Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

This is really getting old

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is locked.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 08:24 PM
Original message
This is really getting old
This is kind of a touchy subject but I am getting really tired of reading posts in this forum about how easy it is, how impersonal it is how gun owners, especially those who have a permit, can not wait to shoot another human being.

These posts appear to be almost exclusively from people who have never been in that position and have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

I do not know a single person who has ever taken a life that doesnt deeply regret it and who doesnt ever want to do it again.

I am tired of being told that I am blood thirsty and that I cant wait to kill (believe me, I can wait)

I would greatly appreciate not ever having to read another post (but I know I will) from someone who has never been there telling me how easy it is to pull the trigger and how impersonal it is on how we just do it and walk away. You spend 20 years w/ the guy's face in your nightmares then tell me how fucking easy it is

Unless youve actually had to do it you have no fucking idea what you are talking about and I would really appreciate it if you would shut the fuck up
Refresh | +23 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. It's a terrifying prospect.
I fervently hope that I'm NEVER in a situation where I have to do that. Where I have to kill to protect myself or my family.

If I have to, I hope the situation is really clear-cut and unambiguous.

My deepest fear is that it will be ambiguous, and that I will either not shoot when I should and cause death or injury to myself or my family, or that I will shoot and will forever second-guess myself until I believe I am some sort of murderer.

Especially if there's a trial and I have all those lawyers going after me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hangingon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. Great post.
I agree it is getting old. As is belittling Texas as a state of bumbling blood thirsty gunmen. I just renewed my CHL. A significant part of the training is on how to avoid shooting. I have not used a weapon in self-defense or to stop a crime. I hope I never have to use one. Still, I believe in being prepared.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Simo 1939_1940 Donating Member (159 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. "As is belittling Texas as a state of bumbling

blood thirsty gunmen."

Of course the low-information members who toss out these slurs are oblivious to the fact that there are a number of blue states that allowed for concealed carry long before Texas and Arizona did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
3. I've never been there m'self.
But I've talked to people who have, some of whom are close friends, and each and every one of them have suffered because of it.

Guns kill on one end and maim on the other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
4. I would say not to let them get to you, but sometimes things need to said.
Edited on Sun Nov-27-11 09:14 PM by aikoaiko
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Old Codger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
5. This forum
Is more anti gun than gun, I really don't like posting in here because it is usually full of flame bait posts from anti's that have no real idea what the gun culture really is about... all the see is a bunch of bloodthirsty killers. gets real boring, I would like for this to be about guns in a positive way, but always a bunch who jump in and undermine any real discourse in anything meaningful on guns.They need their own anti gun forum where they can bemoan the RKBA laws to their hearts content.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
6. I only know of two here that post that on a regular basis
both with 4 letter screen names.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
7. Two Iraq war vets in my school have told me they felt profound guilt over the people they killed.
They are both in therapy, and take medication to help them sleep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
8. Bravo
I don't know where that meme came from but only true sociopaths enjoy killing their own species.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. only true sociopaths enjoy killing their own species.
Only true sociopaths enjoy killing anything.

I go out of my way to avoid stepping on bugs
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Strange that you should mention that ...
I also avoid killing bugs unless they are in my house. Even when they are, it's something that I dislike to do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #12
24. I don't kill bugs in my house
Spiders in the basement get free room and board. All others get a free trip outside (or to the garage in the winter) Once you kill something all the regret in the world won't bring it back
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #24
42. In Florida we have these enormous roaches known as Palmetto bugs ...
They will overrun your home unless eradicated and present some dangers to your health.



I've sprayed them with roach spray and they just drank it and smiled at me. I have been known to step on them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #42
135. I lived in New Port Richey for 5 years
I am throughly familiar w/ Palmetto bugs.

I tell people in Colorado the difference between Florida and Colorado (besides the obvious) is that here if you call Orkin to your house to kill the roaches you're nasty but in Florida if you don't call Orkin to kill the bugs you're nasty
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #42
238. My old Cracker Grandmother called those "debaters"...
due to the strong odor they emit when attacked. Seems to engender a about debate ever attacking them again.

Of course, there is that old "Love and Marriage" sitcom episode in which the Bundy family heads to Florida, staying overnight in an old roadside stucco motel (paraphrasing):

Bundy to manager: My god! The roaches are huge what do we do about them?

Manager points wordlessly to "Break in case of Emergency" glass box on wall containing a .38, and leaves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #12
74. If at all possible I will pick them up and take them outside
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #74
239. Yeah, sometimes they'll turn on you and then you're in trouble. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #10
19. Excellent point
I've killed a roach or two in my lifetime and I hate it. I'm steeling myself for learning to kill deer. I'm only doing it in case the shit hits the fan. There will be neither fun nor sport to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #10
32. Well, there are varying degrees.
It is possible for a sociopath to be entirely indifferent toward killing a human, rather than 'enjoy' it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
9. They're no different than the people that demonize anything they don't understand.
It's what they do because they are ignorant. It's just Fox Noise on another level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mistertrickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
13. I burned through several boxes of 12 gauge shells shooting clay targets
and I never once had the urge to shoot my in-laws, cousins, etc. standing next to me.

Guns are tools . . . like a shovel or a golf club. They don't make people commit violent acts any more than an axe makes you chop down trees.

Prohibition against guns has not worked, will not work, and will only create another unsuccessful "war against __________."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Speck Tater Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-11 11:45 PM
Response to Original message
14. Protecting myself from that nightmare is a good reason for me to NOT own a gun.
Edited on Sun Nov-27-11 11:45 PM by Speck Tater
I have owned guns in the past and done a lot of target shooting in my younger days, but there's no way I would ever own a gun again. That's a personal choice, and I respect other's personal choice to own guns. Just respect my right to not want to hang around gun owners. They give me the creeps. (Yes, I know. That's MY problem, not yours. But there it is. You have the right to own a gun and I have the right to keep my distance from you.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
saras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:14 AM
Response to Original message
15. And if you haven't raped anyone, you should shut up about THAT too, right?
Some people either only know people just like them, or live in denial that others exist.

I could, in fact, introduce you to at least a few gun owners that are quite conscious about hoping someone invades their property in such a way that would legally justify a killing. They exist. Some of them even lose it and kill just for the fuck of it.

They are just as much a part of "gun culture" as you are.

It looks rather like you're in a similar situation to my radical leftist Christian friends. They can no longer believably claim that Christianity is anything other than what most of America perceives it as, which is, in their view, fundamentalist nut cases and psychopaths. That is just what Christianity is, and they can't do anything about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #15
25. Did you ever stop to think that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
and Barry Manilow are both piano players?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Remmah2 Donating Member (971 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #15
26. What one hears and what one believes ar two different things.
It is possible to have ones imagination get the best of them.


Ever read "Clockwork Orange"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #15
105. How is that even supposed to work as an analogy?
I don't understand how your subject line is supposed to be an analogy to what RSillsbee wrote. The relevant analogy would be accusing anyone with a penis, and especially those who carry it in their pants when they go out in public, of not being able to wait for an excuse to rape someone with it. In 2010, some 85,000 forcible rapes were reported to American law enforcement. Even taking into account that as much as 75-90% of rapes may go unreported, that would mean that the number of rapists would be at most 850,000, and while that sounds like a lot (because it would be, if correct), it's still less than 0.6% of people in the United States who have a penis. Does it seem fair to you to generalize about an entire population based on less than 1% of their number?

As for your supposed acquaintances who are just itching to get an excuse to shoot someone, yes, they may be "just as much a part of 'gun culture'" as any poster here, in the sense that they are equally immersed in it. That statement, however, does not reflect what proportion of the "gun culture" is composed of such people; it may be a very small percentage. There are undoubtedly violent criminals who are black; would you feel comfortable claiming that they're representative of blacks in general?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
safeinOhio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 06:07 AM
Response to Original message
16. That is why I am always reminding people
here to secure their homes to avoid crime and that a gun for home defense should always be the last resort.

I'm also glad that I haven't seen the term "good shoot" being used anymore. As your post implies, there are no "good shoots", taking a life is never anything to cheer about. Yes, taking a life to save you or your loved ones may happen, but it is still nothing to cheer about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #16
31. I think one of us misunderstands the term
The only other place I have seen "good shoot" is on cop shows. It described one that was justifiable and would be shown to be that during the internal investigation, not good or bad beyond the legal sense. I always took it as the same thing. As for the real cops in my family, subject never came up. That's the cool thing about growing up in "Mayberry"
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #16
33. I think it took people on both sides to discourage it.
'Good shoot' or 'righteous shoot' sounds too much like applause for my taste.

Glosses over the psychological and financial costs of using a firearm in self defense, for one. The statute is Justifiable Homicide or Excusable Homicide, depending on the state in which it occurred. Might as well use the proper term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 06:26 AM
Response to Original message
17. This is a forum where gun heroes are gleefully cheered and celebrated all the time
when they kill "the bad guys"

do you complain about those posts?

