| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/13/2011 01:38:20 AM · #276 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
And this happens in the wilderness as much as in town. |
|
For these, a stick works about as good as a pistol.
 
Panthers and bears are a whole 'nother story though. |
Bear encounters are overwhelmingly caused by irresponsible actions on behalf of the person experiencing it. Panther attacks are exceptionally rare (unless you live on Vancouver Island ;) ) and typically happen to unattended children. The efficacy of a gun in such situations is questionable, as well. Honestly, I'm far more wary of moose than the aforementioned, and a handgun isn't terribly like to deter a sex crazed 1,000lb moose in rut. Why don't you wear a helmet everywhere you go? I'm sure it, too, would come in handy sometime...
But back to things. What regulations and requirements are acceptable, then? Nobody answered that earlier. To me, things like waiting periods and things like that are perfectly reasonable. Who needs a gun right away that doesn't have a target in mind? |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 05:57:24 AM · #277 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Now, if we (proverbial we, and or you - from here forth) should be having this (or any other) discussion in real life, and you feel the need to suddenly start having the discussion at unreasonable volume levels, at at unreasonably short distances to my person, you might well find that I am quite willing to take violent remedies... Justifiably so, IMO, as that behavior constitutes an immediate personal threat, at a severity which would justify the use of moderate physical force. Which, before you think I mean I'm going to shoot you or something so silly, means that I'd be quite willing to make you set on the floor, in a quick and effective manner.
I'm sure you'll think I'm wrong for that.. I feel quite strongly that I am not. |
Don't worry, I have no intention of ever going to your corner of the world. The gun lust that many of the citizens there have makes me think that you cannot disagree with anyone without fearing for my life.
Your willingness of "violent remedies" in a shouting match are unjustified. Can you imaging the next time a pitcher and umpire have a shouting match that one of them pulls out a gun in self defense. It is absurd.
Message edited by author 2011-01-13 05:57:45. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 06:29:55 AM · #278 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
but then after he light it he started to act funny and displayed a medium size knife while leaning slightly in my window... I'd been a bit worried since the entire thing has started to get a touch odd, so it wasn't really a surprise... When he asked me for money, implying that he might be willing to do anything for it, I redirected his attention to the gun that was in my hand pointing towards the inside of my car door.. He pretty quickly understood that I wasn't the guy he was looking for, and he took off... |
Hold on, weren't you telling us earlier in the thread how much more effective a knife is than a gun? ;) |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 09:41:37 AM · #279 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
He fired 20 shots in about 20 seconds. If someone there had had a gun, he STILL would have killed 6, wounded 14 before he was stopped as he had to reload. As it was, a chair did a fine job of stopping him in this case. It would have perhaps been more satisfying had someone shot him. But in the ensuing confusion, what if a third armed citizen arrived, saw the concerned citizen firing at the original gunman, and thought "Oh gosh! A gunman!" and killed the first concerned citizen? How does one keep track of who did what to whom is such a horrifying and confusing encounter? |
This is exactly why the handgun-carrying person who took down Loughner - luckily - didn't use his gun.
Friendly Firearms: Gabrielle Giffords and the perils of guns: How an armed hero nearly shot the wrong man.
The new poster boy for this agenda is Joe Zamudio, a hero in the Tucson incident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer. Television interviewers are celebrating his courage, and pro-gun blogs are touting his equipment. "Bystander Says Carrying Gun Prompted Him to Help," says the headline in the Wall Street Journal.
But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "
But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.
Zamudio agreed:
I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. â€Â¦ I was really lucky.
Armed Citizens Don't Shoot Back
In Arizona we know the public is armed. Sadly, Jared Lee Loughner was legally and heavily armed. The crowds in the shopping area must too have been armed. Yet, as a gunman methodically targeted and shot innocent people, none of the armed folks in the crowd fired on the gunman. I am not blaming any of the innocents -- armed or unarmed -- that were there that day. All are victims and none bare any responsibility at all. My point is that in case after case our loose gun ownership and possession laws do not produce armed citizens defending themselves and others. So many of us have guns and we are all vulnerable.
