PDA

View Full Version : Concealed carry permit holders challenged by reality.



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

McMike
12-26-2011, 08:52 AM
Here is a point of view I have always held, it makes sense and is reason enough to abolish carry allowances and, IMHO, handguns in general. As a tool for the average person they are statistically useless when you consider that nearly 80% of gun related violence is committed by perpetrators with handguns, it makes their acceptable existence in society null.


The program uses the word "fantasy", I think this is appropriate and points to the real issue of guns being treated as toys by the majority of adults who think they need to carry one.


At the very least I would subscribe to the permit holder having to take 80 hours of handling courses a year in order to maintain the carry permit.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8QjZY3WiO9s


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLN6_s66wTg&feature=player_embedded

McMike
12-26-2011, 09:01 AM
Reality. Nuff said.

BrianW
12-26-2011, 09:05 AM
I can't watch the video. What's in the 13 minutes that will change history?

McMike
12-26-2011, 09:06 AM
Another Television driven opinion. No experience necessary. :)

Come and take them. Nuff Said.

I'll also note that you commented five minutes after I posted telling me you hadn't watched the 13 minutes of the program in order to form an informed opinion. This fact renders your response impotent.

McMike
12-26-2011, 09:08 AM
I can't watch the video. What's in the 13 minutes that will change history?

Test scenarios done that show the uselessness of the average person carrying or even possessing a handgun.

McMike
12-26-2011, 09:11 AM
No reality is what happens when your unarmed in a situation. I have carried on and off going on Thirty years and it has saved me from death or serious injury on several occasions. Your no judge of any man or his inalienable rights to self defense. If you believe strongly enough than do your best to disarm another without the power of the state to back you up. Won't happen because wimps only are tough in gangs.

It could be said the wimps are only tough with a gun on their hip.

Peerie Maa
12-26-2011, 09:14 AM
No reality is what happens when your unarmed in a situation. I have carried on and off going on Thirty years and it has saved me from death or serious injury on several occasions. Your no judge of any man or his inalienable rights to self defense. If you believe strongly enough than do your best to disarm another without the power of the state to back you up. Won't happen because wimps only are tough in gangs.
Mark,
Honest curiosity. How much training/practice had you engaged in when you were carrying?

RonW
12-26-2011, 09:21 AM
McMike -
I'll also note that you commented five minutes after I posted telling me you hadn't watched the 13 minutes of the program in order to form an informed opinion. This fact renders your response impotent.

And you are living in some kind of fantasy land to think a 13 minute anti-gun video is going to change a person's
mind that they no longer have the basic right to protect themselves and their family.


Test scenarios done that show the uselessness of the average person carrying or even possessing a handgun.

Here educate yourself on exactly what the statistics do show..

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636

Peerie Maa
12-26-2011, 09:24 AM
Raised and taught firearms by a Retired Marine who fought in WW2, Korea and the start of Vietnam. After that the government invested in further training.
Bo Gritz taught me the rest.

Then, although you know that I abhor the US gun culture, you are probably more responsible and to be trusted than the Joe Soap with his big boys toy featured in the video. The worry is, are you in the majority or a minority.

McMike
12-26-2011, 09:25 AM
Raised and taught firearms by a Retired Marine who fought in WW2, Korea and the start of Vietnam. After that the government invested in further training.
Bo Gritz taught me the rest.

If you are telling the truth, if, that would mean that you are in the top .5% of people who carry in so far as training is concerned. If you were so open minded and objective to watch the videos, you would have noted that fact stated that those tested were receiving training above what half of the states that allow carrying of sidearm's require. That's very scary IMO.

McMike
12-26-2011, 09:30 AM
McMike -

And you are living in some kind of fantasy land to think a 13 minute anti-gun video is going to change a person's
mind that they no longer have the basic right to protect themselves and their family.



Here educate yourself on exactly what the statistics do show..

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636

Before you start knee-jerking all over the place, notice the video and my opinion is limited to handguns and the allowances for them to be carried by woefully untrained people. I am not talking about firearms in general as I am a reformed anti-gun advocate and understand the value of firearms in general. I'm interested in balancing the 2nd with common sense and reality.

Peerie Maa
12-26-2011, 09:31 AM
I will Agree with that but it is not the fault of Joe Average. It was intended right from the start that "Well regulated" meant Joe average got trained locally by his militia. We still had some part of that left with the civilian marksmanship program but it has been seriously underfunded since the sixties. Are there idiots with guns? Yep. There are idiots without guns too. Which ones should I be worried about? I can train an armed idiot pretty quickly and do so on a regular basis.

Yep, and how often has that gone down like a fart in a space suit on this forum? ;)

McMike
12-26-2011, 09:33 AM
I will Agree with that but it is not the fault of Joe Average. It was intended right from the start that "Well regulated" meant Joe average got trained locally by his militia. We still had some part of that left with the civilian marksmanship program but it has been seriously underfunded since the sixties. Are there idiots with guns? Yep. There are idiots without guns too. Which ones should I be worried about? I can train an armed idiot pretty quickly and do so on a regular basis.

I think you've proven the point that zealotry has overridden common sense at the cost of the common good.

hanleyclifford
12-26-2011, 09:39 AM
Anyone who takes such a general position against the second amendment is an enemy of what this country stands for - take note, McMike.

McMike
12-26-2011, 09:39 AM
With you. We should bring the Militias back and require every able bodied person between 16 and 45 to undergo training and refresher courses. Want to see crime statistics drop?

Which militias? the ones that believe they should be allowed to shoot you if you disagree with them or the ones that feel there is no place for "non-pure" races to live among us, or the ones that are playing soldiers and are no more trained than my 13 year-old who plays video games and has participated in a few matches of paintball?


Another point; the way you think things should be and the way things are two very different things, I think dealing with the reality that exists now is more prudent than imagining and preparing for a scenario that likely won't come to pass.

McMike
12-26-2011, 09:42 AM
Anyone who takes such a general position against the second amendment is an enemy of what this country stands for - take note, McMike.

Heavy charge you level there. I wonder if you understand the concept of; "your rights end where mine begin"?

And again, did you read and COMPREHEND, or did you just knee-jerk all over the place??

RonW
12-26-2011, 09:42 AM
McMike -
Before you start knee-jerking all over the place, notice the video and my opinion is limited to handguns and the allowances for them to be carried by woefully untrained people. I am not talking about firearms in general as I am a reformed anti-gun advocate and understand the value of firearms in general. I'm interested in balancing the 2nd with common sense and reality.

No you are not. You are still anti-gun and are starting at a point that you think you might get a little traction.
It is what the liberals call chipping away till the final goal is achieved, which is gun control, and a society in
which the only people to be armed will be the government. You know not what you are doing.

I shot professionally on a national level for over 20 years,and have the trophies and medals to prove it,
and I forgot more then you will ever know about guns.
So you anti-gun rant will change no minds what so ever. But by all means continue on.

Peerie Maa
12-26-2011, 09:44 AM
Anyone who takes such a general position against the second amendment is an enemy of what this country stands for - take note, McMike.
So, when did you last attend your militia training then? ;)

McMike
12-26-2011, 09:47 AM
McMike -

No you are not. You are still anti-gun and are starting at a point that you think you might get a little traction.
It is what the liberals call chipping away till the final goal is achieved, which is gun control, and a society in
which the only people to be armed will be the government. You know not what you are doing.

I shot professionally on a national level for over 20 years,and have the trophies and medals to prove it,
and I forget more then you will ever know about guns.
So you anti-gun rant will change no minds what so ever. But by all means continue on.

I am genuinely interested in a conversation and am bendable, are you?


I think you have me wrong, I get that you are afraid to concede a little for fear of losing it all but I assure you that is not my intention.

What did you shoot? Was it shooting back? Did you watch the show?

Steve McMahon
12-26-2011, 09:48 AM
C'mon guys, TD is correct. Just look at how oppressed we are in Canada because we can't carry (or even own in most cases) handguns. Gangs of government thugs roaming the streets. It's horrible. Our grand leader is saving us though, he just scrapped the oppressive long gun registry, maybe if we're lucky he will allow us to carry handguns and own automatic weapons soon.

John Smith
12-26-2011, 09:49 AM
Much as I hate to open this keg of worms again, there is nothing in the Consitution that gives the people the right to bear arms for their self defense.

That said, I'd like to see some actual statistics as to how often the public carrying concealed weapons helps or hinders. How many people are killed by bad guys using handguns for bad puposes. How many of those deaths are prevented by the victim or someone nearby having a handgun. How many people are accidentally killed by handguns by the owners. How many family members, kids included, have gotten hold of a legally owned gun and killed/robbed someone with it.

I DON'T SUPPORT GUN CONTROL, only because there are too many guns already out there to make it possible to enforce. I don't think our founding fathers had any intention of the 2nd Amendment being used to support everyone having the right to carry a handgun or any gun for any purpose other than to have a Militia readty to call up to enforce the laws and protect the government.

I know people who have guns in their drawer. If this gun helps them sleep better, fine, but if they really think they're going to shoot an intruder with it before he shoots them, they are playing a dangerous game. Odds of survival are probably better if one just pretends to stay sleeping.

I also knew people who died by accidentally shooting themselves with their own gun.

Peerie Maa
12-26-2011, 09:52 AM
Pavlov strikes again :)

Steve McMahon
12-26-2011, 09:58 AM
Yeah, you guys are safe now that we control your borders and Armed American law enforcement can operate on your soil. What a Joke you guys are. :)

I will warn my children and friends.

LeeG
12-26-2011, 10:01 AM
agree with McMike, good troll potential btw, real situation training is necessary and even then it's no guarantee it'll provide the power/advantage one seeks with ownership.
To me concealed carry advocates are like weekend warrior bike riders who have bought the $3000 bike, can ride fast by themselves but have no experience riding in a pack, riding a wheel or putting out multiple sprint efforts.
It's a totem of power.

One thing the movies show is that the person with the intention on doing harm has the initiative.

A few years ago at the local mall some guys were getting into a fight and an off duty secret service officer was there and told them to take it outside, one of the guys pulled a gun and fired at the officer who fired back after being hit, when it was done about five rounds were shot by both parties from 15' away, both went to the hospital without serious injuries although the potential was huge. Absolutely amazing no one else was hit.

hanleyclifford
12-26-2011, 10:02 AM
So, when did you last attend your militia training then? ;) I served my country as a combat infantryman in two wars - I don't need training - I gave it. BTW, I especially dislike pommie interjections into the affairs of this counrtry.

RonW
12-26-2011, 10:03 AM
McMike -
I wonder if you understand the concept of; "your rights end where mine begin"?

And your rights end when they infringe upon my rights, That is a 2 way street, so don't infringe upon my rights.
Those that do infringe upon other's rights are breaking laws, and therefore are apprehended and punished.
You can not make laws that will stop crime, if we could, then obviously there would be no crimes.

If you really want to educate yourself, get the book I listed above, John Lott was a anti-gun liberal when he started that
book to prove less guns will equal less crime, but the facts in of themselves changed his mind.

John Smith -
Much as I hate to open this keg of worms again, there is nothing in the Consitution that gives the people the right to bear arms for their self defense.

Once again john does not understand the constitution or the founding fathers principles, and is exactly
why I will not bend a inch on this subject, due to people like John and mike....carry on though..
it might have some value as pure entertainment ...........

McMike
12-26-2011, 10:10 AM
Once again with TV land opinions. I was active in the militias in the 90's and traveled to many with Bo to speak. Not the reality you or the TV portrays. If there was a fault it was the leaders were chosen more from available time and resources which led to well funded idiots in charge of many. If it was a community system most of that could be avoided. As far as separatist militias they were considered a joke by the regular militias and shunned most often. Most Militias were integrated at the level of society in general. Michigan back then had three blacks and a couple of Hispanics in leadership along with some Cambodian Mung.

In all seriousness; I live a mile or two from an area where a guy was killed in a cross fire between two gang members. This guy didn't stand a chance nor did the 3 or four drive-by shooting victims. I do see some stories of how a would-be victim had thwarted an assailant because the victim was carrying, but I see many, many more cases of death and injury by a perpetrator using a handgun with intent to do harm. The reality I live has presented no redeeming qualities emanating from handgun availability to the general public.

I myself have been the victim of handgun violence in my own home as a child, it was used to intimidate and control my brother and I from taking on an abuser, an abuser that was subdued by means of melee in the end.

I might also add that I no longer hold the opinion that we should abolish all firearms, only handguns, this fact alone defeats your point that my opinion, if it were to become reality, would put us at risk of becoming victims of our government or Hun invaders.

Peerie Maa
12-26-2011, 10:11 AM
I served my country as a combat infantryman in two wars - I don't need training - I gave it. BTW, I especially dislike pommie interjections into the affairs of this counrtry.

It's a big world sunshine. Get used to it.
So, you and Mark are in the 0.5% quoted in post#16. What do you think about all of the untrained armed citizens who do not abide by ALL of the 2nd amendment?

McMike
12-26-2011, 10:12 AM
I served my country as a combat infantryman in two wars - I don't need training - I gave it. BTW, I especially dislike pommie interjections into the affairs of this counrtry.

I especially dislike vieled threats but that didn't stop you.

Question; in your opinion, does the 2nd supercead the 1st ammendment?

Farfalla
12-26-2011, 10:13 AM
less guns will equal less crime

Thats'a no-brainer. The rest of the Western world doesn't have the murder rates that you guys do and funnily enough they don't have the slack gun laws that you have.
feel free to keep shooting each other at the rate you do but it would be nice if innocent people weren't on the receiving end.
The free access to handguns leads to an escalation of the violence in situations time and again.
It's a fantasy that carrying handguns leads to less violence.

And to the rude guy who can't figure out that this is an international forum, time to check again!

LeeG
12-26-2011, 10:15 AM
It's a big world sunshine. Get used to it.
So, you and Mark are in the 0.5% quoted in post#16. What do you think about all of the untrained armed citizens who do not abide by ALL of the 2nd amendment?

because of course soldiers can identify friend from foe in urban settings, oh right, the non-uniformed guy with the gun is a bad guy!
And what you can do in your 20's and 30's you can do in your 60's and 70's!