Well do ya?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #17
34. Yes, I do.
They are useless anecdotes. Just like your posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #17
77. There you go again with your new buzz phrase of the week
"gun heroes", you made that one up and you are the only one using it. So who is your gun hero?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #17
144. I have made my position on that crystal clear, numerous times.
We do not shoot people over property.

As for your remark about how I still carry a gun because I cant wait to shoot again, thats was quite possibly one of the most ill mannered posts I have ever read on this forum. I would caution you from ever making a similar statement to any vet you might actually meet face to face.

It is almost impossible to have any kind of reasoned discussion w/ you on this topic because of your unreasoning hatred of gun owners.

So, to put it in the simplest possible terms jpak, Whether you like it or not, accept it or not, acknowledge it or not or believe it or not, I have the human right of self defense by any means necessary. Further, in accordance w/ state and federal law I have right to carry a firearm (openly or concealed) on or about my person for the purpose of facilitating that defense.

And I have the right to do so w/out your permission or approval
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 07:09 AM
Response to Original message
18. What conclusion would you draw from posts applauding shooting unarmed car burglars leaving scene . .
Edited on Mon Nov-28-11 07:13 AM by Hoyt

those who "study" various state laws on who you can shoot in your yard; people using targets resembling human to "practice" shooting people; fast draw practice; gunners posting their gun of choice for shooting people fleeing a hurricane; carrying two guns; riding bicycles with a gun; posters accepting innocent bystanders getting shot or guns going off accidentally as the price we have to pay for people exercising their supposed 2nd Amendment rights; and a whole lot more. That's really old and disgusting.

And you are right, most of the folks promoting more carrying in public have never shot anyone -- so they don't know the horrors first hand. Yet, post after post glamorizes carrying guns. Heck, it has been suggested that gun permit training -- like drivers training of old -- should show gross photos/videos of people shot and what happens to the shooter afterward. Ridicule from gunners followed.

Tell me what gunners are thinking when they buy/demand weapons designed to shoot as many people as rapidly as possible right up to the envelope of what the law allows? Or those who buy guns designed for killing people in special situations.

While I accept that some gun owners -- particularly some here -- are decent, that's not true of a lot of folks who carry to intimidate and protect themselves from those they consider "unworthy." So, to make the "decent" ones happy, we have to allow callous/hardass people, who are hoping for a chance to use their latest acquisition, to carry in public parks, restaurants, churches, bars, etc.

Finally, if folks didn't have that gun in their pants to fall back upon -- they wouldn't shoot someone on purpose or by accident. They'd most likely figure out a way to avoid such situations, or extract themselves from it without shots being fired, or demand public officials do more to thwart crime.

As far as "shutting the fuck up" -- how about gunners quit promoting more guns in society, looser laws, applauding every teenager that gets shot during a crime that could be handled without a gun, right wing gun talking points, and more gun BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. There's a lot of mischaracterization there.
If you're going to own a gun for self-defense, you should know your legal rights and obligations with regard to using it.

You fight like to you train. If you're gearing to fight against humans, you use human-sized and human-shaped targets, and you practice being surprised and engaging attacking humans.

Its not for "shooting people fleeing a hurricane", it's "defending yourself in chaos and anarchy".


And so on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. Tell me again
Where you were during Tet of 1968?

On 4 May 1970, my tank crew and I were 30 some miles east of the Cambodian border listening to news reports from Kent State on AFVN.

In January of 1991, I received orders calling me back to active duty.

Who are you to lecture me about killing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. So, WTF does that have to do with people carrying guns in public in the USA?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Please read the OP. if you can understand it then you will know.
But I doubt it.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Still has nothing to do with people getting permits to carry in the USA.

I don't discount One-Eye's post and experience, but the vast majority of those who apply for permits do not have that experience.

Further, it may well be that 95+% of the posters on this "Democratic" site have good intentions, but that is not true of many right wing toters. Unfortunately, a much greater percentage of toters are right wing, many bigoted and with little disregard for lives other than their own (and family).

Finally, when someone spends a lot of time equipping themselves with the most deadly weapons available, practicing drawing that weapon, shooting targets that resemble humans, etc., they are more likely to shoot when another solution is available.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #29
36. Untrue on all fronts.
But keep it up. Fun to watch.

Fun fact, only direct relative in my family that DOES NOT have a CPL, is a proud Republican. The rest of us are progressives or Union Democrats.


And I love that you mischaracterize PROPER handling/training. You'd be pissed if people who carry DIDN'T train to hit their targets, so nice that you get it both ways there. I train FOR SAFETY. So I can HIT WHAT I NEED TO HIT, if I ever NEED to fire my gun to preserve my own life, or someone else.

You should be applauding people who get training, but here you are, discouraging it as hard as you can. Gee. Wonder why.

And on being 'more likely', I have been in situations that I have purposely de-escalated that might have otherwise ended in a fist fight, because I was carrying a firearm. If it can be at all avoided, people who have that VERY TRAINING YOU DENIGRATE ABOVE, will avoid a fight. We understand not only the personal burden of having to take human life, but also the financial costs, as well as the potential for the loss of our freedom, if we make even the tiniest mistake.

I am NOT more likely to shoot when another option is available. Carrying INCREASES my desire for risk and confrontation avoidance, and it does so for EVERY person I know that carries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. I'd say that it is well established that Hoyt's hypocracy and double-speak....
is boundless.

Einstein should have included him in the universe...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. You proved my point, you used your firearm to "de-escalate" confrontation with unarmed man.

IMO, intimidation is the main reason most people carry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #40
45. Unarmed people do not have lethal potential?
Huh. Martial Arts trainers around the world are suddenly out of a job. Good work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #40
48. No I didn't.
He never knew I was carrying.

*I* de-escalated the situation because I did not desire to risk involving a firearm in the confrontation. It is an extreme risk.

*I* backed down to prevent the issue from escalating to the point where I might have to deploy my firearm.

Try reading next time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #48
57. OK, I applaud you for not pulling your gun on an unarmed man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #57
67. He had arms.
Feet too. Both can be used to beat someone to death. Part of why I do not engage in fisticuffs with people. I avoid, at all costs, all physical confrontations.

The firearm is for when avoidance fails.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #40
81. Reading comprehension, try it.
He didn't "use" his firearm to "de-escalate" the confrontation, instead he de-escalated the confrontation WITHOUT using his firearm BECAUSE he was carryinig a gun. They teach that in the concealed carry classes. That's part of the TRAINING you are always going on againts. You are taught to de-escalate a potentially minor confrontation without the use of a firearm because you ARE carrying a firearm.

Got it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #81
107. Guess what? You can just as easily de-escalate that minor confrontation when you don't have a gun.

Most of training courses I've seen that are popular are the ones that are kind of short on safety, and long on things like "dodge and shoot" (as one "gunner" put it months ago).

Here is a common course description:

"Upon completion of this course you will have a fundamental understanding of the defensive use of the handgun. Among the many skills you acquire will be the ability to safely and easily draw your weapon from the holster and fire two, sighted shots to the center of a target 5 yards away all under 1.5 seconds! This course more than satisfies gun handling and marksmanship criteria for a Concealed Weapons Permit.

Lecture Topics Include: Use of Deadly Force and the Law; Color Code of Mental Awareness; Stopping Power; Civil Liability; and more. Firing Range Drills Include: Loading and Unloading; Grip, Stance, Sight Picture, Sight Alignment, and Trigger Control; Presentation from Ready and Holster; Target Engagement from Arms Length to 15 yards under Time Pressure; Malfunction Clearing; Speed and Tactical Reloading; Live-Fire Tactical Simulator Introduction; and more."


Doesn't sound "safety oriented" to me. I bet there are even some that have "tactical" in the marketing materials designed to attract those gunners who also covet tactical weapons.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #107
133. You still just don't get it, never will.
WTF is a "gunner" anyway, one of those made up terms of yours to go along with your made up ideas on red dot scopes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #107
165. If you didn't see the SAFETY aspects in the course description, then you are illiterate....
and know NOTHING of firearms or training in their use.

Is there no fucking end to your arrogant ignorance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #107
183. The firearm isn't for de-escalation.
It's for when de-escalation fails, and your life is in danger.

Please write that on the blackboard 100 times. Maybe it'll sink in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Straw Man Donating Member (986 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #107
241. "Dodge and shoot"?
Most of training courses I've seen that are popular are the ones that are kind of short on safety, and long on things like "dodge and shoot" (as one "gunner" put it months ago).

Got a cite on that one? I've asked before when you have made that reference, and you have yet to come up with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Straw Man Donating Member (986 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #241
246. No cite, huh?
Didn't think so. Perhaps you should retire the "dodge and shoot" meme, unless you can prove that it's something other than a product of your fevered imagination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-11 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #246
251. Of course not. Factual accuracy is only for heathens like us, not the faithful n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #29
37. You can, of course, cite to some studies or data that support your wild assertion....
amIrite?


