but let's hear how you would address your concerns?? anyone? what are any of you going to do to keep kids safe when they return from their Christmas break? - tell me please what better answer you have to neutralizing a bad guy with a gun than a good guy with a gun? What progress are you making by reviling me, the NRA, and anyone else that hints they might not be rabidly against guns, and what you call assault weapons in particular? Does anyone not GET that most of the issue is due to an emotional response by people who are not familiar with guns that stems not from the function of the weapon, but its cosmetics? If a rancher owned the gun pictured first in the OP, most would nod in assent, even if reluctantly. Is it logical to think that if the rancher preferred the LOOK of the second rifle and dressed it so it looked like a tactical rifle, he's suddenly transformed into a demon? It's the same gun - same function, same capabilities - just with scary make-up.

A stark reality: guns are here and a part of our culture today. We cry all we want about whether or not that is a bad thing, but they are here. There are more than 20,000 gun laws on the books today. Who thinks one more is going to stop madmen that already have guns? - raise your hands. How many think that taking a gun from me, no matter what type of gun it might be, is going to make a difference? Anyone? Taking guns of any type from the law abiding simply turns the entire country into the same gun-free zones created when they were banned in schools and movie theaters. Whose idea was that? Pro or anti gunners?

I've been accused of using the NRA's 'talking points'. The first I've used in this entire thread is the one a paragraph or two above that asks "what better way can you think of to neutralize a bad guy with a gun than a good guy with a gun?" I found it when I went to the NRA's website to see some of its comments about this recent and very horrible tragedy. I found some interesting things, but first a thought.

We have spent billions of dollars to keep the president safe. Who knows how much more to keep the first lady safe, yet the ".... President zeroed out school
emergency planning grants in last year's budget, and scrapped 'Secure Our Schools' policing grants in next year's budget." <[talking point] Is the president' life more precious than our childrens? I'm not asking this question to pique emotions, I'm asking it sincerely.

We waste billions and send billions upon billions in foreign aid to countries who make it plain they are our enemies by their actions, yet we can't find enough for the kids. We have billions and billions to waste on wars we have no business fighting, but nothing for the kids.

After the Virginia Tech massacre, the NRA proposed a plan and asked that funds be appropriated that wouldensure the placement of armed personel in our schools. They suggested that the guards could be recruited from retired law enforcement, military, those with security experience, and said that they would develop a program to train the guards.

* The guns are here
* Lamenting the fact doesn't change it
* Banning assault weapons, even ALL guns, will leave assault weapons/guns only in the hands of criminals and nut jobs, making the rest of the population, and gun free zones in particular, more appealing targets. [Have you ever read or seen on TV a report that a madman with an assault rifle burst into a meeting or banquet of the NRA, Ducks Unlimited, Safari Club International, The American Turkey Federation, The Ruffed Grouse Society ......... and opened fire?]

If the NRA's suggestion would have been implemented, would that have increased the likelihood that lives would have been saved by now? Of course it would. Do any of YOU have that suggestion I asked about earlier that would immediately ensure hope for the kids? How will you deal with tomorrow's copy-cat - what's YOUR plan? It's certain that the next monster is already planning his attack, perhaps even weighing what heinous act might top the last and increase the body count.

The first reply will probably be, "The NRA's answer to everything - MORE GUNS". Does anyone have a more reasoned solution that is workable and won't take 100 years? Most of you have NO idea what the NRA does, other than lobby. They donate millions to all sorts of organizations [Like the Women's Outdoor Sports Association, whose focus is on ALL outdoor activities, not just the shooting sports], institute programs like Eddie Eagle, which teaches children how to react if ever they do encounter a firearm. They offer training in multiple disciplines (handguns, long guns, muzzle loading rifles .... they train range officers, CCW instructors - all focused on producing safe members who are familiar with their guns. Seeing the NRA as a mouthpiece for murders is a hysterical reaction because you just can't quite figure out where to properly place blame for the symptoms of a decadent society rife with lunatics bent on mayhem.

I'm not necessarily laying blame at what I'm about to say, but it is certain that our government knows that people become desensitized to the taking of life. During WW II, it was discovered that a considerable number of infantry were not firing their weapons when engaged. Psycological testing showed that med conditioned to shoot at bulls-eye targets were far more reluctant to fiore on a humsan being, so a change was made to include training that conditioned shooters to firing at sillouhette (of humans) tagets, and more recently that idea has morphed into widespread use of mannequin-like, three-dimensional, molded plastic targets; photo realistic targets; and actual force-on-force encounters against live adversaries utilizing the paint pellet projectile training systems. All this is specifically designed to condition the shooter to respond reflexively to the taking of a life.

Talking point: ["Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here's one: it's called Kindergarten Killers. It's been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn't or didn't want anyone to know you had found it?

Then there's the blood-soaked slasher films like "American Psycho" and "Natural Born Killers" that are aired like propaganda loops on "Splatterdays" and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it "entertainment." But is that what it really is? Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography? In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes - every minute of every day of every month of every year.

A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18, [my emphasis] and throughout it all, too many in our national media - their corporate owners - and their stockholders - act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators. Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away." [end talking point]

Given that intelligent men are being intentionally preconditioned to the taking of a life, how can it be that an impressionable teenager is somehow immune from that preconditioning when he sits in front of a video game screen and slaughters everything moving by the thousands with the press of a button. Isn't the age of these shooters telling? There is very little difference between pressing a trigger and pressing a button. So just how important are our first amendment rights? One thing we can do is stand up and say this violence is the equivalent of shouting 'fire in a theater'. No matter how weak you think it, a case can be mounted that semi-automatic weapons have been around for a long, long time without significant issues and that some people have or perceive a legitimate need for them. Who can perceive a legitimate need for the violence we call entertainment we're subjected to every day? If you cannot see a causal relationship in what I just offered, then perhaps it's YOU pimping for the "entertainment industry" and doing your sniping from behind the first amendment. Do you think the entertainment industry doesn't have its lobbyists? Are any so naive as to think they are for tightening the overview of smut, or have a plan to do anything, anything but line their pockets?

The NRA was instrumental in getting SOME of the gun laws passed we have now. I'm not pimping for the NRA here, I'm looking at this issue logically, factually, and unemotionally. That's not to say that I'm not horrified in a number of ways over the tragedy - again, I'll remind you that you don't know my heart or what my empathies are. I'm certain most of you would be quite surprised at how I look at the world.

So, let's hear your well-reasoned response, including a solution that offers immediate hope. Takers?