Peerie Maa
12-26-2011, 10:18 AM
Mark,
You have travelled and have relatives outside the US so have a little breadth of experience. Do you really, really feel more free than the rest of us?

(Your political postings suggest not.)

hanleyclifford
12-26-2011, 10:23 AM
TD alluded to it. Threads like this serve only one truly useful purpose - they identify on an ongoing basis the enemies of freedom.

McMike
12-26-2011, 10:27 AM
Well the truth comes out. You are ruled and driven by fear. I am sorry for the pain you suffered but do not buy into the reformed way of seeing things. It is twisted. Standing up is always better than laying down.

Yes, yes I am. Fear of reality, fear of what happens here in my world. My fear is founded, is my fear worth any less than yours?

Glen Longino
12-26-2011, 10:29 AM
TD alluded to it. Threads like this serve only one truly useful purpose - they identify on an ongoing basis the enemies of freedom.

I disagree...threads like this also identify fearful obsessive fanatic ego-maniacs like TD.

Farfalla
12-26-2011, 10:33 AM
TD alluded to it. Threads like this serve only one truly useful purpose - they identify on an ongoing basis the enemies of freedom.

I'm sorry mate but you've been drinking the Kool-aid for way too long.
Go and look at the figures for any other western country and look at what's happening there compared to the free-for-all that you have created with your total disregard for the safety of the individuals in your society so that a bunch of people can run around and play fantasy games.
There is no justification for the average citizen to have handguns the way they are available in the States.
Look at your homicide figures. Most of the handgun deaths and injuries are not caused by "bad" guys trying to rob people. A large percentage are in situations that should never end in deaths but do because of the availability of guns.

RonW
12-26-2011, 10:36 AM
Well the truth comes out. You are ruled and driven by fear. I am sorry for the pain you suffered but do not buy into the reformed way of seeing things. It is twisted. Standing up is always better than laying down.

Mike you don't have to live in fear. Get yourself a gun to protect yourself and your family...

Remember god didn't create all men equal, but Samuel Colt made all men equal......ha ..ha..ha..

Peerie Maa
12-26-2011, 10:38 AM
TD alluded to it. Threads like this serve only one truly useful purpose - they identify on an ongoing basis the enemies of freedom.
Would you care to reread this, and think about the image of you that it creates?
Sheesh.

hanleyclifford
12-26-2011, 10:42 AM
[QUOTE=Farfalla;3245021]I'm sorry mate but you've been drinking the Kool-aid for way too long.
Go and look at the figures for any other western country and look at what's happening there compared to the free-for-all that you have created with your total disregard for the safety of the individuals in your society so that a bunch of people can run around and play fantasy games.
There is no justification for the average citizen to have handguns the way they are available in the States.
Look at your homicide figures. Most of the handgun deaths and injuries are not caused by "bad" guys trying to rob people. A large percentage are in situations that should never end in deaths but do because of the availability of guns.[/QUOTEJ Just remember what happened the last time your kind tried to seize our weapons.

McMike
12-26-2011, 10:43 AM
Mike you don't have to live in fear. Get yourself a gun to protect yourself and your family...

Remember god didn't create all men equal, but Samuel Colt made all men equal......ha ..ha..ha..

Ron, do me a favor, breath. Listen, try to be a little fluid, if all you want to do is scream your point, then don't bother posting. If you want a discussion in order to intelligently present your perspective, I welcome it.

Peerie Maa
12-26-2011, 10:51 AM
Yes. But that is my state of mind and refusal to accept the bull. If you are not free in your own mind you don't stand a chance wherever you are. What separates us from wherever else I have traveled or lived is the founding documents. You know the ones Andrew loves to poo on here with help from the usual suspects on these shores.
I Swore an Oath to do defend the Constitution and never once have gone back on it. That is the differnce. Who do you swear to? A Document or the Queen?
I have no need to nor am I required to swear to either. Those who serve do swear loyalty to the head of state, Wiki has an entry Oath of Allegiance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kingdom)). When it comes down to it, loyalty does not need any ritual.

Bob Adams
12-26-2011, 10:55 AM
Before you start knee-jerking all over the place, notice the video and my opinion is limited to handguns and the allowances for them to be carried by woefully untrained people. I am not talking about firearms in general as I am a reformed anti-gun advocate and understand the value of firearms in general. I'm interested in balancing the 2nd with common sense and reality.

You can find any number of sources to support any position you want to spin. ABC is not exactly non partisan on the anti gun issue. I agree some training should be a pre requsite of a CC permit. HOWEVER the real value in Concealed Carry is deterance,the bad guy don't know who is carrying. From personnal experiance, I can tell you gunfire is not usually required to defuse a situation, both times I had to rely on a handgun for self/home defense, presentation was all that was required to send the bad guys packing.

McMike
12-26-2011, 10:58 AM
Here is what you should think about. There are over 90 million gun owners here. So lets say at some point you decide to come for our guns. The majority most likely will give them up but lets say a paltry 3% say no. "If you come for my guns we will kill you" that is 3 million men. Probably mostly Veterans who swore an Oath. All I gotta say is you better have lots of Ammo yourselves. :)

You all have a happy New Year.And because that wasn't the point of the thread you get the "Irrelevant poster of the day" award.

McMike
12-26-2011, 11:00 AM
You can find any number of sources to support any position you want to spin. ABC is not exactly non partisan on the anti gun issue. I agree some training should be a pre requsite of a CC permit. HOWEVER the real value in Concealed Carry is deterance,the bad guy don't know who is carrying. From personnal experiance, I can tell you gunfire is not usually required to defuse a situation, both times I had to rely on a handgun for self/home defense, presentation was all that was required to send the bad guys packing.

Did you watch it?

McMike
12-26-2011, 11:02 AM
Oh, that's the point. You just don't understand it yet.I understand it very well thank you, I'm simply not buying in and you are certainly not doing a good job of championing your cause, in fact you do a great job of proving my point.

Bob Adams
12-26-2011, 11:06 AM
Did you watch it?

Yes I did, although after noticing the term "Dream World" in the title, I pretty much knew what I was going to see.

McMike
12-26-2011, 11:07 AM
Don't be afraid Mike.Okay, you make me feel so much better.;)

McMike
12-26-2011, 11:09 AM
Yes I did, although after noticing the term "Dream World" in the title, I pretty much knew what I was going to see.

Outside of that, what did you think of the demonstration and the opinions of the officers?

hanleyclifford
12-26-2011, 11:10 AM
Actually there is nothing wrong with discussing the vetting of prospective carry candidates, by US citizens, of course. But the extreme positions taken by McMike and others always turn these discussions to polemics. Here in Massachusetts we have an excellent license procedure that when properly implemented keeps guns out of the hands of the kooks.

Bob Adams
12-26-2011, 11:18 AM
Outside of that, what did you think of the demonstration and the opinions of the officers?

What I would expect. If I wanted to see the opposite, I'd look for a similar demontration produced, and participants selected by, a Fox affiliate. In my town, I can find police officers who favor concealed carry and those who don't. As with the participants, you pick who you use according to the POV you want to promote.

RonW
12-26-2011, 11:21 AM
McMike -
Ron, do me a favor, breath. Listen, try to be a little fluid, if all you want to do is scream your point, then don't bother posting. If you want a discussion in order to intelligently present your perspective, I welcome it.

That is laughable, did you see anything in bold type, actually I am laughing at you and enjoying the clownish posts from those
that still bow to the queen.
Read the book, of course you won't as I never watched your liberal anti- video..

It would seem your hatred goes back to your childhood when your brother was a bully and some one got fed up with it and put a stop to it.

hanleyclifford
12-26-2011, 11:23 AM
Hanley, I held a concealed in Ma. since the 80's and at the time it was a lifetime permit unless I did something to change that. They wiped all that out and left it up to police chiefs making everyone reapply. I left just before that went down as my police chief only approved those politically connected. He was exposed by the local paper sometime after but the damage was done. Mass is a poor example by any stretch of the imagination. TD - Note that I said "properly implemented". There is room for improvement here, to be sure. My main point is that the second amendment guarantees individual rights re firearms. On this I think we agree. The details of licensing are legitmate topic for discussion - outright seizure and tryanny are not.

McMike
12-26-2011, 11:27 AM
McMike -

That is laughable, did you see anything in bold type, actually I am laughing at you and enjoying the clownish posts from those
that still bow to the queen.
Read the book, of course you won't as I never watched your liberal anti- video..

It would seem your hatred goes back to your childhood when your brother was a bully and some one got fed up with it and put a stop to it.

And again, why bother having a discussion if the parties are talking about two completely different things. Thanks for wasting my time. I'll be sure to not bother reading and comprehending your posts in the future.

LeeG
12-26-2011, 11:28 AM
Would you care to reread this, and think about the image of you that it creates?
Sheesh.

he lives amongst the enemy, pretty scary situation in Martha's Vineyard.

RonW
12-26-2011, 11:30 AM
McMike -
And again, why bother having a discussion if the parties are talking about two completely different things. Thanks for wasting my time. I'll be sure to not bother reading and comprehending your posts in the future.

That is fine, I don't have a problem with that at all, in fact it is your right.

And my right is not to agree with you. Or any other anti-gun liberals..

Ron Williamson
12-26-2011, 11:30 AM
What a joke.
If you weren't afraid,you wouldn't need all those guns.
Man up and talk your way out of it, or fight barehanded.
R

Bob Adams
12-26-2011, 11:37 AM
What a joke.
If you weren't afraid,you wouldn't need all those guns.
Man up and talk your way out of it, or fight barehanded.
R

Not a damn thing funny about it.

McMike
12-26-2011, 11:37 AM
Not a damn thing funny about it.

I'd have to agree with you there.

LeeG
12-26-2011, 11:38 AM
there must be a SouthPark episode that can illuminate the positions involved.

Bob V
12-26-2011, 11:48 AM
McMike -

That is fine, I don't have a problem with that at all, in fact it is your right.

And my right is not to agree with you. Or any other anti-gun liberals..

How do you feel about pro-gun liberals. I am an ex-military liberal who would like to point out that some of us who support the the right to carry are not rabid fanatics like those with the loudest voices.

Also, long live the Queen! She seems like a nice lady.

Historical footnote: the revolution was not about taking away our guns it was about parlimentary representation in particular with regard to taxing authority. We do tend to get pretty rabid about taxes down here.

Peace,

Bob

Canoeyawl
12-26-2011, 11:54 AM
You are ruled and driven by fear.

Being ruled by fear is a bad deal. There are people that post their fears daily on public forums, and you can learn from them just how many things there are to be afraid of.

If you are afraid the very best thing you can do is to show your hand, pull out a concealed weapon and shoot someone. That will cure your fear for sure...

hanleyclifford
12-26-2011, 12:03 PM
Here is another historical fact from the Chairman, and repeated by Robert Mugabe - "...power comes out of the barrel of a gun..."

Nicholas Scheuer
12-26-2011, 12:07 PM
Those blue plastic Glocks are so cute! My prob with concealed carry is the kooks who carry them.

I have an M1 carbine for home defense, but out on the street I never feel I need a firearm.

Bob V
12-26-2011, 12:14 PM
BobV --

Oh you guys are fine, in fact I enjoy your point of view, and will go on record as saying one of the worse things to
happen in our political arena is the lack of solid blue dog dems, also known as conservative democrats and the lack of social
republicans also...

And as a historical fact we fought the revolution over the king stopping us from creating our own money that we use to do, then he increased the taxes and demanded payment in his gold coin that we didn't have enough of, which put us into poverty and a depression. Sound familiar....The real cause was the money, not the tax..

As a pacifist who supports gun rights, I am slow to anger and never resort to violence when another option exists but calling me a "blue dog democrat" is fighting words.

hanleyclifford
12-26-2011, 12:16 PM
Those blue plastic Glocks are so cute! My prob with concealed carry is the kooks who carry them.

I have an M1 carbine for home defense, but out on the street I never feel I need a firearm. They are now making them in pink and BTW, increasingly it is women who are applying for and getting carry permits. Stay tuned for the "Rights of the Wounded Attempted Rapist Thread."

Peerie Maa
12-26-2011, 12:24 PM
They are now making them in pink and BTW, increasingly it is women who are applying for and getting carry permits. Stay tuned for the "Rights of the Wounded Attempted Rapist Thread."

What is wrong with pepper spray, range too short?

John Smith
12-26-2011, 12:28 PM
McMike -

And your rights end when they infringe upon my rights, That is a 2 way street, so don't infringe upon my rights.
Those that do infringe upon other's rights are breaking laws, and therefore are apprehended and punished.
You can not make laws that will stop crime, if we could, then obviously there would be no crimes.

If you really want to educate yourself, get the book I listed above, John Lott was a anti-gun liberal when he started that
book to prove less guns will equal less crime, but the facts in of themselves changed his mind.

John Smith -

Once again john does not understand the constitution or the founding fathers principles, and is exactly
why I will not bend a inch on this subject, due to people like John and mike....carry on though..
it might have some value as pure entertainment ...........
I accept the fact I am outnumbered here, but my opinion is based on what the constitution actually says, not what I want it to day. It says nothing about "handguns" or defending yourself. It says "arms" and that the right of the people to keep and bear them shall not be infringed, because we need a well regulated Militia. It gives no other reason. It also says it is the governments repsonsibility to provide those arms and the training. According to your concept of their meaning, I am entitled to the government supplying my hand gun and the training: which it does for Police, National Guard, and thos military things like the Army which have rendered the need for a Militia moot.

If you can find words in the Constituion that state otherwise, please quote them.

That said, I'd still like to see the actual statisitcs as to how all these weapons in the hands of citizens cut down or increase the rate of crimes; robberies and homicides and how many people are killed by those defending themselves, and how many people are killed because they are trying to defend themselves.

We keep stats on everything. I'm sure we have statistics that will show this. If those people who own guns sleep better at night because they perceive themselves to be safer, I have no problem. I question, however, the accuracy of their perception and the fear they hold. I also questioned the desire of Al Qaeda to want any weapon they would need to smuggle into this country as a weapon to attack within this country, or how the color codes made us safer, or how much of the increased airport security makes us safer.

This is, IMO, as much a myth as was the Reagan presidency which is cited for support of things that didn't happen during it.