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #37
41. This is an opinion forum -- all politics is. If you have something to rebut my opinion, show it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #41
43. You stated a claim as fact, not an opinion.
Feel free to support your assertions at any time... if you can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #43
47. No, I expressed my opinion, and it is my experience. You have a different opinion or

you wouldn't be walking around in public with a gun or two strapped to your body everyday. I think you are wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #47
168. I will quote you for completeness:
"I don't discount One-Eye's post and experience, but the vast majority of those who apply for permits do not have that experience.

Further, it may well be that 95+% of the posters on this "Democratic" site have good intentions, but that is not true of many right wing toters. Unfortunately, a much greater percentage of toters are right wing, many bigoted and with little disregard for lives other than their own (and family).

Finally, when someone spends a lot of time equipping themselves with the most deadly weapons available, practicing drawing that weapon, shooting targets that resemble humans, etc., they are more likely to shoot when another solution is available."

STATEMENTS PRESENTED AS FACT, NO MENTION OF OPINION.

Jesus on a fucking pogo stick.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
emcguffie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #29
52. "...with little disregard..."?
Don't you mean "with little regard" or "with utter disregard"?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I'm having trouble following all these arguments, and it would help a lot if people wrote more carefully, and spent more time making sure their posts are clear.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #52
56. Yes I meant "with little regard." You got it on your first guess.

That's what happens when you edit things.

So other than wasting your time identifying grammar errors, what's your opinion on guns?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #29
80. WTF is a "toter"? Is that like a purse you carry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #80
143. I don't know where you guys carry, since I don't. I know some of you prefer groin holsters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #143
224. I've never heard of a "groin holster", is that another one of your
bullshit made up terms?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Common Sense Party Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #29
124. How many "right wing toters" have you actually met? And spoken to
at length?

I'm surrounded by them. They're good friends and relatives of mine.

And not a single one bears even the slightest resemblance to the cartoon caricature you're drawing.

Are there some like that out there? Sure, there's a handful--there's always a handful of nutballs in any segment of the population that you look at. But when you say "many" it sort of sounds like you're implying "most".

I've studied and practiced martial arts for years. Is it also your contention that someone who studies, say, karate, who spends lots of time equipping themselves with knowledge of how to punch, kick, inflict damage, hit targets that look like (and often are) humans...is that person more likely to punch or kick someone when another solution is available?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #124
146. Where I'm from, a bunch. Actually, martial arts is better than resorting to guns.

Apparently such training is not enough for you though.

Next time you get a chance, go to one of the right wing TParty shindigs where guns are encouraged. Maybe you'll learn something about the majority of gun carriers. They are not accepting of diversity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #146
163. almost a paradox
both sides do and don't accept diversity at the same time. Both have "our kind of diversity" and "those other people". If you are a working class rural white guy from a trailer park, you are not very welcome in many "liberal" circles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #163
166. I have known several like that. In fact, one stayed with me over TG.
Edited on Mon Nov-28-11 08:40 PM by Hoyt

But, they aren't into the gun cache, racist crap so many are. Again, I'm sure the crowd here ain't like that, but there are plenty who are not like you guys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #146
184. I am not a fucking ninja.
I am a tool-using mammal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #184
189. You ain't a cowboy either . . . . . .well, maybe you are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #189
201. Not by trade.
But I do have occassion to ride horses, on a farm, and in the woods.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #201
209. That's cool, at least your are "playing" cowboy in the right place. Now back to your playing LE or
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 10:37 AM by Hoyt

"public defender" with your guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #209
213. I play 'public defender' all the time.
When people need help, I do my best.

I help people change tyres, and move stalled vehicles out of the roadway. Oh, but I should let a professional handle that, and wait for the guy from Les Schwab or a tow truck to show up, right?
I help people move heavy or bulky objects, when I see them struggling, so they don't injure themselves. Oh, but I should let a professional mover handle that.
I helped a group of people administer CPR to a guy in cardiac arrest once, oh, but I should let a professional handle that, and wait for the ambulance.
I helped another group of people administer CPR to a guy that was hit by a mini-van, oh, but I should let a professional handle that, and wait for the ambulance.

I help, when humans are in danger. A situation where a firearm might be needed to protect human life, is no different than trying to find a tongue depressor, or something that will work as one, for the guy that was in cardiac arrest, and swallowing his own tongue. The depressor is a tool, to solve a problem. Just like a firearm.

It is not about law enforcement. You've been told this many times, yet you cling to your disingenious, wild claims. People like me are willing to risk much to PRESERVE human life UNTIL the authorities (law enforcement) can arrive on-scene. Nothing more. Not a judge. Not a jury. Not inflicting punishment. Just opposing whatever threat may present itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Common Sense Party Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #146
186. Didn't answer the question. Is someone trained in martial arts more
likely to kick or punch someone in a confrontation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #146
206. Martial arts is better than a gun?
Ah - so in your mind, only those who are in peak physical condition, can spend years training to become proficient, and never have to worry about dealing with a threat outside of arm's reach are the only ones who should be permitted to defend themselves?

Hoyt, martial arts have their place, but they are hardly a good solution even for most of the population or anything more than an insignificant number of confrontations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #29
151. This is what it has to do w/ carrying a gun in the USA
Edited on Mon Nov-28-11 07:46 PM by RSillsbee
Your third paragraph, specifically the bolded part.

Finally, when someone spends a lot of time equipping themselves with the most deadly weapons available, practicing drawing that weapon, shooting targets that resemble humans, etc., they are more likely to shoot when another solution is available.

Was written by someone who hasn't the slightest fucking idea what they are talking about. You have been taken to task for writing such things by three people who have actually had the misfortune of taking the life of another human being in the service of their country and we are all three telling you that you are dead fucking wrong.

How can I say this in a way that you will understand? I have killed two people in my life it happened almost twenty years ago and I still see their faces in my nightmares. I would do anything ,except be a victim, to ensure that I don't ever have to do that again and it pisses me the fuck off to hear keyboard heroes like you and jpak tell me that I carry a gun to fulfill my macho fantasies about killing people.

Do you get it now?
TYPO
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #151
160. Like I said, you guys aren't who I'm concerned about. The other millions of fuckers probably aren't

like you 3. If you can't understand that, then that is your problem. You know dang well, that everyone with a permit hasn't had the burden of shooting someone previously. For that reason, I think a bunch probably would like an opportunity to shoot -- they likely will regret it later like you guys can attest, but some do.

"Get what now?" -- I knew from the moment I read your first post, that you get excited about your dang guns." But, sorry, that excitement causes too much dang collateral damage in society to just say, "oh, what the fuck, let those gun coveters carry 50 calibers if they want and sit next to young kids in Chuck E Cheeze."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #160
172. Can I jyust call you a dumb fuck and put you on ignore and leave it at that?
Goodbye Hoyt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #172
179. Please. You have always had that option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Callisto32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. :
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #18
35. Why do you have such a hard on for people carrying firearms on a bicycle?
Quite the odd issue you've latched onto there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #35
44. Used to ride a lot. A bicycle rider does not need a gun -- no matter how much they love them.
Edited on Mon Nov-28-11 11:09 AM by Hoyt

Worse, shooting a dog is pretty low IMO.

What would really be nice is to see some of the regular gun toters criticizing such things -- but it ain't likely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #44
50. There is no reason to criticize it.
Based on the facts presented in the anecdotal incident you are referring to, the bicyclist did NOTHING wrong.

There is no more or less reason to carry on a bike, than on foot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #50
54. Shooting a dog is wrong -- sorry to be contrary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #54
64. Not based on the facts claimed by the article. Anything that tries to eat you is fair game.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #64
94. Facts available lead me to conclude the bicyclist would have taken better options without a gun.

Everyday, hundreds of bicyclist handle dog situations without even thinking about shooting them. From experience, a strong squirt from a water bottle works 95% of time. Pedaling faster works too. But, like several posters have said -- lots of people who have invested in guns are itching for an opportunity to use them. I believe that. Again, most of the posters here might not be like that, but plenty of folks who carry guns are. Check out the freeper Web site, or most sites where males boast about their guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #94
132. It does not matter that SOME people are obnoxiously boastful/etc.
Nor does it matter that SOME people might be able to resolve a dog attack without harming the dog.

Dogs CAN kill humans.
Humans CAN kill dogs with non-firearm implements, such as a tyre pump. Which was standard procedure back when I was learning to ride a bike: get off the bike, put the bike between yourself and the dog, use the tyre pump or the bike as a weapon.

95% means what, 5% got fucking mauled? How many killed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #132
147. Oh come on -- fears of bogeyman got you carrying guns in public, now you are concerned about dogs.

Do you sleep with one eye opened too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #147
182. I know this keeps bouncing off your skull but
I carry to PROTECT HUMAN LIFE. That means from dog attacks as well. My life, and the lives of others, if I can.