Message edited by author 2011-01-13 09:41:58. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 10:18:27 AM · #280 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Armed Citizens Don't Shoot Back
In Arizona we know the public is armed. Sadly, Jared Lee Loughner was legally and heavily armed. The crowds in the shopping area must too have been armed. Yet, as a gunman methodically targeted and shot innocent people, none of the armed folks in the crowd fired on the gunman. I am not blaming any of the innocents -- armed or unarmed -- that were there that day. All are victims and none bare any responsibility at all. My point is that in case after case our loose gun ownership and possession laws do not produce armed citizens defending themselves and others. So many of us have guns and we are all vulnerable. |
That's because cowards hide behind guns.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2011 11:03:48 AM · #281 |
| Are you sure you want to make that statement? |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 11:07:36 AM · #282 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Are you sure you want to make that statement? |
I'll get back to you on that one, i'm just going to check to see if there's any one with a gun in my neighborhood.
Message edited by author 2011-01-13 11:14:28. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 11:11:28 AM · #283 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Your willingness of "violent remedies" in a shouting match are unjustified. Can you imaging the next time a pitcher and umpire have a shouting match that one of them pulls out a gun in self defense. It is absurd. |
That is a poor example... it falls under the rules of sports, and you have a crowd ready to intervene.
And, just to be extra clear on how poorly you seem to be listening today, I said specifically that it was NOT about shooting, there's no damn way I'm pulling out a gun if you're standing within grabbing distance of me, that's just asking for a tug of war over the weapon.
An altercation elsewhere would fall under the rules of the street, and that is what I'm talking about.
If you honestly think you should be allowed to be aggressive and loud, within inches of someone else, completely invading their personal space, and that they should just be ok with that - well, I strongly suggest that you don't come to "my corner" of the world... I can assure you I'm not the only man out here that won't tolerate that kind of behavior from someone.
Message edited by author 2011-01-13 11:12:38. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 11:15:44 AM · #284 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
but then after he light it he started to act funny and displayed a medium size knife while leaning slightly in my window... I'd been a bit worried since the entire thing has started to get a touch odd, so it wasn't really a surprise... When he asked me for money, implying that he might be willing to do anything for it, I redirected his attention to the gun that was in my hand pointing towards the inside of my car door.. He pretty quickly understood that I wasn't the guy he was looking for, and he took off... |
Hold on, weren't you telling us earlier in the thread how much more effective a knife is than a gun? ;) |
:)
Absolutely... Fortunately he lacked commitment. :)
Well, that, and I did have a car door between us, that changes the dynamic quite a bit...
Message edited by author 2011-01-13 11:16:17. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 11:21:53 AM · #285 |
| The was a story on NPR this morning that since Saturday requests for gun s have increased. Sales of high capacity clips for a 9mm Glock increased 1000% at one store. Apparently some Glock owners wanted to see if they could be better at re-loading and wondered why the shooter fumbled changing clips so badly. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 11:25:16 AM · #286 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
The was a story on NPR this morning that since Saturday requests for gun s have increased. Sales of high capacity clips for a 9mm Glock increased 1000% at one store. Apparently some Glock owners wanted to see if they could be better at re-loading and wondered why the shooter fumbled changing clips so badly. |
LOL, good one.
I'm sure they're terrified that it'll all become difficult and expensive to buy again soon. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 12:01:41 PM · #287 |
It won't. No legislation against anything gun related will result. No worries!
I do find it disturbing that the quote from the huffpost article above really does read "...none bare any responsibility at all..." Should not that read " ...none bears any..." and does this count as a grammar screed on my part? |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 12:12:29 PM · #288 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
It won't. No legislation against anything gun related will result. No worries!
I do find it disturbing that the quote from the huffpost article above really does read "...none bare any responsibility at all..." Should not that read " ...none bears any..." and does this count as a grammar screed on my part? |
Well done... Now I do think we've managed to hit all the bases that are required of any good rant. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 12:20:33 PM · #289 |
2 interesting points in the aftermath of the shooting.
"The high-capacity magazine of the semiautomatic pistol used in the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and more than a dozen other people on Saturday would have been illegal to manufacture and difficult to purchase under the Clinton-era assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.
According to police and media reports, the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, legally purchased a semiautomatic Glock 19 with a high-capacity magazine in November at a gun store in Tucson. Under the assault weapons ban, it was illegal to manufacture or sell new high-capacity magazines, defined as those that hold more than 10 rounds. The magazines used by Loughner had 31 rounds each, according to police."
So bans on weapons designed primarily to kill people do not work. Especially when they are lifted. 31 rounds? Other than killing a lot of people quickly, what need is there for this? These modifications are intended only to take the life of a fellow person.