As to the "rights" part of this discussion, I would be inclined not to go anywhere that booze and guns are apt to mix. That would be my choice, but I would like a sign on the front door that tells me concealed weapons may be carried inside.

Gerarddm
12-26-2011, 12:31 PM
I have not 'carried on and off for thirty years' and have never gotten into a situation where having a concealed weapon was worth anything more than a paperweight, which says much about the kinds of people TylerD evidently hangs out with.

And HanleyClifford: 'freedom' doesn't require personal armament, and I would say has not since the closing the American frontier in the late 1800s. Any number of countries are just as free as the USA without requiring a cult of The Temple Of The Gun. It is nothing more than fetish.

Bob Adams
12-26-2011, 01:00 PM
I don't feel like watching it again, can anyone site where the people in the video were actually concealed permit holders?

Phillip Allen
12-26-2011, 01:14 PM
what is it with you crusaders and your tim tebow scenerios...?

Phillip Allen
12-26-2011, 01:28 PM
here ya go class... some definations to consider:

but my opinion is based on what the constitution actually says, not what I want it to day. It says nothing about "handguns" or defending yourself. It says "arms" and that the right of the people to keep and bear them shall not be infringed, because we need a well regulated/ Militia. It gives no other reason. It also says it is the governments repsonsibility to provide those arms and the training. According to your concept of their meaning, I am entitled to the government supplying my hand gun and the training: which it does for Police, National Guard, and thos military things like the Army which have rendered the need for a Militia moot.

obviously, this man considers himself to be not only a constitutional scholor but his OPINION trumps all other such scholors
he pretends to instruct others (in particular, ME, as a reader) as to what 'actually' means... a trump card

he negates all the rest of the constitution with the phrase 'no other reason'... telling us, in effect, "don't bother disputing me... I have trumped you"

he now tells us what 'arms' means or more accuratly, what is NOT included in the term

glossing ov er the term 'infringed' and on to what he considers more sallient points, he waves his right sleeve at us claiming "there's nothing up my sleeve"... while avoiding showing any other 'sleeves at all

later, he poinints out that we have already trained bandits (my point) so why bother to do anything for ourselves when wh have these fine government troopers to shepard us through life


finally: look up propaganda

John Smith
12-26-2011, 02:26 PM
John Smith -

No it doesn't ..the constitution says no frigging thing such as what you wrote..

At what point are you going to read and have just a basic understanding of this document that you say
you just read for the first time in your life a few months ago....you amaze me at your statements..

Actually, it says exactly what I say it says. The 2nd Amendment specifically says that the need to maintain a Militia is the reason the peoples' right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In Article 1, section 8, it gives the federal government the responsibility to arm, train, and call up that Militia. Today, when we think of Militia, we think of an armed group ready to defend themself against the government. Then it was an armged group to be called up to defend the government

From Section 1:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress

The second Amendment in its entirety:

Amendment 2
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Nowhere does it mention self defense for one's self or one's family. Please read all of the above, which is taken directly out of the constitution, and show me where it says the people have the right to carry handguns to defend themselves.

stevebaby
12-26-2011, 03:55 PM
I served my country as a combat infantryman in two wars - I don't need training - I gave it. BTW, I especially dislike pommie interjections into the affairs of this counrtry.Now you know how the rest of the world feels about American interjections into the affairs of their countries.

ChaseKenyon
12-26-2011, 04:08 PM
Here is what you should think about. There are over 90 million gun owners here. So lets say at some point you decide to come for our guns. The majority most likely will give them up but lets say a paltry 3% say no. "If you come for my guns we will kill you" that is 3 million men. Probably mostly Veterans who swore an Oath. All I gotta say is you better have lots of Ammo yourselves. :)

You all have a happy New Year.

+42

my father always said sign up for every license, permit or what have you.

It is harder for government or anyone or entity to take away something you have documented, than to take away what you do not.

That applies for everything from land deeds to 20$ extra for title on and old antique car to CCPs.

Even if you do not own a firearm of any kind, if your state had a shall issue policy get your concealed carry permit.

Be prepared for whatever the future brings. Things change the world changes governments change.

Someday you might be happy you had the permit and it could save our , but more importantly, your family's lives.

ChaseKenyon
12-26-2011, 04:26 PM
Actually, it says exactly what I say it says. The 2nd Amendment specifically says that the need to maintain a Militia is the reason the peoples' right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In Article 1, section 8, it gives the federal government the responsibility to arm, train, and call up that Militia. Today, when we think of Militia, we think of an armed group ready to defend themself against the government. Then it was an armged group to be called up to defend the government

From Section 1:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress

The second Amendment in its entirety:

Amendment 2
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, here we have a statement of good reasons, not necessarily all the reasons for this

the right of thepeople to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Nowhere does it mention self defense for one's self or one's family. Please read all of the above, which is taken directly out of the constitution, and show me where it says the people have the right to carry handguns to defend themselves.




every phrase, sentence, and paragraph has its own weight.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
12-26-2011, 04:27 PM
I might also add that I no longer hold the opinion that we should abolish all firearms, only handguns, this fact alone defeats your point that my opinion, if it were to become reality, would put us at risk of becoming victims of our government or Hun invaders.

How would that work? Law abiding citizens would willingly turn in handguns for scrap metal, while gangsters keep shooting whomever they please until they all get arrested, or their guns break? It would take decades for all those cheap Rugers to seize up from neglect.

Now, to be clear, I'm pretty good with a bo-staff so I don't carry, but I understand why people who routinely find themselves in certain neighborhoods want to have a pistol on them when outside of their homes.

ChaseKenyon
12-26-2011, 04:27 PM
John, there are books on this subject, do yourself a favor and buy one and read it. You should also read the Jefferson papers, that describe and discuss exactly what the founding fathers meant and intended.
Article 1 section 8 as I have told you before describes the rights of the federal government, all other rights are reserved as state rights, meaning any and all
that are not specifically mentioned.
The bill or rights, in it's entire form are the rights of the citizens, that shall not be infringed upon by any form of government, no matter at what level.
Now when you understand that the bill of rights belong to the citizens, it will help you understand things just a tab bit better..

Get yourself a book to help you understand .......also read the 1st. amendment and ask yourself how many rights are listed in it.


+42

Phillip Allen
12-26-2011, 04:34 PM
still, I wonder why the crusade from people like Mr Smith who obviously doesn't really care about the subject? what IS going on with these clowns?

McMike
12-26-2011, 04:44 PM
I don't feel like watching it again, can anyone site where the people in the video were actually concealed permit holders?

I don't remember if there were any identified as CCW holders outside of the one guy who failed miserably. The point was made that all of the participants were trained at least up to the level of training required by half of the CCW states. This clearly was not enough training and as stated by the trained officers, "the training is perishable", it needs to be an ongoing thing.

The point that I'd like to explore is that carrying a gun gives a false sense of security at best and endangers the holder and others at worst. I think the point that hit home was in situations that would warrant deadly force, most people would be crippled with fear and adrenalin with the exception of the most trained individuals.

McMike
12-26-2011, 04:46 PM
How would that work? Law abiding citizens would willingly turn in handguns for scrap metal, while gangsters keep shooting whomever they please until they all get arrested, or their guns break? It would take decades for all those cheap Rugers to seize up from neglect.

Now, to be clear, I'm pretty good with a bo-staff so I don't carry, but I understand why people who routinely find themselves in certain neighborhoods want to have a pistol on them when outside of their homes.I'm not prepared to argue the hows, only the fact that we should consider it.

Meli
12-26-2011, 04:51 PM
One of these days, I'm going to copy one of these threads and use the posts in a movie script.:rolleyes:

It will star John Wayne, Charlton Heston, John Lennon and Biork.
Posters will be credited :D

LeeG
12-26-2011, 05:17 PM
+42

my father always said sign up for every license, permit or what have you.

It is harder for government or anyone or entity to take away something you have documented, than to take away what you do not.

That applies for everything from land deeds to 20$ extra for title on and old antique car to CCPs.

Even if you do not own a firearm of any kind, if your state had a shall issue policy get your concealed carry permit.

Be prepared for whatever the future brings. Things change the world changes governments change.

Someday you might be happy you had the permit and it could save our , but more importantly, your family's lives.

seems to me if you're suspected of being a terrorist, drug dealer or some other alleged dangerous person of interest and the gov't wants you, your legally owned firearm won't be of much use except to raise the stakes for their lethal fire.

LeeG
12-26-2011, 05:29 PM
The point that I'd like to explore is that carrying a gun gives a false sense of security at best and endangers the holder and others at worst. I think the point that hit home was in situations that would warrant deadly force, most people would be crippled with fear and adrenalin with the exception of the most trained individuals.

oh no, the sense of security is real. It's like having a fast car,motorcycle, new table saw or other acquisition it confers power like a magic ring. While you're taking a class on microbiology deep in concentration and someone comes in the room planning and ready to do harm with their finger on the trigger you'll snap right into action. Like Keanu Reeves in the Matrix time will slow down for the bad guy but you'll be moving 100milliseconds ahead of the perp because of all those years in training.
It's like driving a car, the people who get blindsided don't practice enough getting blindsided, and if you're really worried about it you can get an Escalade AND CCW.

Meli
12-26-2011, 05:29 PM
Actually, out of interest.
Can anyone explain the rationale of carrying a concealed weapon?
I would have thought that openly carrying a weapon as the police do, would be a much greater deterrant to would be muggers.

John Smith
12-26-2011, 05:33 PM
John, there are books on this subject, do yourself a favor and buy one and read it. You should also read the Jefferson papers, that describe and discuss exactly what the founding fathers meant and intended.
Article 1 section 8 as I have told you before describes the rights of the federal government, all other rights are reserved as state rights, meaning any and all
that are not specifically mentioned.
The bill or rights, in it's entire form are the rights of the citizens, that shall not be infringed upon by any form of government, no matter at what level.
Now when you understand that the bill of rights belong to the citizens, it will help you understand things just a tab bit better..

Get yourself a book to help you understand .......also read the 1st. amendment and ask yourself how many rights are listed in it.

So, only the states can have an airforce?

I suggest you simply read the constitution. It's not very compex wording, and it's not very long. It is in fact pretty specific that the need for a militia is the ONLY reason why the government shall not infringe on the right to bear arms. NO other reason is given IN THE CONSTITUTION.

Chris Coose
12-26-2011, 05:38 PM
I'm always shedding stuff from my pockets. Hate carrying stuff around. Never walked into anything like a gun fight and don't ever expect to. What all that adds up to is a strong aversion to carrying a gun around.

And for the rest of you, knock yourselves out. And do keep a sentry out for all the gun grabbers. They are comin to get you every moment, every day. (As if they give a ****. You guys sound like the folks who are terrorized by the pagans who are going to steal Christ from Christmas). Tell you one thing for certain, If I did have a permit to carry a gun, I wouldn't make it public.

hanleyclifford
12-26-2011, 05:40 PM
Now you know how the rest of the world feels about American interjections into the affairs of their countries. Eureka! An intelligent observation on the subject from a foreigner. (Aussies are not pommies, BTW).

Phillip Allen
12-26-2011, 05:56 PM
I'm not prepared to argue the hows, only the fact that we should consider it.

listen, Einstein, it has been considered bi annually for the last 60 years (that I lived thdrough)... where the hell have YOU been? Did you ACTUALLY think you had thought of something NEW??? "Honey, let's try this and see if you get pregnant?" No doubt you never considered that some other genius might have tried this before???

How in the heck do you avoid standing in the rain, looking up and drowning like a turkey poult?

Houndog
12-26-2011, 06:00 PM
I'm all for the 2nd Ammendment. Along with owning and bearing guns we should also have the right to use said guns in defence of ourselves, our loved ones and our property.
If some bad person breakes into my house I'm reasonably sure it's not to do me any kind favors. If that person is three times my size I believe I should have sufficient means of self defence. They won't give me time to call the police nor will they wait till the police get there.
What we need is more responsible armed citizens. Also, it really doesn't take a whole lot of training to learn to use a firearm.

LeeG
12-26-2011, 06:08 PM
Also, it really doesn't take a whole lot of training to learn to use a firearm.

well that's quite a conversation opener

Meli
12-26-2011, 06:12 PM
Doesn't it ever bother you guy's that the rest of the whole western world think you are nuts re your gun laws?
Do you ever pause and reflect that they might have a point?

Phillip Allen
12-26-2011, 06:13 PM
I'm all for the 2nd Ammendment. Along with owning and bearing guns we should also have the right to use said guns in defence of ourselves, our loved ones and our property.
If some bad person breakes into my house I'm reasonably sure it's not to do me any kind favors. If that person is three times my size I believe I should have sufficient means of self defence. They won't give me time to call the police nor will they wait till the police get there.
What we need is more responsible armed citizens. Also, it really doesn't take a whole lot of training to learn to use a firearm.

I'll comment on the training... the trainning needed is not how to shoot but IF you should shoot... that gets left out of even cop training as evidenced by the shooting of billfold flashers and handcuffed guys laying on the floor with a 200 pound thug with his knee in the small of his back while some cowboy blasts away at point blank range

LeeG
12-26-2011, 06:15 PM
Doesn't it ever bother you guy's that the rest of the whole western world think you are nuts re your gun laws?
Do you ever pause and reflect that they might have a point?

why not at all, the stronger the reaction the greater validation of our position. We refuse, to be confused, by the facts!

seanz
12-26-2011, 06:16 PM
Doesn't it ever bother you guy's that the rest of the whole western world think you are nuts re your gun laws?
Do you ever pause and reflect that they might have a point?

Awww......how cute.

Is this your first gun thread in the Bilge?
:D:D

LeeG
12-26-2011, 06:17 PM
I'll comment on the training... the trainning needed is not how to shoot but IF you should shoot... that gets left out of even cop training as evidenced by the shooting of billfold flashers and handcuffed guys laying on the floor with a 200 pound thug with his knee in the small of his back while some cowboy blasts away at point blank range

so who gets more training in real life situations where the decision has to be made?