Same reason I carry a first aid kit.
Same reason I carry a CPR mask.
Same reason I spend countless weekends doing CERT training, as well as First Aid/CPR training.

All of these things I do because human life is precious to me. If that means I have to shoot a dog that is attempting to maul someone, so be it. I'd rather not, but I'd also rather be prepared if necessary. It DOES happen. I have been attacked myself, though not mauled badly.

Dog are one of the reasons I carry. Doesn't matter that I happen to love dogs. Doesn't matter that I happen to have two in my family right now. If even one of my own dogs became a danger to a human, I would regretfully end it. That is why, as a caring owner, I do not allow my dogs to get in situations where they might be a danger to other people. My yard is fenced. When they come out with me, the only time they are off-leash, is at the off-leash dog park, where risk is, at least, minimized.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #182
188. Oh no, not one of those who carries a gun to save others. Please, unless in LE, it's not your place.

I'm cool with CPR and all that, have some training myself. But carrying a gun to defend the populace -- unless in LE -- is ludicrous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #188
198. Law Enforcement...
..does not carry firearms to protect the public in any way. Further, they are neither tasked with nor obligated to protect anyone.

Simply put - cops carry guns to protect themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #188
202. I think you misunderstand the nature of Law Enforcement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #202
208. Whatever guys, it ain't your place to play Bat Man or Spider Man with your guns. Get real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #208
211. Nobody is.
Besides, neither Batman nor Spiderman used firearms.

All of the reasons to which you object seem to exist only in your mind Hoyt. We have all repeatedly stated the following:

1) We do not wish to force anyone to own a gun
2) We do not wish to force anyone to carry a gun
3) CCW is for self defense only as a last resort
4) Vigilantism is wrong (and illegal)

And a host of other things you insist upon ignoring.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #211
215. And to clarify, an incident like Mark Allen Wilson opposing the Tyler Tx courthouse shooter
wasn't a case of vigilanteeism.


Stopping an active shooter isn't taking the law into your own hands. The people that tackled Gabrielle Gifford's shooter, weren't vigilantee's either. Had they used firearms instead of tackling, it still would not have made them so.

Vigilanteeism is quite something else entirely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #215
228. According to the " Law of Hoyt" you are wrong.
"The people that tackled Gabrielle Gifford's shooter, weren't vigilante's either. Had they used firearms instead of tackling, it still would not have made them so."

According to Hoyt they were doing the job of Law Enforcement,They carried no law enforcement commission from the Government when they acted.
Therefore they are "vigilantes" and need to be punished as such.


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #208
214. Never claimed to. Just a figment of your imagination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #208
225. Social responsibility....
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 04:54 PM by PavePusher
You are... : www.doingitwrong.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #188
221. Hue and cry
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 02:02 PM by one-eyed fat man
In common law, a hue and cry is a process by which bystanders are summoned to assist in the apprehension of a criminal who has been witnessed in the act of committing a crime. Anyone who witnessed a crime shall make hue and cry, and that the hue and cry must be kept up against the fleeing criminal from town to town and from county to county, until the felon is apprehended and delivered to the sheriff. All able-bodied men, upon hearing the shouts, were obliged to assist in the pursuit of the criminal, which makes it comparable to the posse comitatus. It was moreover provided that a hundred that failed to give pursuit on the hue and cry would become liable in case of any theft or robbery.


Kentucky revised Statutes 70.060 Sheriff may command power of county.

"Any sheriff, deputy sheriff or other like officer may command and take with him the power of the county, or a part thereof, to aid him in the execution of the duties of his office, and may summon as many persons as he deems necessary to aid him in the performance thereof."

Good thing you live in a time and place where you can watch crime and not get involved. You should be shamed by the name of "Kitty Genovese."

Thirty-eight neighbors of Kitty Genovese were aware about the murder that was taking place during that time and yet all of them chose to do nothing in rescue of the assaulted girl. One cold-hearted bastard turned up his TV so the screaming of the girl being butchered at his doorstep wouldn't interfere with his evening. On March 13, 1964, these fine upstanding New Yorkers put, "I didn't want to get involved," in the American lexicon.

Winston Moseley chased her down and stabbed her in the back twice. She screamed and he fled, returning ten minutes later. Seeing his prey lying on the ground almost unconscious, he stabbed her several times more, he stole her money, and for good measure, sexually assaulted her.


Would you view an individual who intervened and gotten injured or killed in the process as foolhardy? Had an individual had been able to stop the assault by killing the assailant would he be a vigilante? Is simply calling the police enough? Or will you close the window and turn up the TV?










Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #44
53. History repeats
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velo-dog

The Velo-Dog was a pocket revolver originally created in France by Charles-Franois Galand in the late 19th century as a defense for cyclists against dog attacks. The name is a portmanteau of "velocipede" and "dog".


Of course, that was a quaint era when dogs running loose, biting people or becoming entangled in the spokes of your bicycle were a hazard against which a person could properly object.

Back when it was the Post Office Department, every mail carrier was issued a small revolver. Even states that generally prohibited concealed carry had statutes like KRS 527.020 (2) "...United States mail carriers when actually engaged in their duties; and agents and messengers of express companies, when necessary for their protection in the discharge of their official duties, may carry concealed weapons on or about their person."

Aside from protecting certified mail, it is likely more than one mail man used his revolver to avoid a trip to the emergency room from some snarling, snapping dog an irresponsible owner let run loose.

I once came upon three dogs trying to rip open the bag while a cow was giving birth to get at the newborn calf. The cow and calf survived; the dogs did not. I don't know a farmer or a rancher that wouldn't kill dogs under those circumstances, even if they were his.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #53
55. Funny, I find that letter carriers use their bags, pepper spray or similar -- but not a gun.

But, postal workers do use legally acquired weapons to kill fellow workers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #55
59. You are not old enough or have a poor memory
Edited on Mon Nov-28-11 12:29 PM by one-eyed fat man
The Postal Department was armed to the teeth. Every clerk in the mail car on the train had a gun. A gun was kept behind each window in a Post Office, and mail carriers used to carry revolvers. My ex-father-n-law was a Railway Mail Clerk and was issued a Colt Banker's Special like this.



The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 abolished the United States Post Office Department, a part of the cabinet, and created the United States Postal Service, a corporation-like independent agency with an official monopoly on the delivery of mail in the United States. The Post Office issued firearms.

The Postal Service on the other hand is noted for being gun-free. The Postal Service collected and stored surplus firearms at the Eastern Area Supply Center at Somerville, New Jersey. In 1993, this accumulation of thousands was sent to a foundry at Newark, New Jersey, for supervised destruction.

Postal shootings started in 1983, years AFTER the last issue Post Office Department gun had been turned back for storage making the Postal Service a gun free workplace. "Going postal" did not happen until shooters were sure that no would have a gun but them. You might note it is apparently a lot easier to walk around executing your old boss and all the SOB's who made fun of you when you have certainty that none of them will be able to shoot back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #59
68. They don't carry guns now, and neither should you. That period is long gone, so wake up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #68
78. Maybe you should wake up
I do know the crime rate was lower back then. I remember when it was common to read a big city paper about prowler calls where a cop would say, "Stop or I shoot," and if the the prowler didn't stop; the cop kept his word.

I remember getting on city buses with a rifle, uncased, to go to a high school shooting match. The only comments I ever got were from World War II vets who had used a Mossberg 44US in training someplace and recognized it. We had a rifle and pistol range in the basement of out high school. What we DID NOT have was gang bangers and drive bys.

But that was before recreational drug use and the criminal enterprise it supports took over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #78
84. Interesting rationale for carrying and accumulating a weapon cache.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #68
91. You are correct
That is why they can go postal with impunity now. Aren't you thrilled you help make it possible?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Callisto32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #68
230. Have you ever had an independent thought that isn't also a logical fallacy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #55
65. Dogs have killed postal workers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #65
70. And you didn't hear postal workers demand the right to carry a gun because of that incident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. I have, but for other reasons.
Don't tell me what I have and have not heard. You don't fucking know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #71
85. Did they grant your wish?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. Try making sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Straw Man Donating Member (986 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #44
247. Bicycle riders with guns.


They're coming. Be afraid; be very afraid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-11 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #44
250. Guns and bicycles
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #18
39. Why do you insist on attempting to stiffle discussion and promotion of Civil Rights?
I'm guessing you haven't stocked up on the Balm yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #39
46. Guns are not a civil right. Guns in public is not a progressive cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #46
49. Being armed is a civil right.
Edited on Mon Nov-28-11 11:16 AM by We_Have_A_Problem
You may not like it, but it is.

Hoyt, if you don't wish to be armed, then don't. Nobody is telling you it is a requirement.

You're of course free to ASK others to be disarmed, but you should respect their freedom to tell you no.

This nation has clearly told people like yourself "no". Deal with it. If it bothers you too much, then by all means, avail yourself of your right to leave the country.

