DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> A Win For Your 2nd Amendment Right
Pages:  
Showing posts 101 - 125 of 140, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/14/2007 10:55:13 AM · #101
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
Originally posted by deapee:

Would you believe me if I said that 80% of police officers in the US look at their handgun as nothing more than a tool for the job? Their training is basically something that 90% of non-physically challenged ordinary citizens could pass after one day of practice. About 15% of police are into handguns and know how to use one very effectively. Another 5% are experts and live, breathe, and love them.

Most police officers honestly couldn't shoot a stop sign at 50 yards 50% of the time...those are not the type of odds I'd want to put my life into the hands of.


This comes off as primarily being from the "75% of statistics are made up on the spot" style of statistic, as I've known many officers and am (somewhat) familiar with their training and proficiency requirements.


hrmm...If any statistic was made up in the above quote, it was your 75% thing. Mine came directly from the NRA. I'm not going to argue with you though...like I said, I was just interested if people believed the statistic or not, which just so happens to be a true statistic.

It's my opinion that I'll shoot better, more accurately, and be able to defend my life better than 80% of police officers out there. Not to mention the fact that a very high percentage of the time, probably close to 99.9% (made up statistic), that the police aren't going to get there the very second some deranged gunman breaks into your house or pulls a gun out in a public place and shoots you with it. Police aren't always there to protect the innocent when they need to be. Sometimes they're only there to clean up the pieces and solve the crime.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...as soon as the government sends an armed, well-trained police officer to be at my side 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, I'll gladly get rid of any and all guns I own. Until then, I choose to exercise my rights to their fullest. I'm not trying to talk anyone into believing what I believe. I'm simply giving explanations for why I feel the way that I do on the subject.
 03/14/2007 11:06:27 AM · #102
Originally posted by theSaj:


Originally posted by "Matthew":

Then why did you say that it was a result of the absence of guns? Individuals with handguns would not prevent a popular movement, would they?


Actually, yes, they can prevent a populist movement from going to far. You can have a mob and one person can pull out a gun and fire into the sky. And the mob will often flee in terror. Popularist mobs usually don't do well when facing armed opposition.


 03/14/2007 11:39:52 AM · #103
That's a moving image, however it is somewhat misleading.

While it appears that the unarmed civilian stopped the millitary, the reality is that upwards of two thousand people were killed and mass arrests followed those protests.
 03/14/2007 11:49:51 AM · #104
Don't know about policemen, but my BIL was a warden at the local jail for a few years and had to "qualify" with his weapon periodically. Steve is a crack shot. He can't hit anything and when at the practice range would hit close to 100%, but during official qualifying would deliberately miss some of them.

Apparently (and this could have changed bc it has been like 15 or so years), if you are an "ACE" and you have to shoot at a prisoner, you are expected to hit him (generic gender) in the leg or somewhere -- slow him down, injure but don't kill. If he dies, you get in trouble. BUT, if you aren't an ACE it is understood that you won't be expected to be as good a shot, and the prisoner may die.

If that is similar with policemen, they may actually be a better shot, but keep it low on purpose.
 03/14/2007 01:12:41 PM · #105
Originally posted by karmat:
Don't know about policemen, but my BIL was a warden at the local jail for a few years and had to "qualify" with his weapon periodically. Steve is a crack shot. He can't hit anything and when at the practice range would hit close to 100%,...


I think you mean he CAN hit anything :)
 03/14/2007 01:19:40 PM · #106
Originally posted by theSaj:


Originally posted by "Spazmo99":
You would be treading on dangerous ground to base your personal behavior on your own interpretation, based on external documents, of a law. It could be a very, very long wait in prison while your case winds its way through the appeals process to the Supreme Court. You could waste a significant portion of your life as your cell mate's bitch only to be denied.


If it reaches that point, it would not be a long time in prison. It'd be either a long time on the run fighting a guerilla war with tens of thousands of others. Or, it'd be death.

Secondly, as an American I believe such basing of personal behavior is not only within my right but is my demanded of duty. It is only because of those who acted on such personal behavior that the American Revolution occurred. It is only because of those who acting out in personal behavior that the civil rights movement was created and succeeded.