Phillip Allen
12-26-2011, 06:18 PM
so who gets more training in real life situations where the decision has to be made?
me... cops are trained by city officials concerned about law suits... thus the term and practice of 'double-tap'

LeeG
12-26-2011, 06:22 PM
me... cops are trained by city officials concerned about law suits... thus the term and practice of 'double-tap'

cool, where did/do you get this better training ? How long of a course, what kind of curriculum?

Phillip Allen
12-26-2011, 06:24 PM
cool, where did/do you get this better training ? How long of a course, what kind of curriculum?

common sense and a love for my fellow man...do you intend to persue a distractive attack on me or do you intend to listen and treat me with the same ;respect as you want for yourself... dremember the golden rule

Meli
12-26-2011, 06:26 PM
:D no, but I sometimes wonder how some of these guy's would cope without their crutches in a dark back street in Athens at 2am.
or wandering past the darkened cemetery in Ropongi at 3am with all those Yakuza and Nigerian touts hanging around.
It's never bothered 'lil ol'me me::rolleyes:
But maybe that's why most don't have a passport :D

LeeG
12-26-2011, 06:27 PM
common sense and a love for my fellow man...do you intend to persue a distractive attack on me or do you intend to listen and treat me with the same ;respect as you want for yourself... dremember the golden rule

I gotta get home and will pick this up tomorrow. I consider learning skills as something that requires training and practice for muscle memory to provide the tool while the brain processes the situation. The situation we're describing is close up and violent so the training has to be close up and violent. talk to you tomorrow.

bobbys
12-26-2011, 06:29 PM
Wow missed this thread.

still wondering why when i was 17, drunk, high on Pot, Chasing skirts was my main objective in life besides riding around aimlessly on a MC The Government thought i was oneA and wanted to give me a automatic weapon to kill people i never even met.

Now im 58 , Pay taxes, Like 4 door cars, can Only have one drink a day by Doctors orders, Stopped smoking even regular Cigs 30 years ago, Run from Woman. People think I would be Irresponsible with a gun?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-26-2011, 06:35 PM
No reality is what happens when your unarmed in a situation. I have carried on and off going on Thirty years and it has saved me from death or serious injury on several occasions. Your no judge of any man or his inalienable rights to self defense. If you believe strongly enough than do your best to disarm another without the power of the state to back you up. Won't happen because wimps only are tough in gangs.


Ohhhhh, I see, you're tough because you carry a gun. Now I completely understand.

Phillip Allen
12-26-2011, 06:36 PM
:D no, but I sometimes wonder how some of these guy's would cope without their crutches in a dark back street in Athens at 2am.
or wandering past the darkened cemetery in Ropongi at 3am with all those Yakuza and Nigerian touts hanging around.
It's never bothered 'lil ol'me me::rolleyes:
But maybe that's why most don't have a passport :D

I used to stroll around the back streets of Sao Paulo at 0430 in the morning with nothing but a jogging outfit on... never had any encounters with any axe murders or other villians who didn't cross the street to avoid me...
Are you attempting to suggest that I cannot think for myself? Are you, like Lee and sometimes others, telling me that I must have 'trainning' to get out of the rain or away from dicey dituations? If I were to listen to him, I would never leave the house without an excort which HE approves of.
that sort of bs is unwinnable... like CONSIDERING something which has been considered over and over ad nauseum, ad infinitum... maybe we chould accept that 'consider' will not be achieved until Mike gets the answer to 'consider' that he wants... he has trouble understanding the answers as it is... they being NO (I can explain the answer to him but I cannot understand it for him)

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-26-2011, 06:36 PM
Apparently, you and stevebaby aren't aware PMJ is the official bilge spokesman for the whole western world, when it comes to matters concerning the USA. Actually, his license is for the whole civilized world.


Well, I try to be humble and not use the word official too often.

Phillip Allen
12-26-2011, 06:38 PM
Well, I try to be humble and not use the word official too often.

was it this thread that someone complained that the US involves herself in 'other countries' domestic affairs?

Glen Longino
12-26-2011, 06:41 PM
listen, Einstein, it has been considered bi annually for the last 60 years (that I lived thdrough)... where the hell have YOU been? Did you ACTUALLY think you had thought of something NEW??? "Honey, let's try this and see if you get pregnant?" No doubt you never considered that some other genius might have tried this before???

How in the heck do you avoid standing in the rain, looking up and drowning like a turkey poult?

How rude is this post, all you well-mannered, Emily Post rednecks?:D
Hell, I was banned for less, not even addressed to an individual forum member as this post is!LOL

Phillip Allen
12-26-2011, 06:43 PM
How rude is this post, all you well-mannered, Emily Post rednecks?:D
Hell, I was banned for less, not even addressed to an individual forum member as this post is!LOL

what about the content... I am truly offended by his 'begging' us to consider over and over when it has already been done... it is insulting... or do you see it otherwise?

seanz
12-26-2011, 06:44 PM
I thought it was well considered and direct......and par for the course in a gun thread.
:D

bobbys
12-26-2011, 06:45 PM
My brother was mugged in Jersey, He bought a Pistol and learned to use it.

Creeps kicked him after they took his money, He was a smart guy but looked like a Target with a Pocket Protector and Big Glasses.

His friend was beaten to a pulp by muggers.

My Brother showed him which pistol to buy.

That friend was Bernie Goetz.

Funny the media always says the muggers just had a screwdriver but the reality is they sharpen it like a ice pick to stab people with..

I never had a bit of trouble being a big guy but would not gamble some mugger is going to not kick my head in while im down.

Creeps look for the weak, I think more people should have guns

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-26-2011, 06:45 PM
Don't get you panties in a bunch quite yet. I said I have carried.

I don't think I will ever be as tough as you are on an internet forum though panties aside. :)

Where have I explained or even claimed my toughness? This is all about you pussykat. I have never told any tall tales here. You just did... Ooooh I carried a gun and I was in a tough tough toughie scrape, and just saved my lily white butt with the six shooter I was carrying. Don't do this at home kids, this is a place for trained toughie boys. LMAO :D:D:D

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-26-2011, 06:47 PM
was it this thread that someone complained that the US involves herself in 'other countries' domestic affairs?


The US meddles with everyone's domestic affairs. It's your country's trademark.

Phillip Allen
12-26-2011, 06:50 PM
this is gonna turn into a fight with particularlly unreasonable behaviour from the 'anti' side (as usual)

stupid stuff

Meli
12-26-2011, 06:53 PM
I used to stroll around the back streets of Sao Paulo at 0430 in the morning with nothing but a jogging outfit on... never had any encounters with any axe murders or other villians who didn't cross the street to avoid me...
Are you attempting to suggest that I cannot think for myself? Are you, like Lee and sometimes others, telling me that I must have 'trainning' to get out of the rain or away from dicey dituations? If I were to listen to him, I would never leave the house without an excort which HE approves of.
that sort of bs is unwinnable... like CONSIDERING something which has been considered over and over ad nauseum, ad infinitum... maybe we chould accept that 'consider' will not be achieved until Mike gets the answer to 'consider' that he wants... he has trouble understanding the answers as it is... they being NO (I can explain the answer to him but I cannot understand it for him)

No, I'm suggesting that some of you should get out of the Americas a bit more and observe how other those in other countries seem to get by just fine without feeling they have to arm themselves to the teeth before they go to the 7/11 to get the milk.

As I said, instead of accepting the hommily that it is a right to bear arms, Maybe weigh up the consequences of promoting and defending that ancient article.

As for the OP, the well trained cops here would be suspended for pulling a gun in a Mall unless the situation was dire, as for firing it:rolleyes:.
I believe if a situation arises and an armed perp holds a gun on a victim, the MO is to allow the perp to clear the area and then judiciously persue.
Stevebaby would prolly know better than I.

So the idea of ordinary citizens being able to carry is ludicrous, no matter how well trained they may be.

Meli
12-26-2011, 06:56 PM
this is gonna turn into a fight with particularlly unreasonable behaviour from the 'anti' side (as usual)

stupid stuff

It is possible to just ignore the sub plot and get on with the discussion:D

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-26-2011, 06:58 PM
You must covet the trademark, since you emulate the behavior regularly.

Really? I thought I commented on it. I didn't think I was powerful enough to meddle, but I'm impressed you think that I am.

Phillip Allen
12-26-2011, 07:01 PM
Really? I thought I commented on it. I didn't think I was powerful enough to meddle, but I'm impressed you think that I am.

okay, class... what is it called when arguing a distinction without a difference?

stevebaby
12-26-2011, 07:04 PM
I misunderstood. I always thought when someone repeatedly makes degrading reference to another posters level of toughness it is either a latent homosexual play or its a deep set trauma over the size of ones penis. I assume the trauma on your part but it could be the other. You brought it up so it must be on your mind. Penis that is.That's the funniest thing I've ever read in the Bilge.

Meli
12-26-2011, 07:11 PM
I'm not prepared to argue the hows, only the fact that we should consider it.

1 prohibit sale and import of all Ammo
2 offer very large cash incentives "no questions asked" for handing in ammo and hand guns

The junkies etc would quickly catch on that there is more to be made pinching someones guns and ammo and turning it in for reward than nicking a CD player to sell down the pub:D

Also your teenagers will know where the weapons cache is and do the same.

Use the undesirables nasty habits for the common good. The end justifies the means etc..
Most of them are too stupid to realise that they are drying up their own supply and the first stuff to get pinched and surrendered will belong to other low lives because they dont tend to live in well patrolled areas with large fluffy dogs and securety alarms.

DONE :D

hanleyclifford
12-26-2011, 07:45 PM
1 prohibit sale and import of all Ammo
2 offer very large cash incentives "no questions asked" for handing in ammo and hand guns

The junkies etc would quickly catch on that there is more to be made pinching someones guns and ammo and turning it in for reward than nicking a CD player to sell down the pub:D

Also your teenagers will know where the weapons cache is and do the same.

Use the undesirables nasty habits for the common good. The end justifies the means etc..
Most of them are too stupid to realise that they are drying up their own supply and the first stuff to get pinched and surrendered will belong to other low lives because they dont tend to live in well patrolled areas with large fluffy dogs and securety alarms.

DONE :D This is now the current leader for "most idiotic post of the thread".

tongaboy
12-26-2011, 07:45 PM
I misunderstood. I always thought when someone repeatedly makes degrading reference to another posters level of toughness it is either a latent homosexual play or its a deep set trauma over the size of ones penis. I assume the trauma on your part but it could be the other. You brought it up so it must be on your mind. Penis that is.

Yep, the man is one sick puppy....:p

The Bigfella
12-26-2011, 07:46 PM
Here is what you should think about. There are over 90 million gun owners here. So lets say at some point you decide to come for our guns. The majority most likely will give them up but lets say a paltry 3% say no. "If you come for my guns we will kill you" that is 3 million men. Probably mostly Veterans who swore an Oath. All I gotta say is you better have lots of Ammo yourselves. :)

You all have a happy New Year.

Are you saying that 3 million men (what, no women?) who mostly swore an Oath, will do the exact opposite of that Oath?

Meli
12-26-2011, 07:53 PM
1 prohibit sale and import of all Ammo
2 offer very large cash incentives "no questions asked" for handing in ammo and hand guns

The junkies etc would quickly catch on that there is more to be made pinching someones guns and ammo and turning it in for reward than nicking a CD player to sell down the pub:D

Also your teenagers will know where the weapons cache is and do the same.

Use the undesirables nasty habits for the common good. The end justifies the means etc..
Most of them are too stupid to realise that they are drying up their own supply and the first stuff to get pinched and surrendered will belong to other low lives because they dont tend to live in well patrolled areas with large fluffy dogs and securety alarms.

DONE :D


This is now the current leader for "most idiotic post of the thread".

Why?
Why wouldn't it work.?
Do you think it would not be an effective way of removing many guns from the less responsible elements.?

If some of you guy's tried thinking outside the box, you might just move ahead of the game.

The Bigfella
12-26-2011, 07:58 PM
I misunderstood. I always thought when someone repeatedly makes degrading reference to another posters level of toughness it is either a latent homosexual play or its a deep set trauma over the size of ones penis. I assume the trauma on your part but it could be the other. You brought it up so it must be on your mind. Penis that is.

Who was it that regaled us with the tale of hiding behind a tree with a baseball bat (penis substitute?) to take revenge on some other schoolkid.... put him in hospital, no less? Wasn't that a post demonstrating one's own level of toughness?

The Bigfella
12-26-2011, 07:59 PM
I'd say "of the year." The Australians are as lucky to have her as American liberals are to have wardd and John Smith.

Careful, you might take the title of most despised off me

Meli
12-26-2011, 08:04 PM
I'd say "of the year." The Australians are as lucky to have her as American liberals are to have wardd and John Smith.

Well then Mr smarty pants.
You have several options.

Here's a few

Admit that you don't see your "death by hand gun" stats as a problem
OR
You feel so secure in your own ability to protect you and your's, that it's some one elses problem
OR
You have no real interest in debating a problem, and certainly no interest in solving it.
OR
You don't have the imagination to come up with anything new to contribute to solving or reducing the problem.

It's called innovative thinking, try it some time, it may not solve problems, but beats the hell out of lapping up and regurgitating someone elses vomit.
:)

John Smith
12-26-2011, 08:09 PM
I'm all for the 2nd Ammendment. Along with owning and bearing guns we should also have the right to use said guns in defence of ourselves, our loved ones and our property.
If some bad person breakes into my house I'm reasonably sure it's not to do me any kind favors. If that person is three times my size I believe I should have sufficient means of self defence. They won't give me time to call the police nor will they wait till the police get there.
What we need is more responsible armed citizens. Also, it really doesn't take a whole lot of training to learn to use a firearm.
If you watched the video, it made a distinct point that there is more than just knowing how to aim and fire.

I think owning a handgun gives people a false sense of security and likely puts them more at risk than it makes them safer.

The Bigfella
12-26-2011, 08:13 PM
The statistics are startling.... unless you don't care.

1 million dead Americans due to firearms deaths in just the last 30 years or so .... compared to IIRC, 410,000 American combat deaths in the last 111 years. The combat deaths are celebrated.... the domestic deaths are ignored, or simply a cost of "freedom". Even if you take gun suicides out of that one million deaths, the domestic gun death rate is three times the combat death rate over time.