The argument has been settled and your side lost. Get used to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #49
60. No it is not. Look up "civil right" on law Web sites, not some gun site. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Union Scribe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #60
76. Cornell University of Law School:
Definition of Civil Rights:

Rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the 13th and 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution. Civil rights include civil liberties (such as the freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion), as well as due process, the right to vote, equal and fair treatment by law enforcement and the courts, and the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a democratic society, such as equal access to public schools, recreation, transportation, public facilities, and housing.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Civil_rights
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #76
87. Nowhere does that link mention "guns," or "arms," or any other reference to weapons.

Try again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
melm00se Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #87
89. let's try this:
The Bill of Rights contains the 1st 10 Amendments to the Constitution, so unless you count like this:

1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

that would include the 2nd amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #89
92. The "Bill of Rights" and "civil rights" are not the same. In fact, . . . . .

In fact, what is considered THE Civil Rights Amendment is not even in the first 10.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #92
100. No, it isnt.
However, it does make it quite clear that all of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights extend to EVERYONE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #100
109. Maybe now that it is clear, you can stop using term "civil rights" when posting about guns.

I hope the rest of the pro-gun culture will do the same when they try to compare their poor, pitiful plight to what minorities (including women) have gone through in this country. It is not even close to the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #109
111. It is clear...
...that ownership of weapons is a civil right, yes.

Hence, I will continue to refer to it as such.

Don't like it? Tough shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #111
118. Except it is only a "civil right" to those who don't know the distinction.

But, if it makes you happy you can call "mommie" or whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #118
122. That's odd....
It seems the Supreme Court and Congress recognize it as a civil right. Perhaps you are the one mistaken?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #122
141. It might be considered a right by some, but not a "civil right."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Oneka Donating Member (319 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #141
175. are regular ,garden variety, rights
any less enforceable than civil rights?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #175
177. Mostly different. Although if you consider toting a gun, please realize you don't have to do it.

Basically, it's acceptable for a corporation to rip us off -- but, dang, it just ain't right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #177
222. You should also realize...
...if you choose NOT to carry one, you don't have to whine about those who do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Union Scribe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #92
129. If we could just make electricity from your ignorance.
Goodbye energy crisis. Go back and read the definition you asked for but apparently did not read at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Callisto32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #92
231. You got what you asked for...
and now you can't handle it and while.

Begone, troll.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #87
90. Does not have to.
You still persist in believing rights must be categorically stated and granted.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #87
95. Consider even the simplest of organisms
Is there any form of life which doesn't not have some defense mechanism? The may be passive, like coloration. It might be active, like butterflies which are poisonous to the critters that try to eat them.

Is there an impulse more basic than self-preservation? Doesn't your "right to life" extend to keeping it? As a tool using mammal, do you suppose that personal defensive arms might include an panapoly of hardware from stone tipped sticks up to firearms?

If faced with armed robbers, do you plan to invoke Breaker Morant's last words?

Shortly before 06:00 hours on 27 February, 1902, Morant and Handcock were led out of the fort at Pretoria to be executed by a firing squad from the Cameron Highlanders. Both men refused to be blindfolded; Morant gave his cigarette case to the squad leader, and his famous last words were: "Shoot straight, you bastards! Don't make a mess of it!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #95
97. Your biggest threat is an accident or illness. See what your guns do for you then.

Actually, I spend very little time thinking/worrying about "self preservation" in your context.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #97
99. Just because there are greater threats...
...does that mean I should ignore others as if they do not exist?

If the overall lack of probability is what you rely upon to support your position, perhaps you should consider a different cause? After all, one has a greater chance of being struck by lightning while holding the winning lottery ticket on a sunny day than getting shot by a person legally carrying a concealed weapon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #97
108. My biggest worry
is old age. I hit my Biblical allotment of "three score and ten" next spring. See Psalms 90:10.

Threescore and ten I can remember well:
Within the volume of which time I have seen
Hours dreadful and things strange; but this sore night
Hath trifled former knowings.
- - Macbeth
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #108
110. Time to start considering turning in your guns along with your keys. I don't say that lightly

I'm close behind you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #110
115. I still pass my flight physical


Real airplanes have round engines and tailwheels. Those who know will understand. Those who don't don't matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #115
117. I pilot friend of mine passed his too, and died a month later. Nice photo by the way.

I wish you many more passing grades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Fair Witness Donating Member (41 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #115
204. Good lookin' T6, is it yours?
I used to 'borrow' one from my friend when I had enough $$ to put some gas in it. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #204
216. Not mine
I maintained it for about 15 years. Got to test fly it after working on it. Owner was involved in a mid-air couple years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Fair Witness Donating Member (41 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #216
226. Oh crap, tht does not sound good. I know the feeling, I let a guy fly my PT22
he said he knew how and I believed him. Trying to land, he crashed it into a whole row of planes at a fly-in, killed his passenger & lost both his legs. Horrible business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #226
227. What a shame.
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 07:17 PM by one-eyed fat man
they got hurt plus, must really have hurt to lose the Ryan. I always liked how they looked. The STA with the Menasco was really sleek looking.

The owner and the airplane survived the collision. A helicopter hit them and took 2 feet off the left wing and the left aileron. The T-6 remained under control and flew to an uneventful landing at a nearby airport. The helicopter was spread out over a ten acre field.

The instructor in the helicopter was at fault, but as he was dead the student's next of kin sued everyone in sight. The jury award was beyond the limits of the insurance policy and as my customer was alive, joint and several liability....bankrupted.

Lost everything, the airplane, the business, the house.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Callisto32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #115
232. Prop driven tail-draggers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #232
243. Yes
with radial engines, man's greatest achievement for turning gasoline and oil into glorious noise!



...and the airplane is probably not the one you think it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Fair Witness Donating Member (41 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-11 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #243
252. I've seen that lovely old Electra...I think in Oshkosh or it might have been out around Palm
Springs, not sure which. I flew one of its 'big brothers' for years...it finally ran out of gas for good. :cry: I guess I'm right up there with you, I reach that 3score & 10 next March. :-) (I still keep my 2nd class medical up too, I may be an old phart but I still have some friends who let me borrow their airy-o-planes now and then) Here it is..or was rather.




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-11 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #252
254. Galveston?
Edited on Fri Dec-02-11 04:02 PM by one-eyed fat man
I heard their Lodestar burned. The project in the next hangar here is a "Useless"-78. Make rib stitch needles out of welding rod.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Fair Witness Donating Member (41 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-11 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #254
255. Could be, I lost track of it after they sold it and gave me a MU2 to drive.
Doesn't the 78 have a wood spar? Been many moons since I was around one. Oh, just now peeked at your profile, I have lots of old tube radio stuff too...old ham gear mostly but some "hi fi" pieces from the 60s. Maybe we should drop this, it's off topic I imagine. haha....but I have several guns too!
Some of them are even legal...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #110
131. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #131
140. Yet, I have to trust you with a gun or two strapped to your body in a church, restaurant or park.

Why should I be happy trusting people who can't walk out the door without a gun or two strapped to their bodies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #140
200. You don't have to trust me at all.
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 09:05 AM by We_Have_A_Problem
In fact, you would be better served not to trust anyone until they earn that trust.

I've never asked you to trust me and I don't care if you do or not. Whether or not I carry a gun is really none of your business or concern.

You have no right to know if i have one Hoyt. You may WANT to know, but you have no RIGHT to know. The two situations are not the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Callisto32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #140
233. Your criteria for trust is awfully narrow and misguided. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #110
171. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #110
180. Facsinating. I report ageist bigotry and mine is the post that gets deleted. Huh. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #180
185. Funny how that works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Union Scribe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #87
127. I guess I shouldn't have assumed you know what the Bill of Rights is.
Because that's what that was about. So I can see where your confusion set in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #127
148. Again, the "Bill of Rights" is not the same as "Civil Rights." You are one who does not get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Union Scribe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #148
220. The old saying is true: you can lead a Hoyt to knowledge, but you can't make him read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #60
83. I have.
Perhaps you could do the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #46
51. I find the second amendment very progressive.
Edited on Mon Nov-28-11 11:28 AM by OneTenthofOnePercent
I find the concept of a government recognizing and protecting the right of citizens to defend themselves very progressive.
At its very core, it's an anti-authoritarian sentiment that is progressive - especially in a time period when other repressive governments around the world actively disarm thier citizens.

Yes, I find the 2nd amendment very progressive. Compared to constitutions around the world, it's pretty unique.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #51
88. You would. If you arming up for the revolution, you can leave your guns at home until it happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #88
101. Well then...
...you can feel free to leave your religion at home then, as well as your political views. Throw that whole idea of being free from reasonable searches and seizures or cruel and unusual punishment right out too...

Do you see how silly your statements are when applied to the other protected rights?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #101
112. But we are not applying them to such things. We are talking deadly weapons, that neither you or I

were born with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #112
191. Doesn't matter.
I wasn't born with a religion, for example.