How can we make ourselves safer in a society where there are so many guns? Well many people think we need more guns!
"One-day sales of handguns in Arizona jumped 60 percent to 263 on Jan. 10 compared with 164 the corresponding Monday a year ago, the second-biggest increase of any state in the country, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation data.
Handgun sales rose 65 percent to 395 in Ohio; 16 percent to 672 in California; 38 percent to 348 in Illinois; and 33 percent to 206 in New York, the FBI data show. Sales increased nationally about 5 percent, to 7,906 guns." Ironically the Glock was the hottest ticket. If its good enough for Jared, its good enough for me!
I look forward to such shootings going from yearly events to monthly. Soon they may be common enough so we just accept the odd massacre as we do freeway fatalities. Just another part of living in modern America. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 12:29:41 PM · #290 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by Melethia:
It won't. No legislation against anything gun related will result. No worries!
I do find it disturbing that the quote from the huffpost article above really does read "...none bare any responsibility at all..." Should not that read " ...none bears any..." and does this count as a grammar screed on my part? |
Well done... Now I do think we've managed to hit all the bases that are required of any good rant. |
But before it became a gun thing, it WAS a grammar thing. Explained: Jared Loughner̢۪s Grammar Obsession |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 12:58:03 PM · #291 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by Mick:
Actually, it's more humane to hunt with a semi-auto. What hunters strive for is a quick, clean kill. Ideally, the first shot kills the animal instantly and it never has to suffer. Unfortunately, it doesn't always turn out that way and a second shot is needed. The faster a hunter can deliver that second shot the less the animal has to suffer. Fumbling around reloading while an animal is in pain is a bad thing. |
So . . . it's semiautomatic rifles or a single-shot, no-clip, fumble in your pocket to find another bullet firearm? No bolt-action, internal clip rifles (like me, my siblings and our father use and have used for deer and elk)? No lever-action rifles like my father, grandfather and grandmother (yep, that's right) used to hunt the same back in their day? And I suppose that to be truly "humane," not only do you "need" a semiautomatic rifle, but will need a 20-30+ round magazine to go with it, just in case the first 6-10 bullets don't quite get the job done.
Of course the single-shot, bolt-action, no-clip, keep the second shot in your shirt pocket for quick reload, if necessary, hunting rifle that was my father's favorite sure did seem to do a great job of keeping meat on the table. But perhaps my Reagan-loving, Montana-cattle-ranching, Korean-War-vet father was just too much of a liberal to understand the finer points of modern hunting technique.
Mick, I don't believe that even you buy your own bullshit, but perhaps if you feel you need a semiautomatic rifle to hunt with, you should take up fishing. |
I already enjoy fishing. The Columbia River has great salmon and steelhead fishing and it's right outside my backdoor. I used to hunt a bit in Modoc County up in northern California, but I haven't been hunting since before my grandfather passed away several years ago. He's the one that taught me most of what I know about hunting. I learned that it can be fun and rewarding, but it usually requires a lot of work too. Around here, most of my friends hunt every year. They try to get me to go with them and I say, "No thanks. Too much like work." :)
My gramps was a wonderful man, and he sure knew how to find the whitetail. He had several rifles, including lever and bolt action, but more often than not, he hunted with a semi-auto M1 carbine. This was back in the 60's and 70's. He certainly isn't the only one to prefer a semi-auto for hunting either. People have used them for hunting since they were first invented over 120 years ago. It certainly isn't something new. Nobody had a problem with it until relatively recently when the anti-gun propagandists started spewing misinformation and outright lies in an effort to dupe the public into believing that semi-autos are "evil assault weapons."
It really doesn't matter that some of your family prefer to use bolt or lever-action rifles. It doesn't change the fact that semi-auto rifles are much faster. The next round is chambered almost instantly. And when you're hunting in heavy cover, like thick forest and heavy brush, seconds count. A wounded deer can disappear in an instant. All too often they can't be found and end up suffering horribly before they die. That's why I say it's more humane to use a semi-auto. However, if you want to use your grandpa̢۪s old lever action rifle, be my guest.
As for your Reagan-loving, Montana-cattle-ranching, Korean-War-vet father being too much of a liberal to understand the finer points of modern hunting technique, I couldn't say. I don't know the man. It's certainly possible though. Being a vet from Montana who loves Reagan doesn't necessarily mean he knows shit from Shinola.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2011 01:09:17 PM · #292 |
Also from the huffpost article: We are already the most heavily armed developed country. We already suffer the highest rates of gun injury and death.
We're #1!! And based on increased sales we should comfortably maintain that position. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 01:13:08 PM · #293 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by Melethia:
It won't. No legislation against anything gun related will result. No worries!
I do find it disturbing that the quote from the huffpost article above really does read "...none bare any responsibility at all..." Should not that read " ...none bears any..." and does this count as a grammar screed on my part? |
Well done... Now I do think we've managed to hit all the bases that are required of any good rant. |
But before it became a gun thing, it WAS a grammar thing. Explained: Jared Loughner̢۪s Grammar Obsession |
Yes, thanks, that was my attempt at a bit of levity. Sadly, the young man wasn't particularly good at grammar. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 01:16:07 PM · #294 |
Originally posted by Mick:
Being a vet from Montana who loves Reagan doesn't necessarily mean he knows shit from Shinola. |
I assume you speak from a position of authority, having made a careful comparison study yourself. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 01:33:03 PM · #295 |
| What does having those three attributes qualify you for? |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 01:40:17 PM · #296 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
So bans on weapons designed primarily to kill people do not work. Especially when they are lifted. 31 rounds? Other than killing a lot of people quickly, what need is there for this? These modifications are intended only to take the life of a fellow person. |
The two classic replies:
A) That violates my rights. So don't do it.
B) That won't work. So don't do it.
All gun control measures fall under either A or B so advocates have their bases covered.
To prove this, I'd like to hear from some of the vocal crew what they think would be a reasonable example of an increased gun control measure? Anything at all. Your choice. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 01:44:35 PM · #297 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Mick:
Being a vet from Montana who loves Reagan doesn't necessarily mean he knows shit from Shinola. |
I assume you speak from a position of authority, having made a careful comparison study yourself. |
Absolutely. I tested a large number of Reagan loving Montana veterans using a Craftsman model 1019 Laboratory Edition Signature Series bullshit meter. The kind used by Caltech high energy physicists. And NASA engineers. A split second before the bullshit meter was applied to each test subject, it had been calibrated by top members of the state AND federal Department of Weights and Measures... to be dead on balls accurate! Here's the certificate of validation. The test results clearly showed that a significant percentage of the subjects were full of shit.
Satisfied?
|
|
|
|
01/13/2011 01:51:30 PM · #298 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To prove this, I'd like to hear from some of the vocal crew what they think would be a reasonable example of an increased gun control measure? Anything at all. Your choice. |
Some shooters take various training courses to increase their control. I prefer the old standby -- practice, practice, practice.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2011 01:51:38 PM · #299 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
So bans on weapons designed primarily to kill people do not work. Especially when they are lifted. 31 rounds? Other than killing a lot of people quickly, what need is there for this? These modifications are intended only to take the life of a fellow person. |
The two classic replies:
A) That violates my rights. So don't do it.
B) That won't work. So don't do it.
All gun control measures fall under either A or B so advocates have their bases covered.
To prove this, I'd like to hear from some of the vocal crew what they think would be a reasonable example of an increased gun control measure? Anything at all. Your choice. |
You see, that's where we have our disconnect... I was under the impression that we have quite enough already, it's that we simply can't effectively enforce what we've already enacted - and you seem to think that somehow piling more layers of shit on the pile is somehow going to make it smell better....
As for a "reasonable" gun control measure? Sure, that's easy - figure out how to increase the efficiency of what is already in place.
Besides, a gun didn't do this... A psychotic lunatic did this with a gun. Perhaps we should be asking ourselves what failing of the mental heath system has allowed people like this to fail so miserably at integration into society, and yet, until they do something tragic, there's not a damn thing that can be done... Do you really think your great(x1000)Grandfather, when he was sitting in his little group of neolithic people, would have let a person who was obviously a threatening sort of crazy, to setup a camp nearby? Nah, I'd bet that those sort of early humans were much better at dealing with persons who found unreasonable difficulty in societal integration. |
|
|
|
01/13/2011 01:52:56 PM · #300 |
Originally posted by Mick:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To prove this, I'd like to hear from some of the vocal crew what they think would be a reasonable example of an increased gun control measure? Anything at all. Your choice. |
Some shooters take various training courses to increase their control. I prefer the old standby -- practice, practice, practice. |
Yes, but never take it to Carnegie hall... |
|