So, if the war dead are heroes, what does that make the innocent gun death victims?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-26-2011, 08:18 PM
I misunderstood. I always thought when someone repeatedly makes degrading reference to another posters level of toughness it is either a latent homosexual play or its a deep set trauma over the size of ones penis. I assume the trauma on your part but it could be the other. You brought it up so it must be on your mind. Penis that is.


On this one, I will let you be the expert on penises, which it appears you are. Stop thinking about my penis, that's all I'm askin..:D

John Smith
12-26-2011, 08:19 PM
JOhn Smith -

Another stupid and uninformed constitutional statement by Joihn Smith..

article 1 - section 8 defines the federal government as among other things--

The first sentence there john...now save the rest of your constitutional argument for someone else..
the more you say the less informed you obviously are...and that is putting it as nice as I can .......

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

P.S. John , there is no reason given why you have the right to keep and bear arms.
The reason was plainly understood.

I'm sorry I'm a thorn in the side of some here, but I posted exactly what the CONSTITUTION actually says on this subject, It clearly gives the reason for the second amendment as the necessity of maintaining a Militia. It says nothing about self defense. One has to work really hard to take those few lines that were actually agreed to and signed by our founders as something more than what they are. The Constituion specificallys says the government is to arm, train, and call up the Militia for specific purposes.

Funny how you and others frequently argue that if the constitution doesn't specifically give something to the feds, it belongs to the states. The constitution says NOTHING about an airforce; only armies and navies. Under your interpretation, the air forice would be a state thing, as the constitution doesn't specifically give the feds the responsibility to have one.

The 2nd Amendment is only one sentence. This is the single sentence our founders agreed to for this amendment. It reads very clearly. It's intent is quite clear; one of the clearest things in the entire document.

This discussion reminds me of the death panels that people kept explaining to us, and how Jon Steward simply READ the bill

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-20-2009/betsy-mccaughey-pt--1?xrs=share_copy

It simply did not say what so many told us it said, and so many believe it said.

The Bigfella
12-26-2011, 08:20 PM
Do you assume if they are not war deaths, they must be innocent? How faulty!

.................................................. ...................................
Sent from my K-Fire

I made no such assumption.

John Smith
12-26-2011, 08:23 PM
My brother was mugged in Jersey, He bought a Pistol and learned to use it.

Creeps kicked him after they took his money, He was a smart guy but looked like a Target with a Pocket Protector and Big Glasses.

His friend was beaten to a pulp by muggers.

My Brother showed him which pistol to buy.

That friend was Bernie Goetz.

Funny the media always says the muggers just had a screwdriver but the reality is they sharpen it like a ice pick to stab people with..

I never had a bit of trouble being a big guy but would not gamble some mugger is going to not kick my head in while im down.

Creeps look for the weak, I think more people should have guns
This is one guy and one incident.

Does anyone have statistics that show if owning a gun actually keeps you safer?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-26-2011, 08:32 PM
Pshaw. I retired that jersey long before you arrived.


You sure did, with those helpful gardening threads and other coochie coo informative threads. There are way nastier trolls under the bridge now.

Meli
12-26-2011, 08:41 PM
"Mr. Smarty Pants?"

You have no clue what my options may be.

.................................................. ...................................
Sent from my K-Fire

Yes, My Bad.:) You rarely seem to have the courage to post an actual opinion of your own.
Your MO in all situations seems to be of the sniper variety.

See, I can be just as nasty when I can be bothered :D

Waddie
12-26-2011, 08:44 PM
John Smith; Does anyone have statistics that show if owning a gun actually keeps you safer?

Just the entire first page of all three NRA magazines each and every month.

regards,
Waddie

Waddie
12-26-2011, 08:51 PM
John Smith; The Constituion specificallys says the government is to arm, train, and call up the Militia for specific purposes.

John, when the Constitution refers to "the people";;;; in each and every occurrence;;;; are they referring to a individual freedom ; or only a freedom if you are part of an organization ?

Would you research that and get back to me? Be specific.

regards,
Waddie

John Smith
12-26-2011, 08:52 PM
Just the entire first page of all three NRA magazines each and every month.

regards,
Waddie

I"d be inclined to think their numbers biased in the creation thereof.

I'm looking for something that shows people who carry concealed weapons are some percentage less, or more, likely to get shot.

I'm thinking that having a gun may be a bit more likely to have you put yourself in the middle of a situation that you'll have far less control over than you believe the gun will give you.

One immediate risk is the cops showing up and shooting everyone waving a gun.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-26-2011, 08:53 PM
You have one? Who Knew?


Okay, so you carry a gun, and think about penises a lot. We got that. Oh, and a baseball bat. and you're a pilot. right, got it. LOLOLOLOL:D Man, do you even think about what you post before you hit the keyboard? LMAO

Waddie
12-26-2011, 08:54 PM
John, check back on post #169

regards,
Waddie

RodB
12-26-2011, 09:00 PM
The original video clips are very similar to fist fights ( some I have either participated in or many others observed through the years) ... where one guy attacks another without any warning... The "attackee" is taken by surprise and probably about 99% of the time is taken aback as he begins to realize he is being attacked and pummeled with fists... as he begins to realize what is happening, he begins to react, obviously this reaction time varies on the individual, his injury level and his past training. If the assault has not killed him as in most physical altercations... or rendered him unconscious he will then begin to fight back. The longer the fight goes on, the more the "inability" to react decreases IMHO. Still, the majority of guys really surprise attacked in such a situation tend to lose the altercation due to getting the sh_t knocked out of them along with the fight motivation. I know from personal experience, once its "on", my thinking becomes clearer as the fight progresses. ........ My point is this "sudden attack" with shooting is only one scenario and not a fair evaluation of how gun owners fair in many other types of situations with any kind of warning (no matter how short a time) ... where life and property are defended with guns. The situation in the videos is only one of the most extreme situations that one may encounter.

The point...any situation with any amount of warning will have a high chance of improving the outcome results for the gun owner. Even police taken by surprise are known to have bad results with their accuracy in reaction to such surprise attacks. The situation shown in the videos is very likely to get the worst results for any gun owner.... as it would also with many of the highly trained police. The entire setup is biased and shows very little except that anyone surprised will be more vulnerable even if armed. The video failed to show how say... a few trained police officers would do from absolute surprise. There are just too many other situations where gun owners protect themselves... that do not start with shots being aimed at them out of the clear blue.

Additionally, any situation as shown in the video will boil down to what you will do automatically without thinking much. So.... if you have even a little bit of time to soak in the fact that a serious attack is about to happen, my personal experience shows me that the entire dynamics change from what was shown in the videos. If you have no warning and someone starts shooting, if you have shot your weapon thousands of rounds in a basic training defensive procedure, you will very likely assume your training stance (crouched with any awareness at all) and return fire. You may not count your rounds, or think of much else, but you should at minimum do what you have trained your body to do when shooting your handgun. This is why about 100% of the classes on gun qualification say shoot your gun often so that it becomes second nature... without thinking.

Another element is that many people just are stressed to paralysis in extreme situations. I saw this in Viet Nam more than once.

For whatever it's worth.... I'm usually against any argument that PMJ makes on just about any subject... especially his comments concerning the USA.

RodB

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-26-2011, 09:04 PM
Whew, I'm relieved. You go join Tylerdurden and discuss penises.

Bob Adams
12-26-2011, 09:08 PM
The point that I'd like to explore is that carrying a gun gives a false sense of security at best and endangers the holder and others at worst. I think the point that hit home was in situations that would warrant deadly force, most people would be crippled with fear and adrenalin with the exception of the most trained individuals.

Here's a fact Mike, if this stuff was happening in real life you can bet your ass the media would not be shy about reporting it. You just don't hear of it happening, and there are a ton of permits out there.

Meli
12-26-2011, 09:25 PM
The rotten thing about this carrying thing is that it has a snowball effect.
The more people that carry outside the home, the less secure non carriers feel, more people who are nervous around guns feel they need one and reluctantly keep it in the glove box or wherever.
The gunho types dont have a problem with going to gun clubs and doing training it's all part of the image.
I doubt the nervous gun carrier bothers. I wonder how many guns are bought on a nervous whim after a local brutal robbery and spend the next 5 years,loaded and forgotten in a glove box or bedside drawer.
Doesn't bear thinking about.

Glen Longino
12-26-2011, 09:37 PM
To bad so sad. The whiny left lose again.

Howling at the moon again, eh?

hanleyclifford
12-26-2011, 09:40 PM
Actually, out of interest.
Can anyone explain the rationale of carrying a concealed weapon?
I would have thought that openly carrying a weapon as the police do, would be a much greater deterrant to would be muggers. Actually, these are intelligent questions. 1) Usually the rationale of carrying the weapon concealed is a matter of law. Some states allow open carry, Massachusetts does not. 2) Would open carry be a greater deterrent? Would the "non-carriers" thus be more vulnerable to muggers? Good questions.

htom
12-26-2011, 09:47 PM
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=7209

Firearms accidental homicides at all time low. Carry permits at all time high. Congrats to those careful users.

Firearms are not evil magic wands. Firearms are not good magic wands. They are tools that can be used for good or ill.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
12-26-2011, 10:15 PM
I'm sorry I'm a thorn in the side of some here, but I posted exactly what the CONSTITUTION actually says on this subject, It clearly gives the reason for the second amendment as the necessity of maintaining a Militia.

I'm confused. I thought that Commie position was that the constitution is a living document that is far too complex for the feeble minds of mere citizens, and must be interpreted by the SCOTUS to be understood.

When it says that the federal government can regulate interstate commerce, that has nothing to do with trade, rather everything to do with anything you might want to spend money on. That is to say, they can regulate whatever they want.

When the constitution says free society, militia, keep and bear arms, it actually means that the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment is firearm ownership for the purpose of defending one's own home.

Trust the experts, John. Don't go trying to understand that document on your own. It's confusing.

The Bigfella
12-26-2011, 10:16 PM
Data recently released by the National Center for Health Statistics shows that in 2008, the number and per capita rate of firearm accident deaths fell to an all-time low. There were 592 firearm accident deaths (0.19 such accidents per 100,000 population) in 2008, as compared to 613 accidents (.20 per 100,000) in 2007. In 2008, the chance of a child dying in a firearm accident was roughly one in a million.
Firearm accidents accounted for 0.5% of all accidental deaths; well below the percentages accounted for by motor vehicle accidents, falls, fires, poisonings, and several other more common types of mishaps.

Firearm suicides rose in 2008 because total suicides rose, but the percentage of suicides accounted for by those misusing firearms remained steady, at just barely over half. This is down from about 60% during the 1980s and early 1990s. The firearm suicide rate remained at just under 6 per 100,000, as it has been every year from 1999 forward. Contrary to claims made recently by some gun control advocates, firearm suicides among children are extremely uncommon, and in 2008, fell to an all-time low.

Firearm homicides (including self-defense, but excluding lawful shootings by police) declined in 2008. More recent data reported by the FBI, shows that criminal homicides declined in 2008, again in 2009, and again in 2010, to a 47-year low.

I'll leave it to Phillip to point out that this is the most massive cherry-picking of statistics that we've seen for a long, long time.

Meanwhile.... maybe someone would care to tell us how many children actually died from firearm injuries that weren't accidents? Are those children heroes for defending the 2nd? The price of freedom?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-26-2011, 10:17 PM
Funny, I don't feel the need to defend my own home that way. I wonder why.

skuthorp
12-26-2011, 10:19 PM
Nice christmas you fellers are having, must be cold outside.

The Bigfella
12-26-2011, 10:25 PM
An estimated 50,000 persons die annually in the United States as a result of violence-related injuries (
1). Homicide is the second leading cause of death for persons aged 1524 years, the third leading cause for persons aged 14, 1014 and 2534 years, and the fourth for persons aged 59 years. .....


The majority of homicides involved the use of a firearm (65.8%) and occurred in a house or apartment (52.5%) or on a street/highway (21.3%). Homicides were precipitated primarily by arguments (41.4%) and interpersonal conflicts (18.4%) or in conjunction with another crime (30.2%).

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6010.pdf

Yep, the US apparently tolerates the slaughter of its children at an alarming rate as an acceptable cost for preserving some false sense of freedom.

Waddie
12-26-2011, 10:27 PM
attn; John Smith, I'm still waiting........................................... .................................................. .................................................

Well, since he can't seem to find it, I'll explain it; EVERY time the Constitution says "the people", they are referring to individual rights, not some "collective" right like a militia. This makes the Second Amendment an individual right.

regards,
Waddie

Bob Adams
12-26-2011, 10:29 PM
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6010.pdf

Yep, the US apparently tolerates the slaughter of its children at an alarming rate as an acceptable cost for preserving some false sense of freedom.
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

Unfortunately, the CDC considers the teen age gang bangers shooting each other over drugs to be children. Makes buzybody smart assed know it all foriegners get a skewed opinion of our country.

hanleyclifford
12-26-2011, 10:33 PM
Unfortunately, the CDC considers the teen age gang bangers shooting each other over drugs to be children. Makes buzybody smart assed know it all foriegners get a skewed opinion of our country. Perusing this thread you will see it is the foreigners who most despise our liberty (until they next need us, that is).

CWSmith
12-26-2011, 10:37 PM
The video confirms what I have often thought and always heard - the average Joe is not capable of using a weapon in the chaos of armed attacks. More guns means more collateral damage. The reduction of violent crime lies in many less macho solutions like good law enforcement, intelligent juries, education, and community response.

Bob Adams
12-26-2011, 10:37 PM
Perusing this thread you will see it is the foreigners who most despise our liberty (until they next need us, that is).

Yup, they sure do seem to have a ton of spare time to figure out all our problems. I love the Brits lambasting us for our right to bear arms....because they couldn't, fearing invasion they had to appeal to the U.S. citizens to send their personal weapons during WWII.

Bob Adams
12-26-2011, 10:38 PM
The video confirms what I have often thought and always heard - the average Joe is not capable of using a weapon in the chaos of armed attacks. More guns means more collateral damage. The reduction of violent crime lies in many less macho solutions like good law enforcement, intelligent juries, education, and community response.

Again I ask, given the large numbers of permit holders, where are the news stories of this happening? links please.

The Bigfella
12-26-2011, 10:48 PM
Unfortunately, the CDC considers the teen age gang bangers shooting each other over drugs to be children. Makes buzybody smart assed know it all foriegners get a skewed opinion of our country.

Aw sweety, give us a cuddle and we'll make up eh?

CWSmith
12-26-2011, 10:48 PM
Well, there was the congresswoman shot this year. One gun carrier arriving seconds late admitted he was confused and hesitated, but his first inclination was to shoot the wrong guy. Thankfully, he hesitated.

Then again, most people don't carry handguns at present. This was an experiment to see if more guns would reduce the death rate under these conditions. it anticipates the world some gun advocates support.

The Bigfella
12-26-2011, 10:49 PM
Again I ask, given the large numbers of permit holders, where are the news stories of this happening? links please.

Read the link I provided and you will be partially enlightened.

The Bigfella
12-26-2011, 10:51 PM
Yup, they sure do seem to have a ton of spare time to figure out all our problems. I love the Brits lambasting us for our right to bear arms....because they couldn't, fearing invasion they had to appeal to the U.S. citizens to send their personal weapons during WWII.

If ever I've seen proof of someone starting to realise they can't defend a position.... this is it.

Meli
12-26-2011, 10:54 PM
Free??? you guys are so funny. You would have to have one of the most fearful populations in the democratic world, one of the most financially insecure, one of the least protected against the slings and arrows of outragious fortune.

Sure you're free, free to become old and ill unless you could pay the insurance standover men.
Free to live your life as you wish, unless you want to plant a veggie garden in the front yard of the house on the avenue.
Free to loose your freedom for minor infringments.
Free to remove your child from a tax payer funded school if you dont like the religious indoctrination.
Free to run for gov office as long as you are rich.
Free to shoot your neighours
free to exploit those that are desparate for work. Free to refuse to be exploited if you would rather starve.

I find it vastly amusing in a sad sort of way, that those of you who bang on the most about your supposed great democracy and freedom, tend to be the most supportive of restricting electoral enrolment, protest gatherings or the right for workers to band together to bargain for decent wages and conditions.

God bless.

SamSam
12-26-2011, 11:11 PM
I didn't read all the posts here, but the video in the OP is obviously slanted to showcase their conclusions. It gives one scenario, a surprise attack where after shooting the instructor, out of a room full of people, the perpetrator immediately goes for the test subject. Even someone trained would have had little chance to protect themselves or do something useful before being shot. The extra long baggy T shirt covering the gun and the test subject wearing gloves only increase the odds the situation will go the way ABC wanted it to.

All the video showed was the test subject would have been shot, no matter if they had a gun or not. In a lot of the mass shootings, or shootings in general, the mayhem goes on for a long time leaving plenty of time for someone to dig out a gun and make a difference.

The Bigfella
12-26-2011, 11:14 PM
Oh dear.


Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman et al, 2005). Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). It would appear that, rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

wardd
12-26-2011, 11:17 PM
I disagree...threads like this also identify fearful obsessive fanatic ego-maniacs like TD.

in the land of the free, td is free to be all those

Bob Adams
12-26-2011, 11:22 PM
41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41

Good night.

wardd
12-26-2011, 11:22 PM
Yes. But that is my state of mind and refusal to accept the bull. If you are not free in your own mind you don't stand a chance wherever you are. What separates us from wherever else I have traveled or lived is the founding documents. You know the ones Andrew loves to poo on here with help from the usual suspects on these shores.
I Swore an Oath to do defend the Constitution and never once have gone back on it. That is the differnce. Who do you swear to? A Document or the Queen?

you seem to think that oath gave you the right to interpret the constitution

wardd
12-26-2011, 11:26 PM
when tyrants come to power they don't go after guns first

The Bigfella
12-26-2011, 11:27 PM
Here's some comments by Harvard Uni Professor of Health Policy David Hemenway


respondents were injured in 26.4% of the incidents in which they used some form of resistance; when they did nothing, they were injured 18.5% of the time....

In simple comparisons, nothing is better than calling the police–only 0.9% of the time did this lead to injury..

Glen Longino
12-26-2011, 11:28 PM
you seem to think that oath gave you the right to interpret the constitution

Of course he does!
So does Ron W.!
Trouble is, they not only want to interpret it for themselves, but for you and me also!

The Bigfella
12-26-2011, 11:29 PM
41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41

Good night.

Yep, glad you remember it. Every 41st American male dies with a bullet hole in them. Its amazing that a civilised society tolerates it, isn't it?

Meli
12-26-2011, 11:30 PM
People are only free when there is no such thing as an act of treason. :D

stevebaby
12-26-2011, 11:43 PM
Yup, they sure do seem to have a ton of spare time to figure out all our problems. I love the Brits lambasting us for our right to bear arms....because they couldn't, fearing invasion they had to appeal to the U.S. citizens to send their personal weapons during WWII.That's not true. It's a myth, made up by Americans.

seanz
12-26-2011, 11:45 PM
Yeah, we saved your ass in WW2.

Meli
12-26-2011, 11:47 PM
since when does the truth get in the way of a good sneer to SOME americans

Meli
12-26-2011, 11:49 PM
I was always told that WE had to teach murricans the fine art of jungle warfare in new guinea and malaysia:D
Buncha hopeless babies they wus :D nyah

Sorry. :D

Phillip Allen
12-26-2011, 11:50 PM
Here's a fact Mike, if this stuff was happening in real life you can bet your ass the media would not be shy about reporting it. You just don't hear of it happening, and there are a ton of permits out there.it's the tim tebow scenerio again

The Bigfella
12-26-2011, 11:53 PM
That's not true. It's a myth, made up by Americans.

Yeah... it reminded me of that US propaganda film U-571 (which won an Oscar)..... remember the one where the US Navy captured the Enigma machine? Yeah.... of course, there had already been 14 Enigma machine captures, 13 by the poms and one by the Canadians when the US finally got hold of something from a U Boat.... in mid '44. U-571 had already been sunk by an Australian aircraft from 461 Squadron..... but it seems facts mean nothing to some folks.

bobbys
12-26-2011, 11:56 PM
I was always told that WE had to teach murricans the fine art of jungle warfare in new guinea and malaysia:D
Buncha hopeless babies they wus :D nyah

Sorry. :D.

My Dad was in Oz in WW2.

Say you don't have a jersey accent and a crooked nose do ya?:d

htom
12-27-2011, 12:03 AM
Here's some comments by Harvard Uni Professor of Health Policy David Hemenway


respondents were injured in 26.4% of the incidents in which they used some form of resistance; when they did nothing, they were injured 18.5% of the time....

In simple comparisons, nothing is better than calling the police–only 0.9% of the time did this lead to injury..

Oh, yawn. Have the professor separate "used firearm", "used weapon", from "some form of resistance", please. And in what percentage of the time did that 0.9% injury rate from calling the police result from injuries inflicted by the police? (and how many of those injuries were fatal?)

Meli
12-27-2011, 12:03 AM
UM i'm a little gum tree Aussie :D

Phillip Allen
12-27-2011, 12:06 AM
Are you saying that 3 million men (what, no women?) who mostly swore an Oath, will do the exact opposite of that Oath?

I'd like you to reconcile the above with your 41 statement in which you deliberately left women out to get a better number


Yep, glad you remember it. Every 41st American male dies with a bullet hole in them. Its amazing that a civilised society tolerates it, isn't it?

now tell me you aren't an 'untruthful' person (defined as adjusting half truths in order to condition your audience to believe something which is, in effect, not true)

Phillip Allen
12-27-2011, 12:09 AM
BTW, Meli, to demand that the government recuit criminals to steal the property of the citizens in order to deprive them of their constitutional rights puts you in company with those whome I think you world rather not be caught in a dark alley with

THAT is appaling to say the least!!!




1 prohibit sale and import of all Ammo
2 offer very large cash incentives "no questions asked" for handing in ammo and hand guns

The junkies etc would quickly catch on that there is more to be made pinching someones guns and ammo and turning it in for reward than nicking a CD player to sell down the pub:D

Also your teenagers will know where the weapons cache is and do the same.

Use the undesirables nasty habits for the common good. The end justifies the means etc..
Most of them are too stupid to realise that they are drying up their own supply and the first stuff to get pinched and surrendered will belong to other low lives because they dont tend to live in well patrolled areas with large fluffy dogs and securety alarms.

DONE :D

do you have a strong dislike for Gypsies and zwerge? I'm asking because what you suggest is abaout as outrageously radical as it gets... Miss 'end justifies the means'

The Bigfella
12-27-2011, 12:13 AM
I'd like you to reconcile the above with your 41 statement in which you deliberately left women out to get a better number



now tell me you aren't an 'untruthful' person (defined as adjusting half truths in order to condition your audience to believe something which is, in effect, not true)

C'mon Phillip... can't you do better than that? You've never been able to disprove that statistic, despite hundreds of attempts to sling insults, like your second part of this response.

Come on, grow a pair and admit it - don't pussy foot around like a little girl. You can't disprove it.... can you? Because it is correct, isn't it?

Meli
12-27-2011, 12:14 AM
BTW, Meli, to demand that the government recuit criminals to steal the property of the citizens in order to deprive them of their constitutional rights puts you in company with those whome I think you world rather not be caught in a dark alley with

THAT is appaling to say the least!!!

You misunderstand.
The gov simply sets the price on ammo and guns returned to the police.
It's a Machiavelli kinda thing.

You guys lack a sense of the absurd, humour, irony and cunning plans :D

Phillip Allen
12-27-2011, 12:21 AM
You misunderstand.
The gov simply sets the price on ammo and guns returned to the police.
It's a Machiavelli kinda thing.

You guys lack a sense of the absurd, humour, irony and cunning plans :D

what about the part where you set the government up to fence the stolen goods? (Miss 'the end justifies the means')

Phillip Allen
12-27-2011, 12:26 AM
it is as I predicted with the anti's and their unreasonable tactics... like, 'the end justifies the means'

The Bigfella
12-27-2011, 12:35 AM
Can't find 'em eh Phillip?

Meli
12-27-2011, 12:43 AM
what about the part where you set the government up to fence the stolen goods? (Miss 'the end justifies the means')

It's a simple buy back amnesty.

Look, put your moral on hold for a minute and think about it.
I'll use out of the hat figure to demonstrate

hypothesis

small town in 23rd century
pop 100,000 all own 1 hand gun
A)1000 serious underworld crims
B)40,000 underclass 50% of which are petty criminals and /or drug users
C)50,000 ordinary working class/middle class living in ordinary suburbs with neighbouhood watch, family dogs, people at home during the day and reasonable police patrols and many with basic security alarms
D)9% rich folks with dogs, renta cop security etc.

Now, you seriously restrict, sale,import and manufacture of ammo.(it can be sold strictly by restricted licence to registered sports and hunting people)
you offer a cash in for hand guns and ammo equivilent to 2x the retail value
There are 10,000 armed poor folk or junkies out there looking for easy money.(class B)
Where they would normally hit the second group(C) and nick the CD and sell it for 20 bucks.
Instead, they start hiting their closest and easiest targets. the armed underclass.(B)
Once the arms are removed from there(B), the middle class (C) start getting rid of their guns so as not to attract the attention of (B)

Groups A and D look after themselves.
Group A seldom involve ordinary people in their activities
Group D have other resources to protect themselves from group A

Machiavelian but who cares if it worked.

The buy back offer is open to all, those in group B and C may legitimately return their unregistered caches when they have an unexpected
bill to pay or just if they have guns they no longer want.
If some others chose to take financial advantage of the offer, who cares if the ultimate objective to remove surplus guns from the community works.

The Bigfella
12-27-2011, 12:46 AM
It's a simple buy back amnesty.

Look, put your moral on hold for a minute and think about it.
I'll use out of the hat figure to demonstrate

hypothesis

small town in 23rd century
pop 100,000 all own 1 hand gun
A)1000 serious underworld crims
B)40,000 underclass 50% of which are petty criminals and /or drug users
C)50,000 ordinary working class/middle class living in ordinary suburbs with neighbouhood watch, family dogs, people at home during the day and reasonable police patrols and many with basic security alarms
D)9% rich folks with dogs, renta cop security etc.

Now, you seriously restrict, sale,import and manufacture of ammo.(it can be sold strictly by restricted licence to registered sports and hunting people)
you offer a cash in for hand guns and ammo equivilent to 2x the retail value
There are 10,000 armed poor folk or junkies out there looking for easy money.(class B)
Where they would normally hit the second group(C) and nick the CD and sell it for 20 bucks.
Instead, they start hiting their closest and easiest targets. the armed underclass.(B)
Once the arms are removed from there(B), the middle class (C) start getting rid of their guns so as not to attract the attention of (B)

Groups A and D look after themselves.
Group A seldom involve ordinary people in their activities
Group D have other resources to protect themselves from group A

Machiavelian but who cares if it worked.

Are you drinking it, smoking it or popping it?

Meli
12-27-2011, 12:53 AM
Are you drinking it, smoking it or popping it?

Instead of just poo pooing it, explain what's wrong with it.
Of course it would need finessing, but what's wrong with the general idea?

The Bigfella
12-27-2011, 12:55 AM
I'd like you to reconcile the above with your 41 statement in which you deliberately left women out to get a better number



now tell me you aren't an 'untruthful' person (defined as adjusting half truths in order to condition your audience to believe something which is, in effect, not true)

C'mon Phillip.... I'm telling you I'm not a liar. I'm not posting half truths. So - where does that leave you?

Put up Phillip. I've posted the statistic.

What have you got, other than hot air? Does your silence since you posted this mean that the "'untruthful' person" that you refer to above is you?

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
12-27-2011, 01:34 AM
you seem to think that oath gave you the right to interpret the constitution

Can you interpret the 2nd amendment? What does it mean? Does the SCOTUS agree with you?

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
12-27-2011, 01:35 AM
Of course he does!
So does Ron W.!
Trouble is, they not only want to interpret it for themselves, but for you and me also!

Can you interpret the 2nd amendment? What does it mean? Does the SCOTUS agree with you?