Al




 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

I am only interested in why since the horrific massacre a few newbies appeared giving long convoluted arguments for guns while saying they don't represent the NRA. This is simply BS. The NRA was silent for a week only to show their ugly face an hour after the bells tolled for the victims thus giving their minions directions to infiltrate every blog or forum on the web to "brainwash" the public with their pro gun views for the week leading up to La Pierre's insane speech. Ain't gonna work this time , boys.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

We have seen facts and figures that show there is much less murder from guns in areas/countries where guns are restricted or not allowed even for law enforcement. We have not seen such statistics for the counterargument. The idea that 'more guns = less crime' does not hold water in my opinion.

The OP is a gun instructor and like many of these discussions there is some focus on the details of certain brands and calibers when the bigger picture is what's important. Of course most of us probably have some bias for one reason or another.

As we can see from discussions and debates, I'm not sure that we are ready to give up arms altogether but there is no purpose for automatic (including 'semi-automatic') guns with so many bullets other than to take many lives in a short time. If such guns are not allowed then they will eventually go away or at least diminish as they are taken from criminals and removed from the store shelves. We are all much better off without them.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

I am only interested in why since the horrific massacre a few newbies appeared giving long convoluted arguments for guns while saying they don't represent the NRA. This is simply BS.

I got TWO e-mails this week from a local Republican state legislator. I've never EVER received e-mails from a Republican. Same long, convoluted NRA argument. I'm starting to believe this may be orchestrated.

I replied to the first e-mail. I said I would be working to see that he is not re-elected. Lot of good it will do me. He represents the Guns-n-God crowd.

-Ron-


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

I have a lot of respect for Al, I have learned a great deal from his series on container gardening and he makes many good points about the contributing societal factors.

This post was edited by art_1 on Sun, Dec 23, 12 at 14:43


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

We do NOT need calm thoughts and reasoned responses in the face of mass killings and "reasonable" solutions such as adding more and more lethal weapons into the community while advocating more of a police state than a civil society can bear.

So, Al, all your calming rhetoric coming from the depths of your compassionate heart turns my heart to cold stone. You just don't get it. Your criticisms of violent aspects of the mass culture are right on the money but adding more weapons to the mix of violent stimuli can only lead to weaponizing that wacko fantasy world.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

tapla, you make some valid points, particular the fact that the recently expired "assault weapons ban" was pretty much a ban on ugly guns, and one could still buy something made out of wood that would shoot the same round. As for all the gun laws, a lot of them don't make a whit of sense because they are so easily circumvented. And in recent years, the 'pro gun' movement has made major strides, Obama signed into law permission to CC in national parks, There are now four states that require no permit at all to carry a gun, and 35 states have "right-to-carry" laws that mean that unless you have a felony, you can get a cc permit. While some folks seem to think that has lead to a decrease in crime, I'd offer thats about as bogus an interpretation of data you can find today. Probably a far higher correlation with decreasing crime goes along with unemployment insurance and food stamps.

But what did expire with the assault weapon ban was the ban on high volume magazines. The shooter in Aurora had a 100 round magazine. The shooters in the Mall and the school both had 30 round magazines.

Now there are a lot of people, including a lot of current gun owners, who think that the wide spread availability of high capacity magazines, along with semi-automatic weapons, isn't necessary for hunting, target shooting, or personal protection. There are a lot of people who think thats just stupid.

Sure, there are some shooting competitions where the participants like to blow off a few hundred rounds in a few minutes, but hey, even then, you'd think it would still be possible to do that without selling the high capacity magazines like pairs of socks - mail order, at Walmart, any gun store.

Then there is the question of some 30,000 gun accidents a year, many of them causing death. Really? Well, there is no required licensing, training, or any requirement at all to own a gun. I'd think that having a gun around would require a minimum of training.

Then there is the question of negligence. In some states, if you leave a loaded pistol on the bed stand and a kid comes in, picks it up, and shoots himself, then -eh, not your problem. How many cases of dead toddlers do we need to have before that can be changed? How many times have we read about a kid who picks up a loaded gun at some house and takes it to school, blowing away somebody else's children? The mall shooter stole his gun from a neighbor, along with a couple of extended magazines.

Why can't we make leaving an unsecured gun lying around the house a crime? Why can't we make carrying liability insurance on your gun mandatory? Why not make trigger locks mandatory?

These things aren't targeted at responsible gun owners. They're targeted at the millions of un-responsible gun owners.

So it seems to me that there are some nation-wide steps that can be taken to make this country safer, that don't infringe on anybody's - who is responsible and careful - right to own a weapon.

And then we can also raise some taxes and spend a lot more money on mental illness.

There are a lot of ways to lower the incidence of mentally ill people getting ahold of semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines. Can't stop it all, but that isn't an excuse not to try.

Also, I think its a mistake to underestimate the disgust and fury that this school shooting has invoked. With that concept of 7 degrees of separation, there are an awful lot of people who know someone who has been involved with these things, and its getting personal.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

fouquieria:

"Assault weapons are for killing people...lots of people. Assault weapons are for killing people in an efficient, effective, quick, lethal way. No more, no less."

art:

..."but there is no purpose for automatic (including 'semi-automatic') guns with so many bullets other than to take many lives in a short time."

I think we use the word "assault" rather loosely. I suspect you mean "semi-automatic"?

In any case, when I was thinking about moving next door to Marquest and she showed me the picture of the dog like her "baby",

("My baby don't play. She aims to take them down.")

I realized that I'd be wanting some sort of protection if I walked around in her neighborhood and a gun seemed like a reasonable thing to have in that case.

If I saw this dog charging at me, or a crazed home intruder, you can believe I'd appreciate all the rapid fire power I could muster.

Sometimes a black powder muzzle loader just isn't enough.

no more, no less???

no purpose???

Hay


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Hay, would you feel the same if the dog was tan colored?


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

"Hay, would you feel the same if the dog was tan colored?"

I can only imagine what you're trying to suggest.

If I'm right, you don't want to hear my response and I'd find myself in Disneyland.

I'll leave it at that.

Hay


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Sun, Dec 23, 12 at 15:39

Lily - I got an email message from a poster yesterday thanking me for my approach. From what I've seen of this person, I would say she is quite liberal in her thinking. My reply was, I stopped by here to offer another view to the constant hysterical bashing of everything/anyone even remotely connected to a firearm. Multiple threads not only expressed horror at the tragedy, but also enjoyed something of a group maligning of their perceived fears.

There are often two sides to the coin. Perhaps the NRA remained silent out of respect for the victims and to get as many FACTS as possible before they started running their mouths? On the other hand, every anti-gun group AND the media was jumping all over the tragedy, using it like a club and doing everything possible to sensationalize the tragedy by repeating over and over every little detail, often even before the facts were actually known.