The fact that it is a weapon is irrelevant from a legal perspective. You may not like it, but its true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
discntnt_irny_srcsm Donating Member (916 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #46
58. The RKBA...
...is the law of the land. It has been adjudicated by SCOTUS. The founders and numerous scholars have written extensively in agreement with this interpretation of the 2A. Many leaders throughout history have also held to equivalent ideals.

A major impediment to progress is the inability to accept correction and make changes. Deal with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #58
63. Law of the land -- then, why are there areas where you can't carry?

The intent of the second amendment has been debated for decades. The last few SC cases where 5/4 and narrowly focused. More cases will be forthcoming. Let's hope there is one less right wing justice when that happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #63
69. The intent has been obfuscated for decades.
As far as the court was concerned it was never debated. The USSC has never, not once, supported the collective rights theory.

Wouldnt matter how many more cases were forthcoming or even if there were one less right wing justice. Precedent is precedent and an individual right is an individual right.

Keep dreaming though Hoyt. You'll never actually be right, but apparently your dreams make you feel better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
discntnt_irny_srcsm Donating Member (916 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #63
75. "...why are there areas where you can't carry?"
Is that all you have? Seriously?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #75
93. It's proof that the supposed "right to bear arms" is not universal as believed by those who can't

stand to walk in a sunny, peaceful park without one.

Folks like to throw around SC decisions as if they are universal, but they usually only apply in very narrow circumstances and in consideration of lower court rulings. Definitely an argument is bolstered if one can cite a SC decision, but it will not always get you what you want because there is much more than just some layman's opinion from a gun Web site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #93
98. You're right - they only apply to certain circumstances...
...So should we assume you would use such an argument about Roe v. Wade? Did Virginia v. Loving only apply to the Loving's and only within the Commonwealth of Virginia? Perhaps next you'll convince us that Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS only applied within the city of Topeka?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
discntnt_irny_srcsm Donating Member (916 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #98
128. I think there was a part of this thread...
...about stuff getting old.

- The RKBA, yeah that's old; it's been around as long as human beings have.

- Dumb-ass objections to the RKBA are old as well.

IMO many of reasonless, mind numbing questions/objections/statements by many control-happy authoritarians are getting old as well. So yes it's all old. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #98
149. For something short, try reading the ACLU position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #149
159. So?
That is their opinion and nothing more.

For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.


Widely understood by whom? Miller does not endorse either theory. This guy puts it best:
Oddly, Second Amendment scholars have largely ignored Miller. While individual and collective right theorists alike claim Miller supports their position, most provide only a perfunctory account of the case. The few exceptions focus on the text of the opinion, rather than the history of the case, and the context in which it was decided. All conclude Miller is an impenetrable mess.




http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv/groups/public/@nyu_law_w...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #159
161. GEJ, now you get it -- McDonald and Heller are similar in structure to Miller.

That's how justices get around so-called precedent -- they come up with some BS that supposedly "distinguishes" the seemingly opposite view in the current case from the so-called precedent.

It will happen with McDonald and Heller, sure as shit. Next time, there may be another judge to join the minority opinion in McDonald and Heller. Or, Heck, maybe one of the justices change their opinion see something, read something, shoot himself in the foot, who knows. But, one of them might suddenly say, "this right wing NRA gun stuff is BS."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #161
169. The precedent comes from before Miller
The district court ruled that NFA did violate the 2A. There were also previous SCOTUS decisions. Read the whole thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #169
178. See how it works if another Stevens or Breyers gets appointed or one of the right wingers

has an epiphany regarding guns in public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #178
181. Heller had nothing to do with "guns in public"
it had everything to do with a private security guard who asked why he could carry in public to protect his boss's corporate money, but not have one at home for any reason.
So, you are agreeing with Norman Goldman that the nine are just politicians in robes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #178
236. The result will be the same.
The only way the USSC could interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean what you believe it means would be to intentionally disregard the obvious meaning of the words. The USSC also is fully aware of the repercussions of such a blatantly false decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #161
193. McDonald and Heller...
are NOTHING like Miller.

I really have no clue how you believe the cases are even remotely similar.

For starters, McDonald and Heller were actual decisions. Miller was not really decided - it was remanded back to the lower court for a decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #193
207. Do I have to explain everything to you? The ruling in Miller was ignored in these recent cases.
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 10:30 AM by Hoyt

The McDonald and Heller decisions may well be similarly ignored in the future. Technically, if a contrary decision is rendered, the justices will draw some kind of distinction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #207
212. First you say...
...Miller was similar. Then you say it was ignored.

Miller was ignored because it WAS NOT A DECISION. Further, the case had nothing to do with the cases at issue even though you claimed they were similar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
discntnt_irny_srcsm Donating Member (916 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #207
240. You must need...
...some help. See the dictionary for the terms "rule" and "exception".

The fact that Miller was focused on a short barreled shotgun has much to do with the cases to which its precedence is applied.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #149
192. You do realize...
...the ACLU's position means precisely squat from a legal perspective, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #192
194. Why don't you walk down street with a gun in Chicago and DC and see what McDonald/Heller are worth?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #194
197. If i had the money and the time
to wade through the legal morass which would surely follow, I would. However, since both DC and Chicago are refusing to comply with the decisions, I have no desire to get personally stuck in the middle of it.

Just because both cities are actively ignoring the court does not mean the cities are in the right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Tuesday Afternoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #46
125. !
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #46
170. More ignorance from you?
When will it end..... :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
discntnt_irny_srcsm Donating Member (916 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #18
62. "What conclusion would you draw from...
- ...those who "study" various state laws..." - they want to obey the law
- ...people using targets resembling human to "practice" shooting people," - those who carry for self-defense assume they will be attacked by other humans as opposed to horses or maybe hamsters
- ...fast draw practice..." - the only thing worse than a miss in a gunfight is a slow miss
- ...carrying two guns," - they have a backup plan
- ...posters accepting innocent bystanders getting shot or guns going off accidentally as the price we have to pay for people exercising their supposed 2nd Amendment rights;" - if criminal activity is to blame for these actions then those responsible should be held to account. Period.


I suggest you look for a text book explaining rights and freedom and why they are important.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #62
66. Obey law only in the sense that they take "opportunity" to shoot a fleeing teenager when its legal.

And, even if it is a "right" -- no one has to do it.

Love your ideas about "criminal activity" and your holding them accountable -- jesus, judge, jury and executioner. That's nice. Not to mention, you don't give a chit about innocent bystanders when you have an opportunity to shoot an unarmed man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hangingon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #66
72. "you don't give a chit about innocent bystanders"
Not sure what a "chit" is in this case. I suppose you intend something about bystanders being shot. I won't speak for anyone but Texas, but here you can and will be prosecuted if you shoot a bystander. So, we are taught not to fire when we are uncertain of the background. We also use personal defense ammunition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #72
96. "Personal defense ammo" is that the stuff that expands upon impacting flesh and body organs?

Prosecuted successfully, and what are the charges going to be? The gun carrier will use the "I was just trying to defend myself" defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #96
102. No, it is ammunition...
...designed to expand upon impact and reduce the chance of over penetration - thereby reducing risk to innocents in the area.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #102
104. That's your interpretation. Mine is it's designed to kill more effectively. Besides, don't shoot

in crowds would be my best advice. In fact, since it's not a good idea to shoot in a crowd, why carry a gun in most public areas?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #104
113. It isnt interpretation.
It is simple fact.

Avoiding shooting in a crowd is always a good idea. I have never said anything to give any indication that I supported such insane behavior.

Not all public areas are crowded Hoyt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #96
106. Do you have difficulty understanding how a parachute works?
Edited on Mon Nov-28-11 03:22 PM by one-eyed fat man
You whine about bullets going through the "bad guy" and harming innocents blocks away.

They make a bullet that opens up and stops inside the bad guy and expends its energy there...you know, "that the stuff that expands upon impacting flesh and body organs?

You'd likely bitch if you were hanged with a new rope.

One of the things I have learned is to try and avoid a fight. If a fight is unavoidable, I have observed, the sooner I finish the fight, the less shot I get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #106
114. I explained how unjacketed bullets works before you did. I think most people use them for stopping

power, not protecting bystanders (which if innocents are around, you should keep your gun in your pants).

Heck, there was a time -- and it still may be true -- that military bullets had to be jacketed to reduce expansion. The goal was to incapacitate rather than maim. But, our gun culture members have long since discounted any such thoughts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #114
119. Stopping power protects...
bystanders and me. Simple as that.

Military rounds do still have to be jacketed. Self defense ammo does not - and SHOULD NOT be. The goal in a self defense situation is to stop the target as fast as possible - not kill him, but stop him. It may well end up fatal for the target, but that is not the intent.