David G
12-27-2011, 01:38 AM
I know gun regulation in the U.S. is a HotButton topic. Nonetheless -- Whether you agree or disagree with the points made in the film from the OP... I think it would further communication if we would acknowledge that we'd watched it (otherwise, you don't even know what there is to agree or disagree with).

If you're going to agree... you might also mention any hesitations you have about that agreement. If you're going to disagree, it would be helpful if you first noted any parts you agreed with.

For myself... the issue is a confusing one. First, I have enough brains to look at the evidence and see that, perhaps, the present setup is not optimum. Second, I've enough libertarian impulses and Redneck background to be mighty leery of anyone or any government having anything to say about how many rifles or shotguns I own.

But, then... pistols. What to do about pistols. And... do Concealed Carry Permits make sense? If so, in what circumstances? With what limitations? This is where it gets sticky for me.

The film makes it pretty clear. Without far more rigorous training than is now required, people with CCP's are more likely to be a danger to themselves and innocent bystanders than be an agent of civil order... or to be able to protect themselves effectively. Of course... maybe the films incorrect in some key way(s)? If it is, I'd certainly be interested in hearing your critiques of it. After 5 pages or so, none of the opponents have tried to argue against the film... just the notion of gun controls in general.

So... I can imagine a Libertarian, Heinlein-type society where every citizen was armed with a pistol of some sort. The only people exempt are the too-old or too-young. Anyone picking on them would be dealt with ruthlessly. Dueling was not only allowed, but expected... if necessary. The dolts are weeded out, and society becomes quite polite. Insurance for unexpected damage (property or personal) is required (kinda like auto liability & collision insurance). That's one version. Is it realistic? Desirable?

The other version is far more stringent requirements for CCP's, and pistols otherwise banned. By more stringent, I mean serious cop/Ranger/Seal type firearms training in order to get it, and continuing training required to keep it. Psychological testing also. Hunting weapons exempted - just concealable firearms. That's another version. Is it realistic? Desirable?

Do y'all have another version you think might be better? Does anyone really think the status quo is actually the best?

Again... if you're gonna disagree with the OP... please watch to film to see what it is ACTUALLY saying.

OK... fire away!

The Bigfella
12-27-2011, 01:51 AM
Yeah... the OP got it right. I had a very interesting demonstration by the special ops cops a while back... to demonstrate the stupidity of the argument that cops should shoot to disable, rather than shooting to kill. The question posed to me was "how far away does a cop need to be to be able to draw his gun and defend himself against attack?".... the attack in question being a knife attack by a person with his hands in his pockets (and the knife in his hand). The answer was 7 metres.... about 24 feet.

At 16' the assailant was able to charge the cop and stab him a dozen times (using a red marker pen for the demo) before the cop got the gun out of his holster. That's a dead cop. At 24' the cop got a shot into the chest before the assailant got to him.

The point in the film is well made.

Glen Longino
12-27-2011, 01:56 AM
Can you interpret the 2nd amendment? What does it mean? Does the SCOTUS agree with you?

Sure, I can interpret it and have done so.
It means I can keep guns.
I have no concern what the SCOTUS thinks, just as the SCOTUS has no concern what I think.

Glen Longino
12-27-2011, 02:37 AM
Yeah... the OP got it right. I had a very interesting demonstration by the special ops cops a while back... to demonstrate the stupidity of the argument that cops should shoot to disable, rather than shooting to kill. The question posed to me was "how far away does a cop need to be to be able to draw his gun and defend himself against attack?".... the attack in question being a knife attack by a person with his hands in his pockets (and the knife in his hand). The answer was 7 metres.... about 24 feet.

At 16' the assailant was able to charge the cop and stab him a dozen times (using a red marker pen for the demo) before the cop got the gun out of his holster. That's a dead cop. At 24' the cop got a shot into the chest before the assailant got to him.

The point in the film is well made.

The last training I took here in Texas I think the distance was 21 feet.
An unarmed enraged man running at a cop should not have to die in theory.
But, in fact, if the cop does not think he can stop the attacker by other means, he better kill the attacker or he can take the cop's gun from him and kill him and anybody else he wants to kill. A risk that would be irresponsible for the cop.
I knew a particularly violent felon(he was never violent toward me)who took the gun away from a deputy sheriff near here and handcuffed the deputy to his steering wheel in his police car and drove away.
I could tell a dozen incredible stories about that particular felon, but I'll spare you. He avoided prosecution!
He wound up in a Texas prison finally, probably for the rest of his life.
I go visit him about once a year. It's always hard for both of us or I might go more often.
In a way it's comical to think how close a felonious maniac has to get to you before you can kill him when there are so many known felonious maniacs running around who deserve to be shot on sight at 200 yards with a rifle.
Process and bureacracy!

tongaboy
12-27-2011, 02:43 AM
Perusing this thread you will see it is the foreigners who most despise our liberty (until they next need us, that is).

I don't despise your liberty....but I do pity you. No amount of explaining can help you understand, of living in a society without guns.

Anyhow keep it coming, you're quite entertaining :d....jono

Farfalla
12-27-2011, 05:50 AM
You people are still at it. I guess I must be one of those "enemies of freedom"!!
it's pointless arguing with you guys so here's the figures. You can't rave and rant about your "rights" all you want. The right to slaughter people seems to be the one that you want to protect.



Gun Deaths per 100,000

Country Homicide Suicide

US 3.98 5.92

Canada .40 (10x lower) 2.00 (3x lower)

Australia .24 (17x lower) 1.34 (5x lower)

UK .15 (27x lower) .20 (30x lower)


Which countries have strict gun laws, and guess which has the strictest?

Robbery and assault rates are far less different between the 4 countries so it;s not as if these other countries don't have crime and criminals just like in the US. People in these countries all go hunting just like people like to do in the States. We just don't have guns lying around everywhere, it's all about access and attitude.

Family in Texas a few days ago. A Christmas gathering gone wrong. 7 dead. a bit hard to do if there weren't guns available.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/seven-people-shot-dead-texas-apartment-041802145.html

The Bigfella
12-27-2011, 06:11 AM
Yes, we've seen the deaths per 100,000 stats before, and discovered that lots of folks have no idea what that really means, so I put together a database of death stats for 30 years from CDC data.... and what emerged was that over the last 30 years (almost... the stats are lagged a few years) every 69th American had died with a bullet hole in them... and that for males, it was even worse.... every 41st American male death over that 30 years died from a gunshot.

The 2nd raters squirm and wriggle and attack the messenger.... but can never come up with a different answer.

See.... I even got called a liar earlier on.... normally a tactic when someone wants the thread to disappear. The hallmark of a coward, one would suspect.

The Bigfella
12-27-2011, 06:13 AM
Bugger.... just realised that some of that grammar is a bit "off"... but I can't edit from my laptops for some unknown reason

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
12-27-2011, 06:44 AM
Sure, I can interpret it and have done so.
It means I can keep guns.
I have no concern what the SCOTUS thinks, just as the SCOTUS has no concern what I think.

So let me see if I've got this right:

You're more than capable of interpreting the constitution, and have done so.

T.D. cannot do the same.

SCOTUS's interpretation doesn't matter.

Is that about right, Glen? Also, is this a standard for all political discussions, or just a 'Glen and his guns' thing?

Farfalla
12-27-2011, 06:58 AM
Yes, we've seen the deaths per 100,000 stats before, and discovered that lots of folks have no idea what that really means, so I put together a database of death stats for 30 years from CDC data.... and what emerged was that over the last 30 years (almost... the stats are lagged a few years) every 69th American had died with a bullet hole in them... and that for males, it was even worse.... every 41st American male death over that 30 years died from a gunshot.

The 2nd raters squirm and wriggle and attack the messenger.... but can never come up with a different answer.

See.... I even got called a liar earlier on.... normally a tactic when someone wants the thread to disappear. The hallmark of a coward, one would suspect.

Actually its pretty meaningless to just give figures like that, every 41st male, unless you are going to make them comparative. Otherwise how the heck does your opponent know that it's not the case that every 42 male death in the UK is by a bullet?
That's the point of giving comparable figures.

But these people are blind to reality and just want to keep on doing the same old thing or worse do more of it, arm everyone! Real smart!

The Bigfella
12-27-2011, 07:02 AM
Yes, we did do the comparative stuff a while back.

The Bigfella
12-27-2011, 07:04 AM
Interesting thing though.... the one comparative figure that proved most telling was the one between civilian deaths and combat deaths. So many more Americans are murdered by other Americans with guns than have ever been killed by foreigners. The enemy is really within.... but they don't see it.

Farfalla
12-27-2011, 07:15 AM
Interesting thing though.... the one comparative figure that proved most telling was the one between civilian deaths and combat deaths. So many more Americans are murdered by other Americans with guns than have ever been killed by foreigners. The enemy is really within.... but they don't see it.

Again, that's an emotive statement to highlight the military versus civilian deaths. Unless you are comparing like to like it doesn't mean a lot other than for emotional hype.

I haven't seen any post of the comparative figures this thread, if you have them all why didn't you post the useful stuff rather than just the emotive?
As Donn says, trying to stir rather than debate the issue!
Though debate actually seems pretty pointless with such fixed attitudes!

Farfalla
12-27-2011, 07:26 AM
"Seems? I know not seems, Madam!"

Well if you're implying that I'm an old woman then it's time to think again.

But if you see me as a more mature person then that's fine. "Now listen to Mummy, she knows better than you children, playing with guns is bad for you"
So how did that fit?

The Bigfella
12-27-2011, 07:31 AM
I haven't updated the stats for the last two or three years... which sort of sets a lie to Donn's argument, but hey, let's not have facts get in the way eh Donn? The reason I haven't posted more of the stats that I have is that they aren't on this laptop. I've posted these from memory.

Donn's dredged up the standard lost argument answer, of course:


It's none of your business...never has been and likely never will be.

Gee Donn. I made it my business. I get paid for stuff like that.

Bob Smalser
12-27-2011, 07:38 AM
Pistols? Similar to any other old tool, they are lots of fun to collect and shoot.

But if it comes to it, there are better weapons for close-in self defense.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/2080858/398161205.jpg

Two strokes an opponent never sees coming are the headbutt to the nose and the back-hand to the jaw with the sap.

Farfalla
12-27-2011, 07:40 AM
There is no implication of age in the definition of the word "madam."

But there is when Hamlet addresses his mother Gertrude as "Madam" in this case!

Sophie, who is not old or a Madam!

Paul Pless
12-27-2011, 07:42 AM
what a ridiculous thread this has become

The Bigfella
12-27-2011, 07:42 AM
Ranting in the bilge will never change anyone's mind, although I seriously doubt that is your intention. I think you do it simply to irritate those who you know will be irritated by it, mostly Phillip.

This little gem from Donn is more interesting. The first part of it at least. The second part is just plain wrong... I rarely bother to open one of his threads, let alone respond to him these days.

On the first part.... it actually did change a number of folks minds on the issue.

A few years back, the impetus for compiling my stats was the misunderstanding of the x in 100,000 figures on this site. Most folks don't understand these figures. They also miss the lifetime aspect of the issues (its x in 100k times number of years lived). The 41 figure is one that people can relate to. It means that an American male, any American male, alive now has a 2.5% chance of dying with a bullet in them, based on the last 30 years worth of data. At a guess, the comparable figure for an Aussie male is around one tenth of a percent.... 0.1%.... but I haven't run that calc.

The Bigfella
12-27-2011, 07:44 AM
In that case, you should withdraw every mention of it in the Bilge. We didn't pay for it

You pay for it every minute of every day.... but just to set your mind at rest, I didn't get paid for that particular statistic

The Bigfella
12-27-2011, 07:49 AM
Pistols? Similar to any other old tool, they are lots of fun to collect and shoot.

But if it comes to it, there are better weapons for close-in self defense.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/2080858/398161205.jpg

Two strokes an opponent never sees coming are the headbutt to the nose and the back-hand to the jaw with the sap.

Wouldn't you prefer to just bust a knee joint backwards? They don't get up in a hurry from that

Farfalla
12-27-2011, 07:52 AM
I am not Hamlet, and you are not Gertrude, Sophie. "Madam," when used without a name, is defined as a term of respect for a woman. If I erred in its use, it would be there.

So why did you quote it then? Or were you unaware of where the quote came from?


If I erred in its use, it would be there.

A very pleasant little fellow aren't you!
Snide prat more like it!

The Bigfella
12-27-2011, 07:53 AM
Wazzup Sophie, only like dishing it out, can't take it with grace?

Farfalla
12-27-2011, 07:55 AM
What's your problem Mr. Bronte, managed to go into witness protection and have all your posts removed yet?

The Bigfella
12-27-2011, 07:57 AM
Wazzthat about snide small-minded prats?

The Bigfella
12-27-2011, 07:58 AM
and, no Donn, that wasn't aimed at you..... In fact it was a rhetorical question, not aimed at anyone, just the standard of debate

Farfalla
12-27-2011, 08:06 AM
and, no Donn, that wasn't aimed at you..... In fact it was a rhetorical question, not aimed at anyone, just the standard of debate

Ah, Mr. Bronte, the master of logic. I'm happy for you to post your logical answer to the argument that several people posted for you a few weeks ago. Any time!
till then you should think twice about passing comment on the standard of debate in this place.

The Bigfella
12-27-2011, 08:09 AM
Oh you brute, you.

Farfalla
12-27-2011, 08:09 AM
That should be apparent, even to you, from the fact I highlighted your use of the word "seems."

Actually Donn in this particular debate about gun violence your position is very much that of a Hamlet, a sad figure creating mayhem and death wherever you spread the contagion of your negative view.

SMARTINSEN
12-27-2011, 08:10 AM
Update your numbers, Ian. The last time I ran through the exercise it was 1:38. Exceedingly high and still makes the point, but what I would like to point out is that the numbers are declining. The disproportionality of gun deaths the U.S. in comparison with other countries is real, but it is not with the concealed carrying permittee where the essence of the problem lies. Most of our gun deaths result from fits of passion amongst our neighbors,friends and family--witness the Christmas Day tragedy in Texas previously mentioned.