Mashall says: We do NOT need calm thoughts and reasoned responses in the face of mass killings .....

Al counters with ..... no need to counter that thought.

As far as Marshall's: "adding more and more lethal weapons into the community while advocating more of a police state than a civil society can bear."

That is two separate issues. The 'more weapons than we can bear' part is adressed in theme througout the thread. Our march toward a police state has nothing to do with how many weapons are held by citizens. We started our march toward a police state when police officers stopped being protectors and started being enforcers of the hundreds and hundreds of laws and regulations thgar are not laws but have the full force of law. Contributing significantly to the progression toward being a police state is the militarization of our police agencies and the tremendous increase in the number of law enforcement agencies under federal jurisdiction. Every bureaucrat in existence has to make rules and regulations that carry the full force of law, or ensure they are enforced by whatever means are necessary, just to justify his/her existance. Think about it before you go all nutts on me. ;-)

Who said I don't get it? - so show me where anything I said isn't logical or true. I'm marginalized because someone assumes I represent the NRA or am somehow a spokesperson for them. That is so wrong. If that doesn't work, label me an NRA-type, THAT should cover all the bases.

BTW - if you don't agree with how your representatives in congress are representing you, I ENCOURAGE you to tell them what you do and don't like. This country would be in a far different state if our representatives voted our will instead of the lobbyists - that includes banking, unions, foreign governments and the NRA. The NRA is a necessity for gun owners if we are to prevent a significant number of anti-gun rights lobbies from stripping the right entirely. That lobby thing cuts both ways. It just happens that at the time, sportsman's lobbies like NRA, GOA, others have been able to keep our rights intact.

I challenged anyone to come up with a plan that will work, or an idea better than that proposed by the NRA after Virginia Tech. All that followed so far is more bashing, venting, hand flapping, and predictions offered as though the poster had a crystal ball.

I'm certain that what I'm saying is entirely logical, and that is very bothersome to a large fraction of posters, as indicated by the types of responses. I invite you to reread my longer post above and tell me specifically what doesn't make sense to you. I promise I'll answer as politely and to the best of my ability to reason as possible. I don't care if you tell me I'm wrong, or even if you tell me I'm an idiot or worse. Either are fine; but when you offer these observations without the inconvenience of explaining why you hold these feelings, you don't diminish me or my thoughts, you actually erode your own footing. Al


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Here's my two old girls. They've been gone about five years now. The blonde weighed 145 lbs but it was the brindle who scared everyone. Sisters.

-Ron-


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

tapla, art_1 seems to confer a halo over you; as in "The halo effect".


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

"Hay, would you feel the same if the dog was tan colored?"

But, on the chance that I'm not right,

Yes, I'd feel the same.

Give you the benefit of the doubt.

Hay


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Thanks Hay. I have a fear of black dogs myself, stemming from a childhood incidence; that is why I asked. Otherwise I get along well with most dogs.

Now I've developed a leeriness over the larger bulldog/mastiff breeds after dealing with my neighbor's breeding program. His dogs know me but are just waiting for a chance to lunch on my legs or throat. I need a high-powered weapon to defend myself against the beasts. They are so big and fast that I'll need a semi-automatic with real stopping power. Hope the neighbors are not home when I am forced to fire multiple rounds into their homes.

Protecting home and hearth and kin against dangerous elements takes precedence over worries about collateral damages. I'm sure you all will agree.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Ah, yes. marquest's dog...I pointed out the legal problems she has with that dog, and...crickets.

The law appears to be colorblind in this issue, amd rightly so. Tan dog, black dog, lock that dog up!

-----------------
Posted by lily316 z5PA (My Page) on Sun, Dec 23, 12 at 14:13

"I am only interested in why since the horrific massacre a few newbies appeared giving long convoluted arguments for guns while saying they don't represent the NRA. This is simply BS. The NRA was silent for a week only to show their ugly face an hour after the bells tolled for the victims thus giving their minions directions to infiltrate every blog or forum on the web to "brainwash" the public with their pro gun views for the week leading up to La Pierre's insane speech. Ain't gonna work this time , boys."

I for one welcome the timely appearance of Al and Josh. We need more articulate folks around here. I fear I'm just too lazy most the time to put together a thoughtful and informative post; whether I personally agree or not at the first blush of reading same isn't the point.

This excerpt from Marshall's post is a good example of a reasonable response (Good grief! He's having a discussion..what the ???). He doesn't agree and that's okay. He's not having hissy fits and making a fool of himself.

"We do NOT need calm thoughts and reasoned responses in the face of mass killings and "reasonable" solutions such as adding more and more lethal weapons into the community while advocating more of a police state than a civil society can bear.
So, Al, all your calming rhetoric coming from the depths of your compassionate heart turns my heart to cold stone. You just don't get it. Your criticisms of violent aspects of the mass culture are right on the money but adding more weapons to the mix of violent stimuli can only lead to weaponizing that wacko fantasy world."

IMO HT has been much more intelligent since the arrival of Josh and Al.

Reading the intelligent, reasonable discussion points that have appeared from Art, Purple, Brown, and some other non-hysterical posters in response to the discussion that Al and Josh's posts have provoked is very enjoyable to me; no one-upmanship. Nice. ;)

Just my 2 cents.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

All things considered my vote is to reduce guns - amount, type, use.

There are some arguments or opinions that are backed with objective data, observations, and studies, and there are responses that do not consider data but 'just are,' like the same old arguments that come up over and over again about the 2nd amendment.

I understand this is more anecdotal, but look at a couple of facts that have been mentioned recently. Australia had many mass shootings, and then the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, and then restricted guns, and then zero mass shootings since that time. In China on the same day as the Newtown incident, many school children were attacked with a knife and everyone survived. You cannot argue with this stuff. These are facts, reality, while the pro-gun argument is based on 'what-if' and the desire to own firearms. We can go back and forth on this but if we want to reduce the number of people killed (with guns) then we need to reduce the number of guns.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Sun, Dec 23, 12 at 16:14

Ron - I'm the first to agree that I don't deserve a halo. I am, though, always willing to go out of my way here at GW to help someone who is struggling, and to do my best to see that people get good information to work with when it comes to their growing efforts. I don't know who Art is, but the list of thank yous I've received from GW members is thousands long - not a brag - just a fact.

I can't deny that it's possible Art's mentioning that he has respect for someone/me could just be based on an intentional attempt to fool him into thinking whatever he is thinking that caused him to mention his feelings. I didn't revel in the compliment, though I do appreciate it, but I am left to wonder why it bothered you enough you felt you had to diminish me and question Art's judgment? Is that a contribution you can be proud of, or one that had the potential to enlighten anyone ..... or are you just a sly dog that's really only trying to unload on someone?

Scheesch - I know you to be an intelligent guy, Ron .....

Al

This post was edited by tapla on Sun, Dec 23, 12 at 17:23


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

I stayed away from this entire Newtown topic for a long time.

Why?

This past Spring, I was involved in a situation with a person who was an "emotional wreck", for lack of a better word, over something.

In an effort to suggest a solution to her problem, I made what I felt was a very innocuous half-joking statement.

She went ballistic on me. I learned a lesson.

This Newtown incidence really tears at our emotions so it's understandable that we all have trouble having a "rational" discussion.

Nevertheless, it's important to discuss it.

Hay


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

I don't know, it was more to show that I know you to be a long time contributor to GW and not an orchestrated NRA lobbyist crawling out of the woodwork :)


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Thanks for noticing, elvis :) I used to run on and on and on to the sound of derision and claims that my mother cheater on my father, and such.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

You think a bigger home or a Hummer or a closet full of expensive clothes is comparable to personal possessions that are built to kill people?

"is this your first pile of dead children?"

Yes, it is, & may it be my (our) last.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Sun, Dec 23, 12 at 19:19

I never made that comparison, Sylvia. If you reread what I actually said more carefully, you'll see that.

Al


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Most of you have NO idea what the NRA does, other than lobby.

Well, I know the NRA fought tooth-and-nail against the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. They spent millions fighting it. Now why in the world would the NRA fight so determinedly against a bill that would institute federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States?

Sorry for pestering all you gun freaks.

Respectfully,

-Ron-


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

"NEED will always be subjective. We don't need gold rings on our fingers, or diamonds. Who really NEEDS a home larger than 1,000 sq ft, or a swimming pool? How does a family of 2 or 3 justify a Hummer or other large SUV? The fact is, those of you who own these things, or others another might find unnecessary, don't owe anyone an explanation. You don't have to justify your choices, which is as it should be."

Yes, thank you, I did read that, & I thought that I expressed myself pretty clearly & in a direct response to the thought in your post, but if you want further clarification, here goes:

Do you think that your *choice* to own a possession designed to kill people can be compared to anyone's *choice* to own a bigger house, etc?

Someone asked you to compare your right to choice with the right of others to choose gay marriage or abortion;
if you answered, I must have missed it.

In fact, the last thing I believe you said is:
"it's none of your concern. I already explained my thoughts about the very innocuous pro-choice comment as it relates to this thread, and the topic of the thread speaks plainly for itself".

really?

you think it's *innocuous* to say that gun ownership is simply a matter of private choice?

In our world, driving a car isn't a matter of private/personal choice;
you can choose to drive a car, but you darned well better pass the test & pay for the license & maintain insurance & keep the car inspected for safety.

& cars are built for transportation, not the destruction of life.

If you want to get married, you have to get a license & go through a procedure in which you publicly declare that you are marrying.

& marriage is a partnership between a couple, much less likely to result in mayhem & death than gun ownership is.

If you choose to borrow money to buy that bigger house, you have to apply for the loan, telling a lender every detail of your financial & work life, revealing whether you co-signed a note for someone else; you have to reveal work history, marital status, number of children, child support, day care expenses.
If the loan is approved, you have to sign documents agreeing to re-pay the loan & you have to acknowledge that if you don't pay, the lender will take the house.
You have to maintain insurance on that house.

& home ownership is a positive thing, good for society, good for the quality of life.

If you choose to take a job, you have to apply, & you have to pass a background check.
(& if you choose a job in certain fields, you have to pass a drug test.)

& jobs are good;
they enable the worker to live & eat & enjoy such things as lights & heat, & they enable the employer to stay in business & enjoy light & heat, & they enable consumers to buy the employer's goods or pay for the employer's services.

These choices, good things in themselves, all have a potential impact on other people, & as such are regulated, if not by government rules at least by other parties (banks, etc).

Lethal possessions, "needed" or just "chosen" have a much direr potential impact.

The idea that the choice to own a gun is somehow sacred, somehow deserving of absolute privacy (secrecy), exempt from any sort of self-protection a society might exercise, is insane.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

I am surprised gun fanciers/hobbyists haven't put foward this argument, lifted from Andrew Sullivan's blog:

23 Dec 2012 05:31 PM
The Fun Of Guns

"Zach St. George reminds us that not all gun ownership is about hunting or self-defense:

""[T]he cowboys at the Richmond Rod and Gun Club -- whooping at good shots, ribbing each other over their costumes -- hint at a more basic reason for the popularity of guns in America: They're fun. Like an old car and a Roman candle rolled into one, guns are a hobbyist's dream. They're collectable and endlessly customizable, fit for tinkerers, pyros, and sporting types alike. The objections to guns are learned, based on moral and intellectual arguments, but the physical appeal is natural, childlike in its simplicity -- pull a trigger over here, and something happens over there. Pop pop pop pop pop!

Understanding the fun of guns is part of understanding why people own guns, says Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA, and author of Gun Fight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America. "Gun control advocates ask, 'Why does anyone need this particular kind of gun, like an AR-15 (an assault rifle similar to the one used by the U.S. military)?" Winkler says. "The reason people like an AR-15 is because it's fun to shoot." Firing a weapon, he says, triggers the same chemicals in the brain as riding a roller coaster: endorphins and adrenaline.""

Here is a link that might be useful: They are fun!


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Top 10 Worst School Massacres.

....

10. Cologne school massacre
11 killed : 22 injured :

"Armed with an insecticide sprayer converted into a flamethrower, a lance and a homebuilt mace, 42-year-old Walter Seifert....

After taking a cyanide pill,...

...

9.The Ecole Polytechnique Massacre
15 killed 14 injured : Marc Lepine : the worst school massacre in Canada's history.

in a letter he left behind,
...

8. Columbine High School Massacre
15 died : 24 injured :

the attackers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, killed themselves.

....

7. University of Texas Clock Tower Shootings
18 killed : 31 injured :

Charles Whitman pointed a rifle from the observation deck of the University of Texas at Austin's Tower and began shooting in a homicidal rampage that went on for 96 minutes.

...before being shot dead by police.

....

6. Dunblane massacre
18 killed : Thomas Hamilton : (the deadliest attack on children in United Kingdom history)

...armed with two 9 mm pistols and two .357 Magnum revolvers.

5. Erfurt massacre
17 killed : 7 injured : Robert Steinha'user (Worst German Rampage)

...before taking his own life.

...

4. Ma'alot massacre
26 killed : 60 wounded : DFLP, PLO :

The terrorist attack was perpetrated by three members of the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP)

...

3. Virginia Tech
32 killed, many more injured : Seung-Hui Cho

...the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history.

...before committing suicide,
....

2. Bath School disaster
45 died : 58 injured :

....former school board member Andrew Kehoe set off three bombs in Bath Township, Michigan killing 45 people and wounding 58. Kehoe killed himself and the superintendent by blowing up his own vehicle.

....

1. Beslan school hostage crisis
At least 386 dead, including 31 hostage takers : Over 700 injured :

A group of pro-Chechen armed rebels took more than 1,200 school children and adults hostage on September 1, 2004, at School Number One (SNO) in the town of Beslan, North Ossetia. On the third day of the standoff, gunfire broke out between the hostage-takers and Russian security forces.

....

Addendum: Red Lake High School massacre
10 killed : 12 injured :

Prior to the rampage, he had shot his grandfather and his grandfather's girlfriend.

================
===============

I don't think the terrorist attack in Israel is quite the same as the "madman" scenarios that we're currently discussing. Ditto the "hostage taking" gone bad in the Chechan situation.

...

I don't know what we can conclude from this, but I think it's interesting that,

A...converting these numbers to a per capita basis, the worst place....

Canada.

The relative numbers, (moving the decimal to make it easier). Population (millions), killed, country, ratio.

pop dead ratio

315 120 usa .38

81 28 germany .34

63 18 uk .28

35 15 canada .42

(Interesting collection there.)

B...For most, if not all, it was the final act before suicide. What's that all about?

C... It doesn't take semi-automatic weapons..or even guns. Insecticide sprayer converted... The worst in USA was bombs. Handmade I presume. I'd think the Texas Tower shooter was sniping away, one shot at a time.

D..These don't seem to be spur of the moment killings. They seem well thought out and planned.

Hay


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

marshall,

You mean something like this?

Having fun.

-Ron-


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Ron, I can't speak to what turns on the youth of a Mideastern or South Asian country. An AK-47 is a fun gun to fire.:)


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Lily - I got an email message from a poster yesterday thanking me for my approach. From what I've seen of this person, I would say she is quite liberal in her thinking. My reply was, I stopped by here to offer another view to the constant hysterical bashing of everything/anyone even remotely connected to a firearm. Multiple threads not only expressed horror at the tragedy, but also enjoyed something of a group maligning of their perceived fears.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This caught my eye. I will admit I have not read much of this thread but I am sure you have not read much of the other Gun discussions either.

No one has been constant hysterical bashing of everything/anyone even remotely connected to a firearm.

Remotely. Really????

I have stated I have a gun, have always had guns in my home and not one person here has bashed me for owning a firearm hysterically or other wise.

Can you point to a post where that happened or did you get a email from someone that felt they needed help because they could not defend their position? That is an issue I have always had a problem understanding. It is not one of my weak points of not being able to defend my position.

On GW or in my life I have never required any mini me to defend me or my position. If I say it I will argue the point and no one on GW will get a email from me asking for help.

Since this "remotely bashing" is not the norm. I see the visit had nothing to do with a reasonable discussion of fact but of a email and acceptance of someone's email of factual information so you and a few mini mes will come and "Set those people straight for you" mission. If that is your mission. Warning...There are some pretty strong willed people here. There are not enough mini me to accomplish the Mission Impossible.

I do not like the behind the curtains email whining. What I have to say I say it in the open on the board how I feel about a post and move on.

Which would be the very thing I would do if you broke in my house and tried to attack me or mine. I will shoot you, call the police and move on. I will not be whining and running for help.

It would be wise to tell the person that emailed you if she has a gun and if she is afraid to defend her position on a forum she should not have a gun. If she is that afraid if an incident should happen that she has to use the gun they will take it off of her and beat her over the head with it or worse shoot her with her gun. Fear and guns are not a good combo.

The entire email stuff "Lets go tell them" is childish. I have presents to wrap. Have a Merry Christmas.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Top Five gun massacres by an individual

"Anders Behring Breivik
(aged 32, captured) Utoya Island, Norway 22 Jul 2011 77 killed,
(151 wounded)

2
Woo Bum-Kon
(aged 27, suicide at scene) Sang-Namdo, South Korea 26 Apr 1982 57 killed,
(35 wounded)

3
Martin Bryant
(aged 29, captured) Port Arthur, Australia 28 Apr 1996 35 killed,
(21 wounded)

4
Seung-Hui Cho
(aged 23, suicide at scene) Blacksburg, Virginia USA 16 Apr 2007 32 killed,
(25 wounded)

5
Campo Elias Delgado
(aged 52, killed at scene) Bogota, Colombia 4 Dec 1986 30 killed,
(15 wounded)

Interesting that

A... Only ONE was a school massacre... Virginia Tech.

B...The Korean was a police officer.

"...before making his way to the armory. As the other officers were at a meeting, he managed unnoticed to gather an arsenal, consisting of two M2 carbines, 180 rounds of ammunition, and seven hand grenades."

So much for "only the cops should have guns"?

C...The Norway shooter according to him spent NINE YEARS planning his attack! per Wikipedia.

D...According to his mother, the Australian kid had been diagnosed with Asperger's. He had an IQ of 66 and had been bullied in school...."as well as mounting frustration as his social isolation had made him unbearably angry."

E...The Colombian killer, "only had a revolver and a knife..." And, mothers, grandparents and lovers keep popping up in these stories...."He walked up behind his mother and killed her with a single stab to the back of the neck."

...And, again, on a per capita basis, the USA doesn't seem to stand out. I'm not going to calculate them.

Hay


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Hay, you are doing it again: ranging FAR AFIELD to find examples of violence (in this case) to prove that -- what? That we don't have a violence problem? Other means can kill and injure many?

I personally, as a citizen of this country, don't give a fig about other countries' domestic problems with violent behaviors. That is their business. Mine is to improve conditions in this country to ensure a safer and civil society for as many citizens (and visitors) as possible.

Many countries are telling their citizens planning visits to this country to protect themselves from muggings and other violence that has become so American as to be largely invisible to most Americans.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

You don't go clay pigeon shooting with an assault weapon. You don't go target practice with an assault weapon. You don't go big game hunting with an assault weapon.

Horsecrap. 2 of the so called assault weapons I owned were for EXACTLY those purposes-- an M-1 carbine for coyote hunting, and an M-1A (civilian version of the M-14) for 200 meter flag shoot competitions. Even the third-- my AR-15, although bought to be part of a collection (one arm from each conflict the U.S. was in) it was also fun to take out and turn a bunch of soda cans into swiss cheese.

Assault weapons are for killing people...lots of people. Assault weapons are for killing people in an efficient, effective, quick, lethal way. No more, no less.

I carry on my belt, in wide open view, what could be considered an assault weapon by some And although it comes out of the leather on almost a daily basis, it's never ONCE been taken out with malice. It's called a Buck 110- sharp as a razor, and loosened up so that it can be flicked out as easily as a switch blade. It's the thought behind the use that makes it an assauilt weapon-- not the nomenclature.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Top Five: Most Guns Per Capita

Country Civilian Firearms

(per 100 Persons) Total Civilian Firearms

1
United States 88.8 270,000,000

2
Yemen 54.8 11,500,000

3
Switzerland 45.7 3,400,000

4
Finland 45.3 2,400,000

5
Serbia 37.8 3,050,000

Compare that to

The Top 5 Countries with the Most Firearm Murders (per capita)

Country Firearm Murders (per 1000)

1
South Africa 0.74

2
Colombia 0.52

3
Thailand 0.31

4
Zimbabwe 0.04

5
Mexico 0.03

I guess the thing that stands out for me in this is that none of the first five, "most armed countries", shows up in the second five, "most firearm killing countries".

Hay


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

The former Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, a VERY Conservative leader, with whom I seldom agreed, instituted the national "buy-back" gun scheme. Most Australians welcomed his move, and it has made a huge impact in lowering the gun deaths in Australia.

He recently wrote an article in a leading newspaper that should be of interest in the current USAsian discourse.

"A key component of the 1996 measure, which banned the sale, importation and possession of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, was a national buy-back scheme involving the compulsory forfeiture of newly illegal weapons. Between 1996 and 1998 more than 700,000 guns were removed and destroyed. This was one-fifth of Australia's estimated stock of firearms. The equivalent in the US would have been 40 million guns. Australia's action remains one of the largest destructions of civilian firearms.

Australia is a safer country as a result of what was done in 1996. It will be the continuing responsibility of current and future federal and state governments to ensure the effectiveness of those anti-gun laws is never weakened. The US is a country for which I have much affection. There are many American traits which we Australians could well emulate to our great benefit. But when it comes to guns we have been right to take a radically different path."

IMHO, it is a very interesting and worthwhile read...

Regards,Shax.

Here is a link that might be useful: The Article


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

The equivalent in the US would have been 40 million guns.

Aw, hell-- they've sold that just in AR-15's in the last week.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Sun, Dec 23, 12 at 21:58

More ranting - has anyone come up with a plan yet to keep the kids safe?

Everyone hates Wayne LaPierre because he said, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" (that, and because he's associated with the NRA), but cops have been saying that for years & years. Are we all cop haters, too? I'm not. It sounds pretty darn logical to me.

Marquest spent a ton of energy arguing something she misunderstood - the person saw this thread and wrote to say thanks, and that she was in agreement. I've received 2 other emails saying the same, btw, and the person I referred to is perfectly capable of defending any position she might choose to take w/o my help. I've seen the evidence. ;-)

About the bashing and hysterics - just look up through the thread and see where it's coming from. What I said was in so many words, that I felt compelled to present an alternate view when I saw all the bashing on multiple threads of the NRA, guns, people who own guns, people who eat meat, people who hunt ...... and the misconceptions about guns in general.

Sylvia - I had too much trouble following your post as it skipped from topic to topic, but you said, "The idea that the choice to own a gun is somehow sacred, somehow deserving of absolute privacy (secrecy), exempt from any sort of self-protection a society might exercise, is insane." You might think that, but for nearly 250 years that hasn't been the case, and the Supreme Court has said so. Of course, I understand that many here actually DO feel they know better than the Supreme Court. There IS light at the end of the tunnel for you though. One more liberal Supreme Court Justice and the second amendment will probably be gutted. While you hope for a chance to party, I'll hope the gun owners of America can work together to keep the Bill of Rights intact.

Al


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

If one wants to hate LaPierre, there are much better reasons. He's the biggest reason why until yesterday, I hadn't renewed my NRA membership since the mid 80's. About the time he tried to make the case for everyone from little old ladies to conviceted felons heing able to possess fully automatic weapons, I decided this was not an organition I wanted to be affiliated with. However, there is too much at stake right now, and too many are ready to completely throw out our Constitution (you get rid of the 2nd amendment, and the rest of the BoR has no teeth), and the toughest dog we have in the fight is the NRA, so I rejoined. I STILL think Lapierre is wacko. but he's not the whole NRA, and although there's still alot I disagree with, there's more that I DO agree with, and being that like this past election, I had to pick the better of the evils, so I did.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Al...why do you think we Dems worked our butts off getting Obama elected? We know in the next four years that maybe three SC justices will be replaced. This court is conservative enough. I was more worried about RoevWade but I hope the gun restrictions will be implemented now. The second amendment has nothing to do with the semi automatic weapons the founding fathers knew nothing about.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Most people use guns because it's fun. I've never owned a gun, but have had a couple of informal and impromptu opportunities to target shoot, and it's fun. I see why people are enthusiasts.

I don't know about Hummers, but am willing to bet they are a lot more fun than driving a Prius. Watching paint dry is more fun than driving a Prius.

People forget that humans prefer to do things that are pleasurable and fun, and these are important factors in human behaviors. If an object has other utility, even better. People in rural areas have a greater use for guns and larger vehicles, which also makes these practical objects in addition to being sources of fun and pleasure.

Technically speaking, we don't need fragrant soaps, good coffee or tea, music, and art. These things improve the quality of life, which would be dreary without sensory pleasures and excitement.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

People that own guns are always at risk of losing them to determined thieves, if the enticement and circumstances favor burglary. The saddest examples in my experience are losses of gun collectors, often following their participation in gun collectors' shows.

Another experience of mine was having to disarm an ex-wive who broke into her ex's home to retrieve some of "her" stuff and found both clothing and cosmetics belonging to another woman and her ex's hand gun. I was gardening on the property at the time and saw her inside the home, waiting with gun in hand. I managed to talk her down from her rage and to take the weapon away. I removed the clip (empty) and cleared the chamber (empty) and replaced the weapon in the closet where she found the gun. (Just in case I removed my fingerprints and took away a box of ammunition on the shelf.)

Two morals to the story: some people know so little about guns that they should not have access to them and unsecured storage of a weapon can kill you.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Lily, how can you call someone using GW for 10 years a newbie? And what difference does it make how long you've been seeing a particular name? You don't put any weight into anything anyone says who YOU don't recognize as a long-time GW user? What does that have to do with the issue (on which you didn't comment) or someone's ability to comment on it? Should there be a waiting period to post to particular GW forums?

Marquest, I emailed Al to tell him how much I appreciated his thoughts here, well after the thread started. I didn't ask him for any assistance as I don't need any, with either my position or my gun.