Handguns are relatively weak compared to a rifle and a single shot with a jacketed round is likely not going to stop the target unless you get extremely lucky and manage to make a lucky hit on the central nervous system. The power just simply is not there no matter what you believe from the movies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #114
120. that has to to do with the Hague Convention
and the law of warfare, has nothing to do with individual self defense. That is why police departments use expanding bullets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #120
134. Sure, you guys want access to military guns, but dang if you'll go with jacketed bullets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #134
157. I have FMJs for
target practice and are cheap. Hollow points are also jacketed. How about unjacketed semi wadcutters?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #134
173. Teh ignorance....
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #134
195. All of my self defense rounds are jacketed.
Once again, you demonstrate your total ignorance of the topic at hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 05:12 AM
Response to Reply #195
229. Most don't -- Too much fun figuring out how much damage a bullet will do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #229
234. No, most DO
The fact that you don't actually understand the words your using is your problem.

Hint - hollow points are jacketed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #234
237. Ah you use "partially" jacketed so they kill "better." Do you add special scores to make it worse.

Like I said previously, our military uses them in war -- but gunners here like to do more internal damage,or just boast about their "special loads."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #237
244. No, I use them to stop the target better.
Handgun rounds are very weak compared to a rifle round.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #114
123. The proscriptions against ammunition
which expanded to cause undue suffering came from the

The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use in international warfare of bullets which easily expand or flatten in the body, giving as example a bullet with a jacket with incisions or one that does not fully cover the core. This is often incorrectly believed to be prohibited in the Geneva Conventions, but it significantly predates those conventions, and is in fact a continuance of the Declaration of St Petersburg in 1868, which banned exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams.


Expanding bullets were given the name Dum-dum, or dumdum, after an early British example produced in the Dum Dum Arsenal, near Calcutta, India. Thus, the name "Dum-dum" became associated with expanding bullets, and continues to be used to refer to any expanding bullet, mostly, in fiction, such as old crime novels and anti-gun propaganda.

During the Hague Convention of 1899, the British delegation attempted to justify the use of the dumdum bullet by pointing to its utility when putting down colonial unrest. In warfare against savages, Sir John Ardagh explained to an absorbed audience, "men penetrated through and through several times by our latest pattern of small calibre projectiles, which make a small clean holes," were nevertheless able to rush on and come to close quarters. Some means had to be found to stop them. "The civilized soldier when shot recognizes that he is wounded and knows that the sooner he is attended to the sooner he will recover. He lies down on his stretcher and is taken off the field to his ambulance, where he is dressed or bandaged. Your fanatical barbarian, similarly wounded, continues to rush on, spear or sword in hand; and before you have the time to represent to him that his conduct is in flagrant violation of the understanding relative to the proper course for the wounded man to follow - he may have cut off your head." However, the rest of the delegates at the Hague Convention 1899 did not accept this justification and voted 22-2 to prohibit the future use of the dumdum bullet.


I would remind you this applies to soldiers, the presumption that they are honorable men, fighting for their respective countries.

Criminals are not protected by the Geneva or Hague conventions and never have been. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #123
136. You guys have twisted logic. Interesting, those who laughed at my earlier reference to dumdums are

now getting an education.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #136
156. twisted logic is better than
no logic at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-03-11 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #123
256. Note, moreover, that the Declaration IV,3 only applies to conflicts between state parties
I quote:
The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.
The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.
It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Powers, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power.

In principle, therefore, there's nothing to stop United States troops from using expanding bullets against Taliban or Iraqi insurgents, as neither Afghanistan nor Iraq are parties to the Declaration. Neither is the United States, actually, but the U.S. has pledged to abide by the Declaration even while not being a Contracting Power.

The underlying rationale behind prohibiting the use of expanding bullets in warfare (along with other weapons deemed "inhumane" such as serrated blades), though, is that soldiers are merely agents of their respective states, and they don't deserve to be harmed more than is militarily necessary to render them hors de combat, incapable of fighting. The idea being that war is a conflict between states, not a conflict between those states' soldiers on a personal level. This is, admittedly, a principle in practice honored more in the breach than in the observance: war propaganda throughout the 20th century has often been aimed at fostering animosity towards enemy soldiers personally, from posters urging you to "Halt the Hun" and presenting "Your Enemy, the Jap" to the trite question posed to conscientious objectors like Giles Lytton Strachey, "what if a German soldier came to your house and tried to rape your sister?" (Aside: the best answer I've ever read to this question was given by a British soldier in 1943, who was asked the question in response to asking what the point of the war was anyway, namely: "There's fuck all I could do, because I'm in fucking Algeria!")

Vile in its wording as the British objection cited by one-eyed fat man is, it does touch upon the implicit bargain on which limitations of warfare is based, namely "we won't hurt you more than we have to, on the condition that you stop fighting and remove yourself from combat if we hurt you a little bit" (with the obvious corollary "if you won't stop fighting when we hurt you a little bit, we'll have to hurt a lot").

To get back to the point at hand, the point is this: criminals are not agents of their state, and they don't deserve to be protected from excessive injury on the basis that they're only doing what they're doing because they're carrying out the bidding of their government.

Moreover, precisely because criminals are their own private agents, they can't be relied upon to lie down and call for a stretcher team if hit by a single FMJ. In practice, criminals tend to lie down only when you inflict sufficient trauma upon them that their body refuses to do anything else. And hollow-point bullets tend achieve that result with way fewer hits than FMJs, which means that the ER surgeon typically only has to deal with two or three wounds instead of 10-15, and even though the JHP wounds are more severe individually than the FMJ wounds, the higher number of FMJ wounds makes it way harder for the trauma surgeon. To sum up various analogies, imagine being stabbed two or three times with a broadsword, as opposed to being stabbed fifteen times with an icepick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hangingon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #114
126. Your shooting scenarios are really odd.
You keep talking about "crowds". Do you really think a responsible person is going to open fire on a fleeing criminal on the midway at the county fair? If so, then your understanding of the present CHL community is as badly off the mark as your shooting scenario theory. The individual shot the theives at around 2:30 in the morning. No crowd. It was in a residential area. A full metal jacket will potentially go thur a person and then thru the wall of a house. This is the reason you look beyond your target when you sight. Partial jacket hollow points expend force quickly in the body, end the threat and reduce the potential for the bullet to travel beyond the target. I don't know anyone who uses cast bullets for self defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #126
137. I bet you don't know anyone who uses jacketed bullets for self-defense. Not deadly enough for you.

I bet you don't know many who rely on pepper spray either. Same reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #137
152. pepper spray
has its place. I believe on relying on the best thing available.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #152
162. So do you carry it every time you walk out the door?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #162
167. The only thing I carry is my
very uncanny ability to read people and dogs alike and the power of bullshit. Besides, I'm too cheap to give Rick Scott $147. If my situation changes, I will adjust accordingly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #137
187. I'm going to bust your bubble
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 01:45 AM by one-eyed fat man
All the arguing in all the rags about which new super duper bullet design or caliber is the "finger of God" is hot air. The fact is where you shoot the bastard has a lot more to do with the outcome than what you shoot him with.

There is nothing you can fire that you can hold in your hand, or off your shoulder for that matter that will result in a 100% stop every time. Countless hunters can tell you first hand of having shot a deer through the heart and having them run a hundred yards before they knew they were dead. You field dress the animal and the heart and lungs pour out having been pureed by a bullet that had ten times the energy of any handgun cartridge.

The only sure stop is to destroy the central nervous system which results in instantaneous death. As a practical matter, that is a small and difficult target and while death puts a stop to the fight, killing the attacker is not the direct goal of a defensive shooting. All the harping by instructors and police departments about shooting center mass has to do with hitting the assailant and hoping that he has then sense to quit the attack so you will stop shooting him.

The reason for using the biggest gun you can control with the most destructive bullet you can buy is the hope that the shock and blood loss will cause him to stop, if his better judgment doesn't, before he hurts you badly enough to make the point moot.

One point of information, most all modern hollow point bullets ARE jacketed. The jacket is open at the front, exposing the soft core to the target. Full metal jacket the nose is covered by the jacket, if any of the core is exposed it is at the rear of the bullet. The days of round nose lead bullets for revolvers and round nose full metal jacket bullets for auto-loading pistols came to an end in 1963 when Lee Jurras founded Super Vel ammunition company in Shelbyville, Indiana. His success in developing and marketing high performance hollow point handgun ammunition resulted in the traditional big ammo companies like Olin (Winchester), Remington and Federal to follow suit.

Ballistic engineers since have tried hard to build the bullet the latest theory on stopping power says is ideal. Despite all that effort certain timeworn truths still remain. It is impossible to miss fast enough to win. It is possible for a man whose wounds will prove fatal in seconds to kill you before he dies.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #187
199. Begg to differ
There is nothing you can fire that you can hold in your hand, or off your shoulder for that matter that will result in a 100% stop every time.

Maybe not 100% but I bet I can get 99.999999999999999999% w/ an AT4 :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #199
203. I did briefly
consider the M67 recoilless rifle with canister.