The Bigfella
12-27-2011, 08:13 AM
Update your numbers, Ian. The last time I ran through the exercise it was 1:38. Exceedingly high and still makes the point, but what I would like to point out is that the numbers are declining. The disproportionality of gun deaths the U.S. in comparison with other countries is real, but it is not with the concealed carrying permittee where the essence of the problem lies. Most of our gun deaths result from fits of passion amongst our friends and family--witness the Christmas Day tragedy in Texas previously mentioned.

IIRC, it declined from a high in 93 up until around 99 and has been pretty stable for a while. Yeah... I'll update them - but not this morning eh? Its gone the witching hour around here... in more ways than one.

Farfalla
12-27-2011, 08:14 AM
Oh by the way Mr. Bronte, the term "Prat" is used almost exclusively for males, I realise it's English but if you are going to use it, please use it correctly.

The Bigfella
12-27-2011, 08:16 AM
Sorry pal, the internet makes you androgenous.

John Smith
12-27-2011, 08:17 AM
[/I]
John, when the Constitution refers to "the people";;;; in each and every occurrence;;;; are they referring to a individual freedom ; or only a freedom if you are part of an organization ?

Would you research that and get back to me? Be specific.

regards,
Waddie

Hey, don't get mad at me: the constitutions says: Amendment 2
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I find that very specific that the peoples right to bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated Militia is necessary.

You have to work pretty hard to intepret that into something it doesn't say. Fact is they put the reason for this right to bear arms at the first end of the sentence, giving it great importance. Where, today, is the well regulated Militia of private citizents owning handguns?

the only other reference I've found in the constituion to this Militia would be two clauses in Article One, Secition 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;



These also seem pretty clear and straightforward. The Militia, as referred to in this document was to be used to protect our government and enforce our laws. The Government was to arm, train, and call up the Militia. This was to be done state by state.

People can bend, spin, or pretend the Constitution says some else, but this is what it does say. So far those who have disputed this have referred to other documents, other books, etc. Our nation wasn't founded on those other documents, it was founded on this document, and the 2nd Amendment, which is quoted frequently, seldom is quoted in context. All I've done here is put the entire context in my posts. The second Amendment says quite clearly the right of the people to bear arms was solely due to the need of of well REGULATED MILITIA.

I have also posted what the Militia was in those days, and the federal and state responsibilities in arming and training that Militia.

I see nothing ambiguous in the words of our founders in this regard.

The Bigfella
12-27-2011, 08:18 AM
Oh? What, exactly, is my position on gun violence?

I believe you'd adopted a position suitable for me to insert my nose.

Farfalla
12-27-2011, 08:20 AM
Donn, do you support the sort of strict gun control laws found in countries like the UK which have been proven to be a real means to drastically reduce the gun violence that your country suffers from.
Or do you insist on your right to be allowed to "bear arms" as you all seem to think your Constitution guarantees even though that is clearly a major factor in the horrendous death rates you have from gun violence?

If any shade of the latter then my characterisation of you was apt.
If anything other than the first position then again my characterisation was apt.

Paul Pless
12-27-2011, 08:21 AM
Its gone the witching hour around here... So that's why Meli disappears everyday about this time.

Farfalla
12-27-2011, 08:22 AM
Sorry pal, the internet makes you androgenous.

Only in your limited mind Mr. Bronte!

John Smith
12-27-2011, 08:23 AM
I'm confused. I thought that Commie position was that the constitution is a living document that is far too complex for the feeble minds of mere citizens, and must be interpreted by the SCOTUS to be understood.

When it says that the federal government can regulate interstate commerce, that has nothing to do with trade, rather everything to do with anything you might want to spend money on. That is to say, they can regulate whatever they want.

When the constitution says free society, militia, keep and bear arms, it actually means that the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment is firearm ownership for the purpose of defending one's own home.

Trust the experts, John. Don't go trying to understand that document on your own. It's confusing.
That part of the document is not the least bit confusing. Those who make it confusing do so for a purpose. Much of the Constitution is pretty clear. Some parts are not so clear.

the passage of time has had an impact on the constitution. Check out the 3rd Amendment: time has rendered it moot.

McMike
12-27-2011, 08:24 AM
This wasn't supposed to be a thread about rights. It was supposed to be about the fact that the majority of people who would choose to carry a weapon in public cannot wield that weapon with accuracy, efficiency, or intelligence. Most every person who carries would fall to their own biological reaction to stress and fold, or worse, hurt someone who would have otherwise been left unharmed.

This wasn't supposed to be about whether or not guns in general should be banned, only handguns for the vast majority of civilians.

I think Bob Adams said it about the majority of CCW holders being law abiding and responsible; I think he is right to a point. My argument is that them being responsible does not justify the negative impact handguns have on society outside of them, and in order to solve a big problem they would have to give up their HANDGUNS for the common good.

The motivation behind this video was to show that the average CCW holder does not have nearly enough training to wield their "right" and that the idea that well practiced shooters still will not perform well and/or effectively under pressure shows the myth that carrying a handgun has a better net result on society than not having handguns at all. Yes, it is easy to learn to use a gun, a half hour lesson will do; but to master it to the point where one could be an effective tool in stopping a crime in progress one would need ongoing weekly intensive training and I doubt most who have attained a CCW permit will take the time and/or money to meet such a requirement.

The point in me posting this was to show that the primary reason that has been given me in order to justify handguns has been shown to be largely devalued. The fact is that 19-21% of people in the US own handguns and somewhere between 75-80% of murders using firearms are perpetrated with handguns. This shows me that the value of a handgun in fulfilling our 2nd Amendment right is very low, and a significant hindrance to society.

Farfalla
12-27-2011, 08:26 AM
So that's why Meli disappears everyday about this time.

Well meli disappears before the witching hour. As it's only 1.30 in the afternoon here it can't possibly be the witching hour here.
But guess what, where Mr. Bronte is, it's the witching hour and he's still about.
he just informed me that the internet makes you androgenous, so I guess he's just another old crone who's a witch at this time of night!

Farfalla
12-27-2011, 08:28 AM
As I expected, you have no idea of my position on gun violence or control. You just assumed it. It says a lot about you.

That's not an answer to either of those positions that I asked you to choose.
So can I assume you prefer to evade because you are embarrassed by your position.
Or is it that you just don't have a position on such an important issue and like you accused Mr. Bronte of doing. You are just here to stir things up and hope to get some fun. A sad waste of time.

McMike
12-27-2011, 08:30 AM
listen, Einstein, it has been considered bi annually for the last 60 years (that I lived thdrough)... where the hell have YOU been? Did you ACTUALLY think you had thought of something NEW??? "Honey, let's try this and see if you get pregnant?" No doubt you never considered that some other genius might have tried this before???

How in the heck do you avoid standing in the rain, looking up and drowning like a turkey poult?

Maybe because there is a valid point to be made but half the country refuses to deal with it because it means they have to change a little. I'll be happy to go on another 60 years if my body allows it.

Farfalla
12-27-2011, 08:34 AM
You were given an opportunity to explain your position on this issue. feel free to do so. If not as i said is it because your position is an embarrassment to you or don't you have one.
The floor is yours. enlighten us!

I'll make it easy for you, I don't think you support the UK model of ultra strict gun laws and the removal of the "right to bear arms". hows that?

Oh by the way it's spelt "FarfAlla", I'm not a distant Egyptian labourer!

McMike
12-27-2011, 08:34 AM
what about the content... I am truly offended by his 'begging' us to consider over and over when it has already been done... it is insulting... or do you see it otherwise?

Who's to say I was talking to you? It seems you might be one of the good ones in regard to gun ownership; welcome to the minority.

Bob Smalser
12-27-2011, 08:42 AM
Wouldn't you prefer to just bust a knee joint backwards?


Actually, I thought I'd start collecting a few Webleys. If your wuss countries won't allow even your responsible adults to preserve their own heritage, then somebody ought to.

http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt99/Wyattburp_photos/webmet.jpg

http://www.collectiblefirearms.com/Pictures2009/wbp_0324-02.JPG

John Smith
12-27-2011, 08:46 AM
attn; John Smith, I'm still waiting........................................... .................................................. .................................................

Well, since he can't seem to find it, I'll explain it; EVERY time the Constitution says "the people", they are referring to individual rights, not some "collective" right like a militia. This makes the Second Amendment an individual right.

regards,
Waddie

Perhaps you'll be so kind as to explain those parts of the constitution I've posted in theis regard and why the 2nd Amendment begins with the clause citing the necessity of a well regulated Militia as opposed to simply leaving that clause out. They were not prone to wasting words, and that first part of the sentence is the reason for the second part of the sentence.

"keep and bear" does not say "purchase" or "own" In fact, it doesn't say "gun" it says "arms"

The constitution itself says the government would provide these arms and train the people who kept and bore them.

I didn't write the document, I've only posted exactly what it says. You are interpreting it as if it says, "The rights of the citizens to buy and own guns shall not be infringed."

Amendment 2
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You choose to ignore the first 12 words and change the meaning of "keep and bear". I knew some old timers. "keep" to them meant "borrow" My grandfather had a friend who would ask, "Can I keep your wheelbarrow for a few days? I've got some yard work to do."

I accept the fact that I'm in the minority, but the fact the minority can get outvoted doesn't always make them wrong. I think our founder were quite clear in what they wrote concerning "arms" and they connected the need for a trained, armed group of citizens to protect the country and enforce its laws.

All that said, this argument is moot, as the majority and the courts (drivien by the gun industry, IMO) have interpreted it differently than I. I maintain they are wrong, but I also thought Saddam had no WMD's. My opinion didn't stop the invasion. I didn't think we should have invaded Afghanistan, but........

What is pertinant to this thread is whether or not carrying a concealed weapon in fact makes you safer or not.

We have statistics as to how many auto accidents involve people on cell phones. We must have statistics on how many people killed are carrying guns themselves.

Do registered gun owners have a statistically better chance of getting shot or not getting shot as opposed to those who don't own guns.

More specifically, those with concealed weapons.

Paul Pless
12-27-2011, 08:46 AM
If your wuss countries won't allow even your responsible adults to preserve their own heritage, then somebody ought to.:d ...

McMike
12-27-2011, 08:46 AM
No, I'm suggesting that some of you should get out of the Americas a bit more and observe how other those in other countries seem to get by just fine without feeling they have to arm themselves to the teeth before they go to the 7/11 to get the milk.

As I said, instead of accepting the hommily that it is a right to bear arms, Maybe weigh up the consequences of promoting and defending that ancient article.

As for the OP, the well trained cops here would be suspended for pulling a gun in a Mall unless the situation was dire, as for firing it:rolleyes:.
I believe if a situation arises and an armed perp holds a gun on a victim, the MO is to allow the perp to clear the area and then judiciously persue.
Stevebaby would prolly know better than I.

So the idea of ordinary citizens being able to carry is ludicrous, no matter how well trained they may be.

My point is there are very very few circumstances that would warrent the use of a handgun as a net good compared to the net bad their availability has on our society.

FWIW, I think guns are cool, I want a .357 revolver with a 6 inch barrel. Guess what, I have no practical use for one, I want a pirate ship too, BTW, and for the same reasons. This is not to say some might not have a good reason to need a hand gun, it's been pointed out to me in a PM that there are reasonable and prudent justifications, given that, I simply don't think 20% of Americans need them.

Paul Pless
12-27-2011, 08:47 AM
In fact, it doesn't say "gun" it says "arms"


I've always wanted a flame thrower.

Farfalla
12-27-2011, 08:50 AM
Actually Bob, it's quite legal for people to collect pistols and to keep them at home in the UK, it's just that the licensing and the sale of them is very heavily controlled. you can have pistols if you are a collector or a member of a gun club. There are lots of hunters in the UK as well. We just have a much greater population density than you so it really restricts hunting a lot.
I'm not sure of the position in Australia but they have something similar with regard to handguns.
it's the whole idea of having handguns in the house or carried on the person for "defence" that is totally illegal here. Guns must be kept in locked safes with the ammunition stored separately, after all they are only taken out to be used responsibly.
No semi auto assault rifles or pistols for little old ladies.

John Smith
12-27-2011, 08:52 AM
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/10/does_carrying_a_gun_make_you_s.html

This seems to be one of the few actual scientific studies. In asking the question "Does carrying a gun make you safer?" I got a lot of opinionn pieces. This seems to be a better method.

Peerie Maa
12-27-2011, 08:54 AM
Actually, I thought I'd start collecting a few Webleys. If your wuss countries won't allow even your responsible adults to preserve their own heritage, then somebody ought to.


Owning them is not the problem. Wandering the streets with one in your hand bag is the problem.

John Smith
12-27-2011, 08:54 AM
I've always wanted a flame thrower.

Some people want nuclear arms. One either believes the constitution allows them to have nuclear weapons, or one believes there is some line to be drawn as to what "arms" an individual has the right to have.

John Smith
12-27-2011, 08:56 AM
Perusing this thread you will see it is the foreigners who most despise our liberty (until they next need us, that is).
When/if they do need us, who do we send? All those private citizens with carry permits?

SMARTINSEN
12-27-2011, 09:01 AM
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/10/does_carrying_a_gun_make_you_s.html

This seems to be one of the few actual scientific studies. In asking the question "Does carrying a gun make you safer?" I got a lot of opinionn pieces. This seems to be a better method.

Here is the study if you wish to read it:
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=dennis_culhane

Farfalla
12-27-2011, 09:04 AM
What makes you think you have the provenance to "give" me anything?



This is a little more like it. Your first assumption is spelled out. I do not support the UK model of gun control, primarily because I am not familiar with it. I live in and operate under the laws of New York State and the US.

I do not support the removal of the right to bear arms. In our system, that right may not be removed by government.

So you criticise people who try to provide you with the information about proven methods for the reduction of gun violence plaguing your country yet you freely admit that you are ignorant about these methods.
Rather than be critical why not thank us for the useful help and go on to do a little more research so that you can speak from an informed position?
I'm happy to help you out with this if it's a problem for you Donn.

Maybe you can help save a few lives by becoming an advocate for sanity in gun laws in the US.

As for the lunancy of "the right to bear arms" that could be solved by an amendment to the Constitution if people ever come to their sanity about the issue.
I don't say no guns, it's the ridiculous spread of handguns and the stupidity of the idea of "self defence" as a justification. Insanity!