Regardless of what anyone might think motivated Al to speak here, it doesn't change what he said, with which I wholeheartedly agree.

I can assure you I've never been affiliated with the NRA, and have never considered gun ownership and being lock-step with everything the NRA says as the same thing. They always seemed kind of wacky to me, but if we need the NRA to defend the 2nd amendment, I may consider membership also.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Mon, Dec 24, 12 at 10:08

Lily - The argument that the framers 'couldn't have foreseen' doesn't hold water. The framers were a rather prescient and astute bunch of guys, and VERY pro-gun. They also didn't make many mistakes. That constitution is a pretty clever document. Too bad we don't adhere a little more closely.

The framers intent was that every man would be armed (people who refused to take up arms were looked at as cowards), and that the citizenry would always have the wherewithal to resist oppression, and the source of oppression they most feared was the state. The entire constitution is a document meant to LIMIT the power of the state and bind it down from infringing the rights of its citizens. I have very little doubt that the framers were fully aware of the fact that advances would be made in the efficiency of weaponry available to citizens. If they wanted the citizenry limited in what they could or couldn't keep, they could have added more language to the second amendment to cover it. What they would be most aghast at today, is the overwhelming monopoly on force that the state has and is perfectly willing to use against its citizens.

You can surmise what the framers might or might not have thought, but so far, the supreme court has enjoined the anti-gunners from going as far as they want in large part because of the framer's intent. I'd bet I've done a lot more looking into this issue than you, and have a clearer understanding of what was in the minds of the framers (because of their opinions expressed in writing) at the time the constitution was created. They intended that the citizenry would always be able to throw off oppression from any quarter if it ever became necessary, and that the citizens would always be able to protect their lives, liberties, and rights they considered inalienable - that means they were rights that descended from God and could not be taken away by man.

That's what makes our constitution unique in all the world. Every other constitution grants rights that extend from the state, and as such can be abrogated by the same.

The framers probably understood that there would be natural disasters, breakdowns in infrastructure, possible invasions from foreigns, internal strife, the need to revolt, the need to defend against organize assault (gangs) ...... which is why I really don't believe the framers would be upset at the fact someone owns a scary looking rifle. You might THINK they would be horrified, but I don't think so. They WOULD, however, be horrified that our society has broken from its moors and is sadly adrift, and NOT drifting in a direction that favors us, which is another reason the framers would advise us to look ahead.

Some things the framers would most abhor:
* The amount of power concentrated in the executive branch
* The fact that our government is far from the servant they intended
* How far we have moved to the left, leaving the constitution ignored whenever convenient
* What a cesspool our society has become (already mentioned)
* Our secular humanism

Some of you might think these things are dandy, and that's fine, it's your right. I'm just saying that if you want to play guessing games about what the framers did or didn't consider, you might want to include considering what advice the framers might give if they were here today - and you can be very assured it wouldn't be to disarm yourself. In fact, it's a very good bet that the framers would take a very pro-active stance. There is very little question that we are already far more oppressed than the colonies were before they severed ties with England.

Al


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Setting off fireworks is 'fun' too. "Double Dare You" is 'fun' for some. Some people think dog fighting is a grand ole' time.

Most ADOLESCENTS grow out of these activities when their brains mature.

It's pathetic to think that shooting a gun is your only way to make yourself feel 'something'. More important, your 'toy' is DANGEROUS to my welfare.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Al, do you favor armed militias independent of State or Federal control? When "well regulated" is mentioned with "militia", who is doing the regulating and on behalf of whom?


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

In keeping with Al's post at Mon, Dec 24, 12 at 10:08,

"...and that the citizenry would always have the wherewithal to resist oppression, and the source of oppression they most feared was the state."

...

What they would be most aghast at today, is the overwhelming monopoly on force that the state has and is perfectly willing to use against its citizens.

...

They intended that the citizenry would always be able to throw off oppression from any quarter if it ever became necessary

...

The framers probably understood that there would be natural disasters, breakdowns in infrastructure, possible invasions from foreigns, internal strife, the need to revolt, the need to defend against organize assault (gangs) ......'

++++++
++++++++
++++++++++

Top Ten Massacres in History

(WARNING: The pictures there are gruesome. I wouldn't click the link if I were you.)

====

"1. The Nanking Massacre

Also known as the Rape of Nanking, the Nanking Massacre has an estimated 300,000 Chinese casualties which includes men, women and children in the city of Nanking, the former capital of China. Men were mutilated, tortured and killed. Over 20,000 women including infants and elderly people were gang raped by Japanese soldiers....

2. Babi Yar Massacre

the Babi Yar Massacre happened in September 29 and 30, 1941 wherein 33,771 Jews were killed in just a single operation.

3. NKVD Prisoners Massacre

an estimated 100,000 prisoners from Eastern Europe where murdered by the Soviet NKVD, a public and secret police organization of the Soviet Union during the time of Joseph Stalin.

4. Katyn Forest Massacre

It was carried out by the Soviet NKVD in April and May 1940 with over 22,000 casualties.

5. The Massacre of Elphinstone's Army

The annihilation of about 16,500 British and Indian troops by Afghan Forces led by Akbar Khan in 1842

6. The Batak Massacre

The Batak massacre is the massacre of Bulgarians by the Ottoman irregular troops in 1876 at the beginning of the April uprising which saw the re-establishment of Bulgaria as an autonomous nation in 1878.


7. The Massacre of Thessalonica

Though he changed his mind and revoked the order by sending a messenger to prevent his troops, it came too late with Church historian, Theodoretus putting the figures at 7,000 casualties.

8. St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre

between 5,000 to 30,000. It was a targeted group assassination against the Huguenots, the French Calvinist Protestants during the French Wars of Religion.

9. The 1066 Granada Massacre

With over 1,500 Jewish families numbering 4,000 persons murdered, the 1066 Granada Massacre took place in December 30, 1066 after a Muslim mob attacked the Royal Palace in Granada.

10. The Sabra and Shatila Massacre

One of the notable massacres of the 20th century, the Sabra and Shatila Massacre happened between September 16, 1982 and September 18, 1982 in the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut, Lebanon."

++++
+++++
+++++++

If I were a Jew living in Europe in the 1940's, I'd wish to own a gun.

If I were living in Stalin's USSR, I'd wish to own a gun.

If I were a peasant living in Mao's China, I'd wish to own a gun.

If I were a Christian living in Eqypt,.....

Governments and their armies have killed hundreds of millions of people, much or most of the time their own people just in the past 100 years. A million or two a year on average?

Hay


 o
Who needs a gun????

chisue:

"Setting off fireworks is 'fun' too....

On the Fourth of July, I like to go outside and shoot my bow and arrow into the sky.

Then make a mad dash for the house and hope I don't trip.

FUN CITY!!!

Hay


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Mon, Dec 24, 12 at 11:46

Chisu - your willingness to simply give away someone else's INALIENABLE right is dangerous to my welfare and an affront to everyone who ever fought for your right to be free. If you don't like the right, it's your obligation to work within the law to ensure your rights are not abrogated. IOW - the forum ain't cuttin' it - get after your politicians and insist they put the bad guys in jail and get the nuts off the streets, instead of hanging around gun-free zones. That's what I do. I talk to my politicians all the time and let my thoughts be known.

Talking point: The gov't pays the NRA millions to train police officers in foreign lands, but they can't keep our schools safe. Is that MY fault because I happen to own a gun, or even a TANK, for that matter?

Fortunately, the framers prescience stops you or a majority from stealing that right. Like it or not, until this is changed by the supreme court, that's the law.

As a law abiding citizen, I'm no more a threat to you than you are to me. Guns get stolen - cars get stolen - guns are used by crazed madmen to kill people and occasionally an accident happens - ditto for cars and drunk drivers - or swimming pools and 5 gallon buckets.

The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."

Al

This post was edited by tapla on Mon, Dec 24, 12 at 12:01


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

When a Gvt wants to go after a segment of the population, they generally have access to superior firepower. So even if the Jews in Hitler's Germany were all packin' heat, they'd have had trouble against a Panzer division.

Watching the chaos unfolding now in the ME with Syria, Libya, Mali, etc. A lot of unintended consequences from easy access to arms.

All those Palestinians waving AK47's are so many targets for the Israelis.

Where I live, much of the citizenry is armed, many armed to the teeth. And when the police or sheriff get a 911 call for domestic disputes or in-progress burglary or anything that a gun might be mentioned or involved, out comes the SWAT team.

I was reading the other day that the reason the Feds called in armored vehicles in Waco was that the Branch Davidians had some of those .50 caliber rifles. At the link is a list of stuff the ATF found after the raid.

Point being that having all that stuff didn't seem to help them much, and one might argue that in the over-all scheme of things, it actually hurt them.

Edited to add that here, most of the burglaries target guns.

Here is a link that might be useful: link

This post was edited by david52 on Mon, Dec 24, 12 at 12:10


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

So, after all that verbiage, I conclude that the Founders meant any good working militia according to the standards of the time. To wit: capable of marching in good order and obey marching orders of superior officers and keeping muskets and shot and powder in good condition.

When do you and your friends muster out to keep up on this sort of training to maintain levels of "well regulated-ness?"

The Swiss seem to have that sort of well-regulated militia down pat; every adult male of a certain age is called up for basic training and sent home with his military weapon and periodically called in for refresher training.

This Swiss citizen army sort of goes against our all-volunteer mercenary military now occupying this country.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

David, in that vein.. the Middle East.. I keep thinking back to Heri, gun control advocate, and his cheering on the uprising in Eqypt and Libya and the rest of the Arab Spring. It couldn't have happened without a well armed populace.

If I were a Jew in Hitler's Germany, knowing what I do today, of course, I'd at least take out a few Nasties before I went down.

It's not clear that there's a good answer. (To some of the extremists here, on both sides, maybe.) If there were, we would have done it already, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It's a balancing act. Sometimes you go one way. Too far? Swing back the other way.

Hay


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Mon, Dec 24, 12 at 13:34

My reply didn't provide the fodder you were looking for, so now you're r e a l l y r e a c h i n g, Marshall.

This thread is almost over, and I'm glad.

You guys need to consider that if all the "assault weapons" are taken from the law abiding, only the people you don't want to have them will have them. If you could magically make them disappear, what's to stop someone nutts from making something like the .50 BMG his next hobby? It's going to happen - a nutt will start firing on an outdoor arena or concert or fireworks display ...... with a gun easily capable of hitting a pie plate at a half mile and hitting a crowd from more than a mile. When you read about it, you'll want all the bolt actions, too. I'm just not sure if that will be before or after you try to take all the semi-automatic pistols. There really is little reason to wonder at why the membership in the NRA and other gun rights groups like the GOA (a much better voice for gun owners than the NRA - just not as strong) is growing so quickly. These groups and their members aren't just about GUN rights, you know, they're about ALL rights. As much as some of you want to give away the rights of others for your own personal illusion of safety, there is someone else just as willing to stand up for their rights. Good for them.

Al


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

Well, I will NOT thank you for avoiding my question related to the language of the Founders' times and how that applies to militias of today. I suspect you have no intelligent answer so you head of to the gun-rights bunkers to argue against some strawman in your mind.

PS. I am a gun owner and support gun rights. YOU just think gun ownership is an ABSOLUTE RIGHT, a right alone among the many other rights we enjoy that generates such ABSOLUTIST fervor.

This post was edited by marshallz10 on Mon, Dec 24, 12 at 14:24


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

You can't reason with a paranoid person.

No other first world nation is paranoid about a government takeover.

Of course, *I* don't think *I* am paranoid, but seeing people trusting in NRA rhetoric is scary. I'm more than a little suspicious when someone wants to 'rescue' me from a danger HE defines.


 o
RE: Gun Choices - The Perception of Need

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Mon, Dec 24, 12 at 14:39

Chisue - The paranoia thing cuts both ways. You're right to be frightened of guns in the hands of criminals & madmen, but the irrational fear you have of guns, ANY type of gun, in the hands of a law abiding citizen defies any logic.

You are the one drinking the Kool Aid and swallowing whole the arguments of those who would have us stripped of any ability to defend ourselves. I've seen hundreds of people that used to spout the same arguments as you sign up for CCW training. They got a first-hand look at what the consequences of victimization were, and wanted nothing more to do with it, or wanted to be able to at least have the chance at leveling the playing field when confronted with deadly force.

I hope you never get into a situation where you're met with deadly force, but if you do, you'll wish YOU had a gun, or any good guy was there to defend you with one. To me, that's a very undignified position to be in - subject to every whim of a criminal or madman. Believing it will never happen to you is nothing more than playing the odds. Not everyone thinks everything will always break their way .....

There are a lot of people you can't reason with. That flaw is certainly not limited to the paranoid. There is ample evidence of the same flaw in a good number of people who feel themselves so illuminating that they themselves must glow.

Merry Christmas! (I can still say that, right?)

Al

This post was edited by tapla on Mon, Dec 24, 12 at 14:51


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: This thread has reached the upper limit for the number follow-ups allowed (150). If you would like to continue this discussion, please begin a new thread using the form on the main forum page.


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here