And I'd rather die bearing my rights....then die in a concentration camp.


It reaches that point all the time. That's why the Appellate Courts and the Supreme Court are busy places. Do you think those people who have been convicted of a serious crime in a criminal court that are appealing their case on the grounds that a law is unconstitutional are out walking free? They are in prison, serving their sentence, guilty until proven otherwise.
 03/14/2007 01:29:07 PM · #107
Originally posted by karmat:
Don't know about policemen, but my BIL was a warden at the local jail for a few years and had to "qualify" with his weapon periodically. Steve is a crack shot. He can't hit anything and when at the practice range would hit close to 100%, but during official qualifying would deliberately miss some of them.

Apparently (and this could have changed bc it has been like 15 or so years), if you are an "ACE" and you have to shoot at a prisoner, you are expected to hit him (generic gender) in the leg or somewhere -- slow him down, injure but don't kill. If he dies, you get in trouble. BUT, if you aren't an ACE it is understood that you won't be expected to be as good a shot, and the prisoner may die.

If that is similar with policemen, they may actually be a better shot, but keep it low on purpose.


He may be a crack shot, but that's at the range, a very different scenario from a shootout in a high stress, life and death situation. Many people who are near perfect on the range are significantly less perfect in those types of situations. Don't believe what you see on TV, the police do not shoot to wound. There are other non-lethal weapons that they will use first; pepper spray, taser, tear gas etc. When they use their firearm, it's to kill. It's called lethal force for a reason.
 03/14/2007 01:34:18 PM · #108
Originally posted by deapee:

Would you believe me if I said that 80% of police officers in the US look at their handgun as nothing more than a tool for the job? Their training is basically something that 90% of non-physically challenged ordinary citizens could pass after one day of practice. About 15% of police are into handguns and know how to use one very effectively. Another 5% are experts and live, breathe, and love them.

Most police officers honestly couldn't shoot a stop sign at 50 yards 50% of the time...those are not the type of odds I'd want to put my life into the hands of.



Who cares at 50 yds? 50 yards is a long way with a 9mm. Most police shootings are at 15 yds or less and the center body mass is a lot bigger than a stop sign.

As I've said before, the challenge is not in hitting a target on a range, but in making the decision to draw, aim and fire while lives are at stake.

Message edited by author 2007-03-14 13:34:57.
 03/14/2007 02:05:08 PM · #109
According to the FBI's "Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted - 2003" Document the engagement distances are:

< 5' - 50%
6-10' - 21%
11-20' - 11%
21-50 - 8%
>50' - 8%
For 2% of the gunfights no distance was reported.

So almost all of the engagement distances are within 7 yards or less. The average engagement lasts 5 seconds.

Message edited by author 2007-03-14 14:06:29.
 03/14/2007 03:24:11 PM · #110
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
So almost all of the engagement distances are within 7 yards or less. The average engagement lasts 5 seconds.


That is correct. Specifically why the "Tueller Drill" is emphasized in defensive tactics firearms training. The Tueller Drill (named after then Sgt Dennis Tueller - I believe of the Salt Lake City PD) is a training exercise involving a distance of 21' (7 yards) whereby an assailant using a knife, stabs an officer who has a holstered firearm. The normal time for an assailant to travel 21' to stab a target is between 1.3 and 1.6 seconds. The normal time to react to a stimulas, decide to draw a weapon from a holster and fire is around 1.5 - 2.0 seconds. The saying "don't bring a knife to a gunfight" is not accurate. Effective defense is predicated upon one's ability to percieve the threat, evaluate the threat, decide upon an action against the threat, and implement the action against the threat. From 21', it is very difficult to percieve, evaluate, decide and implement an action against an unforseen threat. This is the primary reason why awareness (aka condition Yellow) is so crucial to one's daily business. It is also, why anyone choosing to be armed, has in their personal training history the Tueller Drill documented. Preparedness should encompass not only preparation for an assault in/on the street, but the potential aftermath assault in the courtroom. One does not want an unscrupulous attorney (read prosecutor) satnding 21' away from a jury box, holding a knife, and asking each jury member if they feel threatened. Thus, why did the accused feel the need to discharge their firearm? With the Tueller Drill firmly established as part of your training record, your advocate could easily explain why the threat was real - and prove it!
 03/14/2007 03:46:34 PM · #111
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by karmat:
Don't know about policemen, but my BIL was a warden at the local jail for a few years and had to "qualify" with his weapon periodically. Steve is a crack shot. He can hit anything and when at the practice range would hit close to 100%, but during official qualifying would deliberately miss some of them.

Apparently (and this could have changed bc it has been like 15 or so years), if you are an "ACE" and you have to shoot at a prisoner, you are expected to hit him (generic gender) in the leg or somewhere -- slow him down, injure but don't kill. If he dies, you get in trouble. BUT, if you aren't an ACE it is understood that you won't be expected to be as good a shot, and the prisoner may die.

If that is similar with policemen, they may actually be a better shot, but keep it low on purpose.


He may be a crack shot, but that's at the range, a very different scenario from a shootout in a high stress, life and death situation. Many people who are near perfect on the range are significantly less perfect in those types of situations. Don't believe what you see on TV, the police do not shoot to wound. There are other non-lethal weapons that they will use first; pepper spray, taser, tear gas etc. When they use their firearm, it's to kill. It's called lethal force for a reason.


I understand that at the range and in real life are two entirely different scenarios, but that is not my point at all.

When Steve had to qualify, it was at the range as well. He (and the others) that were really good would miss deliberately to get their averages lower so they wouldn't have the accountability of ACE (or whatever it was called) because in an actual emergency, they would be held to that same high, almost perfect, standard of shoot to stop, not shoot to kill.

Also, these are prison guards, not police. And it was real life, not TV. They were told to shoot to stop, not shoot to kill.

My whole point was to Jason's reference of 80% of the policemen not being a very good aim with their weapons, and I was speculating that they might be a bit better, but if the numbers aren't coming from "real life" situations, they may be deliberately deflated for the reasons that my BIL and his coworkers deflated theirs.
 03/14/2007 03:59:28 PM · #112
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
So almost all of the engagement distances are within 7 yards or less. The average engagement lasts 5 seconds.


That is correct. Specifically why the "Tueller Drill" is emphasized in defensive tactics firearms training. The Tueller Drill (named after then Sgt Dennis Tueller - I believe of the Salt Lake City PD) is a training exercise involving a distance of 21' (7 yards) whereby an assailant using a knife, stabs an officer who has a holstered firearm. The normal time for an assailant to travel 21' to stab a target is between 1.3 and 1.6 seconds. The normal time to react to a stimulas, decide to draw a weapon from a holster and fire is around 1.5 - 2.0 seconds. The saying "don't bring a knife to a gunfight" is not accurate. Effective defense is predicated upon one's ability to percieve the threat, evaluate the threat, decide upon an action against the threat, and implement the action against the threat. From 21', it is very difficult to percieve, evaluate, decide and implement an action against an unforseen threat. This is the primary reason why awareness (aka condition Yellow) is so crucial to one's daily business. It is also, why anyone choosing to be armed, has in their personal training history the Tueller Drill documented. Preparedness should encompass not only preparation for an assault in/on the street, but the potential aftermath assault in the courtroom. One does not want an unscrupulous attorney (read prosecutor) satnding 21' away from a jury box, holding a knife, and asking each jury member if they feel threatened. Thus, why did the accused feel the need to discharge their firearm? With the Tueller Drill firmly established as part of your training record, your advocate could easily explain why the threat was real - and prove it!
03/14/2007 04:53:17 PM · #113
Originally posted by deapee:
Most police officers honestly couldn't shoot a stop sign at 50 yards 50% of the time...those are not the type of odds I'd want to put my life into the hands of.


Maybe where you live Deapee... but I would strongly suggest you not goad the police into shooting at you... you might get a big surprise, and your estate would be left wondering why you did such a foolish thing. :O)

Ray
 03/14/2007 05:00:58 PM · #114
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by deapee:
Most police officers honestly couldn't shoot a stop sign at 50 yards 50% of the time...those are not the type of odds I'd want to put my life into the hands of.


Maybe where you live Deapee... but I would strongly suggest you not goad the police into shooting at you... you might get a big surprise, and your estate would be left wondering why you did such a foolish thing. :O)

Ray


Also, many police departments are now issuing AR-15 rifles should they need to reach out a bit more or encounter heavily armed suspects with body armor. As happened in this little incident .
 03/14/2007 05:22:19 PM · #115
Originally posted by deapee:
hrmm...If any statistic was made up in the above quote, it was your 75% thing. Mine came directly from the NRA. I'm not going to argue with you though...like I said, I was just interested if people believed the statistic or not, which just so happens to be a true statistic.

It's my opinion that I'll shoot better, more accurately, and be able to defend my life better than 80% of police officers out there. Not to mention the fact that a very high percentage of the time, probably close to 99.9% (made up statistic), that the police aren't going to get there the very second some deranged gunman breaks into your house or pulls a gun out in a public place and shoots you with it. Police aren't always there to protect the innocent when they need to be. Sometimes they're only there to clean up the pieces and solve the crime.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...as soon as the government sends an armed, well-trained police officer to be at my side 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, I'll gladly get rid of any and all guns I own. Until then, I choose to exercise my rights to their fullest. I'm not trying to talk anyone into believing what I believe. I'm simply giving explanations for why I feel the way that I do on the subject.


I've never said anything against you or anyone else owning and using a firearm. In fact, I've mentioned the fact that I myself have carried concealed on a regular basis for a number of years now.

I also never said anything about the police showing up, or their ability to protect you. I *did* say something about the proficiency claims you made regarding officers which I know to be manufactured or spun to suit the group publishing them. Some officers treat their duty weapon as nothing more than a tool for the job, however many (I would argue, most) don't, and virtually all officers are more capable with their firearms than your claims would allow.
 03/14/2007 08:23:42 PM · #116
Originally posted by theSaj:
I always find it amazing that in countries where firearms are banned the rich & powerful seem to be excluded. Isn't that always the case?


As I said - the example given here (rich people in the UK) was incorrect. Rich people in the UK have no concessions. Anyone can get a gun licence in the UK if they take the relevant courses, have the appropriate secure storage for their weapons, and are evaluated and considered safe. However, in most circumstances no one is allowed to wield a gun in public other than the police or armed forces.

Originally posted by "theSaj":

So, citizens get to believe they're safe and their only safety reliance are unarmed police officers. This works "great" in times of stability. But were that to wax and wane (and it does) the result would be an unarmed populace with an unarmed police force to defend it.

God help those poor souls when that day comes.


The UK does have an army. The soldiers have guns. It has a moderately effective democracy and applies the rule of law. If things are bad enough that the army is willingly terrorising the populace, then me having a gun would make very little difference.

Originally posted by "theSaj":

We do in fact have hand gun licensing, waiting periods, etc. It didn't make much difference because most guns used in crimes were illegally owned and acquired.


I made the point to indicate the apparent consensus direction: more control over who is allowed a gun and under what circumstances, not less. Would you prefer unrestricted gun ownership, so that unstable and untrained people have free access to any weaponry?

Originally posted by "Matthew":

Actually, yes, they can prevent a populist movement from going to far. You can have a mob and one person can pull out a gun and fire into the sky. And the mob will often flee in terror. Popularist mobs usually don't do well when facing armed opposition.


Are you serious? Are you seriously arguing that, in a country with uncontrolled gun ownership, there might be an unarmed mob to be faced down by a lone gunman? Isn't the likelihood in your scenario that there would be an armed mob?

Originally posted by theSaj:
Americans are not going to rise up bearing arms until there is profound impact on their personal lives.


Yes - this is my point. Death by a thousand cuts without any effective response - just like your favourite example of 1930s Germany.

Originally posted by "theSaj":
I have the American Revolution to prove otherwise, thank you very much!


Do you seriously suggest that people should be allowed to form their own armies so that they may institute unilateral regime change in the US? Having established a democracy, hasn't the nation moved beyond this need? Given your constant references to the historical grounds for the amendment (disregarding in part the current reality), is this some form of romantic yearning for a past on the Western Front, carving out a territory of your own? Isn't it time for a more realistic assessment?

Originally posted by theSaj:
And I'd rather die bearing my rights....then die in a concentration camp.


You do seem to be a little paranoid. Is this a real and immediate concern? Surely there are better ways to protect your interests, such as opposing the gradual curtailment of liberties instituted in the name of the so-called "war" on terror. Protect some of those liberties implemented by the intellectuals of the 18th-19th century (how about starting with the rule of habeas corpus (with its 11th century provenance) and Guantanamo Bay?). Isn't it better to do a little now, protect some basic principles and avoid the slippery slope, than to arm yourself in full expectation of your ultimate phobia?
 03/14/2007 08:51:01 PM · #117
Originally posted by Matthew:
You do seem to be a little paranoid. Is this a real and immediate concern? Surely there are better ways to protect your interests, such as opposing the gradual curtailment of liberties instituted in the name of the so-called "war" on terror. Protect some of those liberties implemented by the intellectuals of the 18th-19th century (how about starting with the rule of habeas corpus (with its 11th century provenance) and Guantanamo Bay?). Isn't it better to do a little now, protect some basic principles and avoid the slippery slope, than to arm yourself in full expectation of your ultimate phobia?


ZIIIINNNNGGGG!!!!
 03/14/2007 11:01:17 PM · #118
Those in support of second amendment rights could never win this argument. First of all, all those who oppose the right to own firearms all agree on that main point. Those of us who do choose to exercise our rights seem to want to argue with eachother. I'm going to bow out of this one gracefully as it's just not worth it to me at all.
 03/15/2007 09:15:37 AM · #119
Originally posted by deapee:
Those in support of second amendment rights could never win this argument. First of all, all those who oppose the right to own firearms all agree on that main point. Those of us who do choose to exercise our rights seem to want to argue with eachother. I'm going to bow out of this one gracefully as it's just not worth it to me at all.


This is a slightly defeatist attitude: there are a number of camps in the anti-gun lobby. I don't know (happy to be corrected), but isn't the call for greater regulation and gun control, rather than to ban gun ownership? I think that you yourself highlighted the importance of responsible ownership - doesn't that mean that you also agree with some additional controls (though you may disagree on their extent)?
 03/15/2007 09:40:27 AM · #120
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by karmat:
Don't know about policemen, but my BIL was a warden at the local jail for a few years and had to "qualify" with his weapon periodically. Steve is a crack shot. He can hit anything and when at the practice range would hit close to 100%, but during official qualifying would deliberately miss some of them.

Apparently (and this could have changed bc it has been like 15 or so years), if you are an "ACE" and you have to shoot at a prisoner, you are expected to hit him (generic gender) in the leg or somewhere -- slow him down, injure but don't kill. If he dies, you get in trouble. BUT, if you aren't an ACE it is understood that you won't be expected to be as good a shot, and the prisoner may die.

If that is similar with policemen, they may actually be a better shot, but keep it low on purpose.


He may be a crack shot, but that's at the range, a very different scenario from a shootout in a high stress, life and death situation. Many people who are near perfect on the range are significantly less perfect in those types of situations. Don't believe what you see on TV, the police do not shoot to wound. There are other non-lethal weapons that they will use first; pepper spray, taser, tear gas etc. When they use their firearm, it's to kill. It's called lethal force for a reason.


I understand that at the range and in real life are two entirely different scenarios, but that is not my point at all.

When Steve had to qualify, it was at the range as well. He (and the others) that were really good would miss deliberately to get their averages lower so they wouldn't have the accountability of ACE (or whatever it was called) because in an actual emergency, they would be held to that same high, almost perfect, standard of shoot to stop, not shoot to kill.

Also, these are prison guards, not police. And it was real life, not TV. They were told to shoot to stop, not shoot to kill.

My whole point was to Jason's reference of 80% of the policemen not being a very good aim with their weapons, and I was speculating that they might be a bit better, but if the numbers aren't coming from "real life" situations, they may be deliberately deflated for the reasons that my BIL and his coworkers deflated theirs.


OK, I got ya.
 03/15/2007 09:50:54 AM · #121
Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "Matthew":

Then why did you say that it was a result of the absence of guns? Individuals with handguns would not prevent a popular movement, would they?


Actually, yes, they can prevent a populist movement from going to far. You can have a mob and one person can pull out a gun and fire into the sky. And the mob will often flee in terror. Popularist mobs usually don't do well when facing armed opposition.



You're kidding, right? Firing into the sky and scaring off a mob? Are you having "One riot, One Ranger" Texas lawman fantasies? Have you ever seen a riot? Been caught in one? What you're proposing to do is just a good way to get yourself killed.
 03/15/2007 11:53:07 AM · #122
Originally posted by "matthew":

The UK does have an army. The soldiers have guns. It has a moderately effective democracy and applies the rule of law. If things are bad enough that the army is willingly terrorising the populace, then me having a gun would make very little difference.


The British Army might indeed be civilized at the moment. And I am sure they likewise considered themselves to be 200 yrs ago. They weren't. And they can become not again.

And those individuals with rifles and guns did make a world of difference. It made it too politically costly. There was no way the American Revolution could have stood up to the British Empire. But it became a) too costly, b) politically unpopular, c) too far. (ie: Iraq war).

Originally posted by "matthew":
I made the point to indicate the apparent consensus direction: more control over who is allowed a gun and under what circumstances, not less. Would you prefer unrestricted gun ownership, so that unstable and untrained people have free access to any weaponry?


I support the education & instruction in gun ownership. I even support the restriction of those convicted of violent felonies and unstable mental capacity to be restricted in access to guns. But those citizens in good standing...no!

I might even support a license (as long as it does not require a tax or anything more than a small processing fee). But I do not like gun registries. These allow the government to know of all the guns and reclaim them by force when they choose too. They start by restricting and claiming the most forceful until they slowly whittle away. Like Australia. Sure, Australian cities may be safer but a lot more violent crime has occurred in the rural regions since criminals now know their victims are unarmed.

Originally posted by "matthew":

Are you serious? Are you seriously arguing that, in a country with uncontrolled gun ownership, there might be an unarmed mob to be faced down by a lone gunman? Isn't the likelihood in your scenario that there would be an armed mob?


Not everyone owns a gun who can. In fact, just a small percentage. Interestingly enough most gun owners have several guns. So if 5 out of a 100 people owned legal guns they likely could supply half of that 100 with armament.

As for unarmed mobs. Most of the time mobs are not armed with guns. Just look at riots in U.S. history few involved great numbers of guns. And a number of aggressive mobs have been quelled by someone firing a warning shot. It's how the concept of the warning shot arose.

Originally posted by "matthew":

Yes - this is my point. Death by a thousand cuts without any effective response - just like your favourite example of 1930s Germany.


Small cuts can heal...and there has been quite a bit of response. Some more effective than others.

Originally posted by "matthew":

Do you seriously suggest that people should be allowed to form their own armies so that they may institute unilateral regime change in the US? Having established a democracy, hasn't the nation moved beyond this need? Given your constant references to the historical grounds for the amendment (disregarding in part the current reality), is this some form of romantic yearning for a past on the Western Front, carving out a territory of your own? Isn't it time for a more realistic assessment?


First off, how many democracies have found themselves as dictatorships later? quite a few both modern and ancient. From Rome to France to many smaller nations around the world.

Do I advocate the forming of citizen based armies in the U.S. No, not at the moment, there is no need. But were we to reach a point where not only the 2nd Ammendment was being nullified but the rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and our right to vote...if these democratic principles were removed. The U.S. would no longer be a democratic nation. If said nation then went further toward oppressing it's people...then absolutely I support it at that time.

Originally posted by "matthew":
You do seem to be a little paranoid.

Just cause you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not really out to get you. ;)

That said, as for my concern that the government will become a totalitarian regime...not so much. My concern that the government will in no way be there to protect my family from violent forces. Absolutely 100% concerned. Not paranoia....actually real life fact of personal experiences.

Originally posted by "matthew":
Is this a real and immediate concern?

Yes, it's a real potential concern...no, it's not immediate.

Originally posted by "matthew":
Surely there are better ways to protect your interests, such as opposing the gradual curtailment of liberties instituted in the name of the so-called "war" on terror.

Most of the liberties people see endangered have been so since 1933 when FDR had the Trading With the Enemy Act modified. They just periodically re-iterate such power. And in truth, I am less concerned by the Patriot Act than I am with the removal of shoes and banning of liquids at airports. To me, I see nothing wrong with monitoring a phone call of someone speaking with an Al-Quaeda member or supporter. But the banning of liquids and removal of shoes is stupid. And when restrictions are done stupidly and without cause then I get more concerned.

Originally posted by "matthew":

Protect some of those liberties implemented by the intellectuals of the 18th-19th century (how about starting with the rule of habeas corpus (with its 11th century provenance) and Guantanamo Bay?).


Yes, the famous Gitmo, Geneva Convention, etc argument. First off, Geneva convention applies only to soldiers adhering to certain policies. It is designed to maintain a certain level of civility for the purpose of protecting and reducing needless civilian casualties.

As for Gitmo, those individuals are neither citizens, nor residents nor soldiers. Rather they were undeclared militants and terrorists and fall into the same category as spies. Who are able to be shot on the spot. Second, those in Gitmo have received far better treatment and supply than most of our soldiers receive. They've been accomodated with Korans, prayer mats, and more. I really don't care if they are being kept in hot and cold rooms. As for giving them a trial. We do not have all the evidence we need to make a determination. That said, those involved are of a danger that they are not able to be released. This is not uncommon as I see it. Many people are arrested and refused bail...even though innoncent until proven guilty. What happens to those individuals who are proved innoncent after being kept in jail until their court date?

I see this as similar, but with a much longer possibly even indefinite time period. We have released quite a few. And we still have quite a few. I know this bothers you and many others. It doesn't to me. If we round up 10 people during a gang rape. And some were members of the rape gang and others were not. But we're not sure. I'd rather not let those rapists back on the street. And if it means we need an extended amount of time to figure out which one's were and which one's weren't members of the rape gang. Then so be it...

Originally posted by "matthew":
Isn't it better to do a little now, protect some basic principles and avoid the slippery slope, than to arm yourself in full expectation of your ultimate phobia?


I am of the opinion that it is prudent to do BOTH concurrently!

Originally posted by "spazmo99":

You're kidding, right? Firing into the sky and scaring off a mob? Are you having "One riot, One Ranger" Texas lawman fantasies? Have you ever seen a riot? Been caught in one? What you're proposing to do is just a good way to get yourself killed.


It depends on the size of the mob and the deterrant of the force. Most of the reasons riots are allowed to become the full blown chaos they are is because those armed do not want to kill the rioters. Thus the rioters can gain victory.

Take an example of even a large riot but an opposing force less disinclined to killing. (ie: China and even then I do not believe China is inclined to it). Go a step further to a force that is inclined and perhaps even approves (Saddam Hussein's Regime) and riots become very ineffective.

No, one shot is not going to dissuage 150 rioters. But one shot will likely dissuade a small band of 5-10 in process of harming another. You don't think this is true. It was proven during the Los Angelos riots. Violence was rampant. And most of it without guns. And plenty with...

There was a block in which all the shops and stores had been vandalized and destroyed. Ironically, one remained. An asian shopkeeper who happened to be armed. His firing of a few shots dissuaded the rioters and looters from his shop. Why? There were easier targets to prey upon which did not have the means to defend themselves.

Many of you anti-gun advocates deride me and others as being insane that there would ever be a need. Well, I've seen the need in my lifetime. I've also seen the results of what happens during those times of needs to those with guns versus those without. Those without have no defense and no protection.

A couple of year's back there was a Puerto Rican Day celebration. It was abyssmal. It was barbaric. It was the most rude cultural behavior I have ever witnessed in my life. Ironically, several of my Puerto Rican friends confessed to never having been more embarrassed to be Puerto Rican in their life. Essentially a large percentage of the Puerto Rican ethnic populace took it as an excuse for insanity. Running red lights, waving their flags, driving 70mph down residential streets like maniacs (watched as a jeep nearly hit 1/2 dozen cars on my street and almost rolled over).

There was no where within 25 miles that one could go to escape the chaos. Neighborhoods felt unsafe. No, it wasn't mere racism and prejudice. It was the fact that we were unsafe. The actions were unsafe.

On that day, my neighborhood probably made over a dozen emergency 911 calls to which none were responded too. The city and state police were literally over-whelmed and completely incapable of handling the situation. All it would have taken was one serious negative event (aka Rodney King beating) and the city and surrounding area would have likely been plunged into violent riots.

That was the first day that I as an individual truly wanted to be armed. A whole neighborhood should not feel as if they need to hide away in their homes for the whole day in hopes of being safe with no recourse.

So until you muckety-mucks can prove to me that there isn't a need. And that there is something to keep my family safe other than a handgun. I will be pro-handgun.

END OF STORY (this will be my last response...probably not much point beyond this)
 03/15/2007 12:56:58 PM · #123
Review of John Lott's book "More Guns Less Crime"

I fully realize that some have their minds fully made up and no amount of data, information, or further discussion will ever alter their position. For those, I strongly ecourage you to never own a firearm. For some, they do not hold a position one way or another and actually seek/want additional information to form an informed decision. To those, I would suggest including works by Professor John Lott of Yale University. Yet for others, they have long ago determined their side in this fight, and like are at the very least strongly opinionated, and most likely firearmas enthusists. If this last group describes any readers here and you are not a member of one of the ally's to firearms supporters, then I encourage you to join one.
03/15/2007 01:12:28 PM · #124
Is Britain really an apples to apples comparison? Who needs guns in a surveillance society anyway? Things are too far gone there for it to matter anymore. ;P
 03/15/2007 01:17:51 PM · #125
Originally posted by theSaj:


Originally posted by "spazmo99":

You're kidding, right? Firing into the sky and scaring off a mob? Are you having "One riot, One Ranger" Texas lawman fantasies? Have you ever seen a riot? Been caught in one? What you're proposing to do is just a good way to get yourself killed.


No, one shot is not going to dissuage 150 rioters. But one shot will likely dissuade a small band of 5-10 in process of harming another. You don't think this is true. It was proven during the Los Angelos riots. Violence was rampant. And most of it without guns. And plenty with...

There was a block in which all the shops and stores had been vandalized and destroyed. Ironically, one remained. An asian shopkeeper who happened to be armed. His firing of a few shots dissuaded the rioters and looters from his shop. Why? There were easier targets to prey upon which did not have the means to defend themselves.



You mean like the Korean shopkeeper who basically executed Latisha Harlins, a 15 year old girl by shooting her in the back of the head over orange juice before the girl had a chance to pay? This is one of the events that triggered the riots to begin with and certainly drove the targeting of Asian-owned businesses by enraged rioters looking for payback. Oh, and BTW, the shooter was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, but was given probation, community service and a $500 fine, basically a slap on the wrist, despite the jury's recommendation for a 12 year prison term. Nice huh?

Also, it wasn't one lone shopkeeper with a weapon holding the mob at bay, it was a group of marine vets and younger volunteers from the Korean community. While not actually shooting any looters, they did engage in televised, open gun battles with rioters and managed to kill one of their own group. I'd call that a successful defense, wouldn't you?

Not really a very good example.

Message edited by author 2007-03-15 14:15:15.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 03:21:32 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 03:21:32 AM EDT.