In February 2011, stocks of surplus M67 recoilless rifles were reintroduced by the 101st Airborne Division for limited combat service in Afghanistan. Used against fortifications, and concentrations of enemy personnel the M67 was issued in response to a demand for a reloadable shoulder-fired weapon to be used in static defensive positions as well as ambushes. In particular, the flechette antipersonnel round is seeing common usage.

As a tanker who expended innumerable rounds of canister from a tank gun, I can attest to its effectiveness against "indigenous personnel of questionable political affiliation."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #203
218. DPICM can be fairly nasty as well NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hangingon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #137
190. I do know some who carry FMJ for defense.
My friend up North has an FMJ round below 2 hydroshock rounds in his.380 magazine. He is worried that the .380 will not have the power to penetrate a heavy coat. Pepper spray has its uses. So do baseball bats. I am interested in stopping a threat not killing. That is what CHL traing teaches. Your projected bloodlust is misplaced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #190
210. Have a professional acquaintance who is a retired coroner
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 10:36 AM by one-eyed fat man
By his own admission he has worked over 200 shooting homicides and suicides. I have found him to be credible in other dealings so am inclined to value his opinion and advice (paraphrased):

"You need all the penetration that you can get with mouse guns. They are notorious for insufficient penetration. Ball is more reliable in pocket guns also and is much cheaper. If I was carrying a 25,32,380, it would have nothing but the heaviest full metal jacket I could get in it. Shot placement
is key, not wonder bullets. Gray's Anatomy is in the library, study it."

We completely agree that targeting vital structures and not just "center of mass" with handguns is essential. I've come to the belief that, to be assured of stopping, one must put hits on vital structures (brain/spinal cord or heart/aorta) of an aggressor. Based on what I've seen in combat, it is very common for a bullet to need to penetrate an arm or some similar barrier before it can get to the vitals at which it was aimed. Slow, light bullets (and, yes, 95-grains at under 1000 fps is slow and light in my opinion) like those put out by the .380 don't seem to do well when hollowpoint "brakes" are utilized.

This is not new information, while much is made of the 1904 Thompson-LaGarde Tests "the Board was of the opinion that a bullet, which will have the shock effect and stopping effect at short ranges necessary for a military pistol or revolver, should have a caliber not less than .45" by those who view caliber as the key to effectiveness that they ignore the rest of the good Colonel's advice.

"...soldiers armed with pistols or revolvers should be drilled unremittingly in the accuracy of fire" and to target the head, heart, and spine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
discntnt_irny_srcsm Donating Member (916 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #114
130. You and...
...Plaxico can keep your guns in your pants. The rest of the world should remain safe. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #130
139. "Rest of the world" -- only about 3 - 4% of US population find it necessary to pack a gun in public.
Edited on Mon Nov-28-11 07:19 PM by Hoyt
Maybe the other 96% are more rational than you guys. Most other civilized countries don't allow toting period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #139
153. define civilized and rational
none of the uncivilized countries do, because they are backward assed police states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #153
164. Yea, those dang Australians, Germans, Brits, Dans, etc., live in an oppressive police state.
Edited on Mon Nov-28-11 08:33 PM by Hoyt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #164
174. I was thinking of
others, but getting a CCW in Germany is easier than it was in Wyoming from 1887-1995. Even though Vermont requires no permit, I doubt more than one percent does because of the low crime rate. Italy is about the same as New York.
I was thinking in terms of Japan (a soft police state, while democratic forced confessions are admissible in court), Mexico, the usual suspects.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #174
176. Try thinking in terms of Australia, etc. Heck, howsabout Canada?

We looking kind of backwards if you ask me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #176
235. Canada passed their
handgun licensing law because of they were afraid of immigrants. Their 1977 law was passed because of fear of Francophone terrorism. Australia passed their latest law, because the police stood around with their finger up their ass while some asshole murdered 32 people in two cities in a single day. The latter the Australian government forced people who committed no crime, were forced to surrender private property without compensation. Neither made their streets safer.
Other than our inability to keep a check on corporate greed, we are hardly backward compared to either place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
discntnt_irny_srcsm Donating Member (916 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #66
82. I see that...
...broad brush is hard at work. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #66
103. Why does it bother you so much...
...when a person legally defends himself or his property? Are you considering a career in the criminal arts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #103
116. Are you in law enforcement, a judge, or Jesus?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #116
121. None of the above
I don't need to be. A cop or a judge are tasked by the people with enforcing the law or presiding over a trial respectively. Their job is not to protect me. The act of granting them the power they have in no way removes or restricts my absolute right and duty to self defense.

When defending myself or my property, there is no question in my mind that the person I am stopping is guilty. A trial is unnecessary. It is not the state delivering justice, it is me, the individual, exercising my right to self preservation.

In other words, the whole entire concept of legal penalties, a trial, etc. goes right out the window.

This is pretty basic stuff Hoyt. It has been codified in law since um...well at least the Code of Hammurabi, and it has been pretty standard law in every single society in the entire world. Self defense is an unquestioned absolute right. You may disagree with it, but really that is your problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Tuesday Afternoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #116
138. are you?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #138
196. Nope, and I don't play one on a daily basis by carrying a gun in public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Tuesday Afternoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #196
217. you sure do sit in judgment around here on a daily basis with
Edited on Tue Nov-29-11 12:56 PM by Tuesday Afternoon
your sarcastic comments and slurs. and your holier than thou attitude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:00 PM
Original message
no but
I am Baal. Is Jesus judge or something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #116
154. no but
I am Baal. Is Jesus judge or something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Union Scribe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #18
73. Oh, look, the prime offender.
Were your ears burning? I can't even count how many of your blood-drenched posts I've alerted on that openly accused DUers of wanting to murder people. The scary thing is, that's in YOUR FUCKING HEAD, not ours. All that violence and gore you spread around on this forum, that's from YOUR mind. You accuse others of being obsessed with violence and killing, but your posts show that's all just projection. You have a fucking problem, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #73
155. Thanks for saving me the trouble of typing that NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #18
79. WTF is a "gunner"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #18
145. The same conclusion I draw from the drivel you post
Any one that thinks shooting someone is cool has no idea what the fuck their talking about
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #145
150. Lot of fuckin money spent on making it cool for the masses.

Looked at any gun ads lately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Fair Witness Donating Member (41 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #150
205. Do you continue to urinate into the prevailing advection harboring some forlorn hope
that your dissertations and insults will persuade us to give up our rights? It's just strange...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #205
219. I have little doubt that you guys are incapable of going without your guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Fair Witness Donating Member (41 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-29-11 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #219
223. Your lack of doubt has no effect on the rights of citizens, fortunately.
Perhaps you should consider a change of career...to something with a chance of success. Cake decorating would probably be doable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #18
158. The same thing as people who buy cars designed to go 140 miles per hour.
"Tell me what gunners are thinking when they buy/demand weapons designed to shoot as many people as rapidly as possible right up to the envelope of what the law allows? Or those who buy guns designed for killing people in special situations."





The same thing as people who buy cars designed to go 140 + miles per hour.

By and large, that they would like to own and use said thing.

And generally that falls under the catagory of "use lawfully".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
melm00se Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 07:33 AM
Response to Original message
20. I carry a gun from time to time
and I deeply fear the day that I will have to drop the hammer on someone but I do know that if I do have to it will be because there is absolutely no other choice but to do so in defense of my or my family's lives
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DWC Donating Member (584 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
30. I agree, but it does represent
Edited on Mon Nov-28-11 10:07 AM by DWC
the extreme antis within, or claim to be in, the Democratic Party. This is the only place on the internet where they are required to defend their indefensible position and leaving them with nothing but insults, exaggerations, and baseless "facts".

Their own words here on DU defeat their agenda.

The more tripe they put out, the weaker they are.

Semper Fi,
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MicaelS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
61. I make sure of where I go and when...
I try to stay out of bad neighborhoods. When I drive at night, I stay on major, well lighted streets or highways. I don't ever want to have to shoot someone. I don't hunt at all. Not for food or sport, nor do I fish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-28-11 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
142. Ignore works well for that problem
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Paladin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-30-11 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
242. You're Not The Boss Of Me. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ileus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
245. get used to it...these people hate you because of your freedom.
Edited on Thu Dec-01-11 08:06 AM by ileus
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deacon_sephiroth Donating Member (315 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-11 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
248. Yeah! Anyone that doesn't agree with me should just STFU!!!
Go tell it on the mountain brother!

Oh wait..... you don't agree with me.... STFU
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-11 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #248
249. that is not what it says

Unless youve actually had to do it you have no fucking idea what you are talking about and I would really appreciate it if you would shut the fuck up

has nothing to do with agree or disagree. He simply pointed out that if you have never been there, you don't know what you are talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-11 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #248
253. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-03-11 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
257. I can't believe this thread wasn't spotted and locked.
Alerted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
greatauntoftriplets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-03-11 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
258. We're locking this.
The OP is no longer a member.

greatauntoftriplets
DU moderator
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul 12th 2014, 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC