myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Gun Nuts
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 31, 32, 33 ... 160, 161, 162  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3525

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I second the emotion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FarLeft



Joined: 20 Dec 2012
Posts: 30

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevenbard wrote:
Isobars, one of the most important things they teach in a hunter safety course is that you need to be humble and respectful around non hunters/shooters. You might want to refer to the "Rifleman" as it pertains to your demeanor regarding guns.

And furthermore, if some guy opens up with a 50 round magazine, he'd get all 50 rounds off before you pulled your pea shooter out of your pants.

I do not believe that we need our rights taken away. However, they shouldn't let angry, schizophrenic, drug using, 18 year olds buy or use assault type weapons. I do believe that a 40 year old, with no criminal or mental issues should. There is a big difference. The right, as in all of our constitutional rights should be respected and revered or we are not worthy of them.


Well put. Age limit is a little arbitrary but I'm with you 100% on everything else.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14481

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevenbard wrote:
Isobars, one of the most important things they teach in a hunter safety course is that you need to be humble and respectful around non hunters/shooters. You might want to refer to the "Rifleman" as it pertains to your demeanor regarding guns.

And furthermore, if some guy opens up with a 50 round magazine, he'd get all 50 rounds off before you pulled your pea shooter out of your pants.

You completely misunderstood my comment, "I can just see the next clown who steps up in front of a theater, or in a Denny's, or in a mall and pulls out an AR-15 with a 50-round mag hanging from it a few months from now; he's gonna go down in a hail of lead before he can get off three shots".

It didn't imply that I or any other individual was just going to open up as fast as we could at the first sign of a problem. It compared the public paradigm shift following 9/11/01, after which anyone acting up on a commercial airplane was met with a swarm of observers subduing him, to the broader public paradigm shift regarding self preservation when clearly attacked. Plain and simple, gun sales, concealed carry permits*, and extensive legal and practical training are going through the roof. The results will include some additional accidents and crimes, of course, but should tilt far more towards reduced successful crime as people shed their obvious sheeple mentality. Kitty Genovese and many other people will survive attacks in 2013 that they did not months and years ago simply because more people are carrying, trained, and ready to stop being passive victims.

* We don't need no steenkin' concealed carry permits just to carry a weapon in WA. If I wanted to carry one, I can legally just strap this thing

on my belt and walk down the street. As long as it's not concealed, no permit (or registration) is necessary in Washington state.

My "demeanor regarding guns"? You're paying way to much attention to what the 10-year-olds are claiming I've said and not enough to what I've actually said. That "hail of lead" referred to dozens of of good citizens shooting the next poor schmuck who starting firing in a crowded theater or Denny's. The cops teaching the courses and writing the self-defense books say they have had almost no problems with normal citizens legally authorized to carry legal weapons, that the VAST majority of mayhem involves criminals illegally carrying illegal weapons with illegal intent. Part of their formal police training is in how to distinguish the bad guys brandishing a weapon from the good guys brandishing a weapon; the latter scarcely bother them, relatively speaking.

Extensive training is following the lead of the incredible sales surge. Even at $550 (plus at least 500 rounds of ammunition) for my wife and myself, the two-day legal, moral, and live fire practical training courses we signed up for are booked many months -- and they're taught several days a week -- in advance. By the time the free introductory courses being booked buy the dozen (at 75 students per) are over, those expensive in-depth courses will be booked years in advance in our little city. Many of the best books on those issues are also on back order, and popular ammo is on back order on many websites, some for the foreseeable future. People have had enough of criminals and of being told by overreactionary bleeding heart victims that their Constitutional rights may be denied them.

As for, "if some guy opens up with a 50 round magazine, he'd get all 50 rounds off before you pulled your pea shooter out of your pants" ...
the clown in Newtown, CT methodically walked up to each child and put up to three bullets into him. A baseball bat applied from behind may have saved many lives ... just as it could have in Norway recently. The overwhelming problem is not with guns, but with sociopaths.

And as for "they shouldn't let angry, schizophrenic, drug using, 18 year olds buy or use assault type weapons" ... they DON'T. We already have a few dozen laws in every state prohibiting that. What good's it doing us? New laws will have zero impact on that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 2034

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevenbard wrote:

I do not believe that we need our rights taken away. However, they shouldn't let angry, schizophrenic, drug using, 18 year olds buy or use assault type weapons. I do believe that a 40 year old, with no criminal or mental issues should. There is a big difference. The right, as in all of our constitutional rights should be respected and revered or we are not worthy of them.


SB...I respect your sentiment and, largely, agree. However, last I checked, Schizophrenia is an illness. Identifying and treating those with mental illness early is really important in treatment. Unfortunately, we are paying the price for years of government funding deficiencies for the treatment of the severly mentally ill. You have railed in the past against government funded medical care which is necessary to identify and treat this popultaion. You cannot have it both ways.

My argument is that the underlying causes of violent behavior in this country should be addressed. This needs to involve a coordinated effort between our educational, medical, law enforcement and social programs. Something that is difficult to obtain when they are all fighting for a piece of a shrinking pie.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
windoggie



Joined: 22 Feb 2002
Posts: 2408

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow! Finally a picture of iso!
_________________
/w\
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5475

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bard said:

Quote:
Isobars, one of the most important things they teach in a hunter safety course is that you need to be humble and respectful around non hunters/shooters. You might want to refer to the "Rifleman" as it pertains to your demeanor regarding guns.

And furthermore, if some guy opens up with a 50 round magazine, he'd get all 50 rounds off before you pulled your pea shooter out of your pants.

I do not believe that we need our rights taken away. However, they shouldn't let angry, schizophrenic, drug using, 18 year olds buy or use assault type weapons. I do believe that a 40 year old, with no criminal or mental issues should. There is a big difference. The right, as in all of our constitutional rights should be respected and revered or we are not worthy of them.


Well said, in every way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jpbassking



Joined: 19 May 1998
Posts: 2387
Location: Leo

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

he-he...Dirty Iso. "Do you feel lucky punk?"


Well said Steveo.

_________________
{JP:}====****
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14481

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A few recent observations:

1. A psychologist who designs training systems for the U.S. military says one of their main challenges is making trained and ready killers out of recruits fresh out of civilian life. Their technique, at its core, is pretty simple and very effective: violent videos.

2. NRA lobbyists donated $20,000,000 to campaigns; the gun control lobby contributed $4,000. Should we expect any major gun law legislation any time soon?

3. Most mass shootings occur in gun-free zones like schools, Norway, Denny's, etc. How come no one starts spraying bullets into a police station? Even Fort Hood, where the radical Islamic terrorist U.S. Army major killed so many soldiers, was a gun-free zone. Only the police were able to stop him when they arrived minutes later.

4. From a recent local newspaper article: After every shooting of innocents, anti-gun terrorists rise up and scream: “The sky is falling.” ( “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”) ... It is an arguable point that if any members of the groups of innocents had been armed, fewer lives would have been taken. Arguable point: no restrictive gun laws would have prevented the mentally ill, habitually criminal, nor wickedly opportunistic from taking lives. Fact: Free people own arms; slaves and subjects do not. Consider historical Germany and Italy, and several dozen other modern countries that have caved to thugs. Counter-balance: See the research and writings of Dr. Gary Kleck, Florida State University of Criminology, whose long study concludes: “Private ownership of guns deters crime.”"

Kleck's very extensive writings include the interview titled, "University Study Confirms Private Firearms Stop Crime [up to] 2.5 Million Times Each Year".

5. Look at these hundreds of cases in which armed citizens' guns saved lives:
http://www.akdart.com/gun3.html .
Of course, these are hard to find in the mainstream media because biased reporters and editors don't want to spread the idea that armed self-defense in one's home is legal and effective.
Just one of countless referenced scenarios is "The Truth About Guns" at
http://townhall.com/columnists/johncgoodman/2012/08/04/the_truth_about_guns/. A study by John Lott and David Mustard found that handguns appear to help women more than men. While murder rates drop when either sex carries more guns, the effect is especially pronounced when women carry.

More specific is this case, just one among a couple of hundred: Boy Uses AR15 To Stop A Home Invasion, at
http://tinyurl.com/bumofnm . Bottom line, banning the AR15 and its variants is banning perhaps the single most effective weapon for home defense. That is particularly true for women and teens. Keep that in mind as the left tries to disarm America in the wake of Sandy Hook.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5969

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"I do not believe that we need our rights taken away. However, they shouldn't let angry, schizophrenic, drug using, 18 year olds buy or use assault type weapons. I do believe that a 40 year old, with no criminal or mental issues should."


Sorry Bard, I can't agree with your second sentence above. If you want to play around with assault weapons, join the US Military or earn yourself a position on your local police swat team. Regular citizens have no justifiable reason to own weapons that are meant to kill humans with such ease. There are many fine weapons available to responsible citizens for reasonable protection. Frankly, the line needed to drawn somewhere when it comes to the dangerous weapons of war.

Taking the rabid views of gun nuts a bit further, an argument can be made by a country like Iran to arm itself with a nuclear weapon capability to protect themselves. Where do you draw the line? And don't give me the nonsense about Iran threatening to wipe Israel off the map. Talk is cheap. We have lots of idiots, like the jerk in Tennessee, threatening to start killing if our representatives in Congress pass reasonable gun control. Just listen to isobars advocating that everyone should be walking around carrying a gun at their side. Again, talk is cheap. But as we all know, some folks are crazy or angry enough to pull out their weapon and kill innocent people. History proves it over and over. The least we can do is establish a responsible policy regarding firearms, to include their registration and control.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5475

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting article in the Oakland Tribune this morning that calls into question some of the Fickster's sources. Here's the key parts:\

Quote:

While gun owners say "arming the good guys" is all about self-protection, the mere presence of a gun in a household can have dire consequences.

"After 45 years in law enforcement, I’ve had a lot more calls where a gun was misused, obtained by a child, used in the heat of a domestic dispute — a lot more of those calls than of a homeowner defending themselves," said Craig Steckler, president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police who retired as Fremont’s police chief last month. "When you balance it all out, the minuses of having a gun, on the precept that you’re going to defend yourself, outweigh the pluses."

Extensive and reliable statistics about gun violence are difficult to come by, experts say, in part because of pressure from the National Rifle Association in the mid-1990s that led to reductions in funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which had been tracking gun violence data.

"We need solid science to help us determine what we need to do," said Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program.

Wintemute is one of some 20 gun policy experts who will be meeting Monday and Tuesday at the John Hopkins University Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore to recommend federal actions to reduce gun violence across the country — from mass killings like the ones in Newtown, Conn., to more common gun violence.

News of mass shootings, self-defense incidents and potential new gun control measures has fueled gun sales — more than 19 million background checks were conducted in 2012 alone — even as federal statistics show violent crime has declined dramatically over recent decades.

Those who say firearms are an effective means of self-defense often point to "More Guns, Less Crime," a 1998 book by economist and gun-rights advocate John Lott, who argues violent crime rates decrease when states ease their laws allowing concealed handguns.

But Stanford University law professor John Donohue III wrote in 2003 that Lott’s "statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic and extraordinarily fragile," and that "there is stronger evidence for the conclusion that these laws increase crime than there is for the conclusion that they decrease it." That remains true today, Donohue said.

"You can anecdotally find circumstances in which having a gun was helpful," he said. "But having a gun is a little like having a chest X-ray: If you have lung cancer, a chest X-ray can save your life, but if you have a chest X-ray every day, it can kill you."

Nancy Lanza, whose mentally ill son used her own legally owned firearms to kill her before he went on a rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Donohue noted.

"Unless you have a very strong reason for thinking you’re a target,’’ he said, "I think you’d probably be safer not having a gun."


http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2013/01/11/news/nation_and_world/doc50f0cf72d970c679030958.txt?viewmode=fullstory

Note the substantive rebuttal of the book by John Lott, which is relied upon by gun nuts everywhere.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 31, 32, 33 ... 160, 161, 162  Next
Page 32 of 162

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group