Debate about Gun Control

[Eric the Green]

(10-19-2017, 10:54 AM)noway2 Wrote:

(10-18-2017, 09:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Guns don't grow on tree's or live like the tree's do either. As a general rule, I don't view an object like a gun as something that has life of its own. A gun isn't going hurt you by itself. So, you want to get rid of people/exclude those from gun ownership who are prone to gun violence or have been involved with gun violence. Well, we already have federal laws on the books that are supposed to exclude them. As far as criminals, laws aren't going to stop them from getting them when there are other criminals and criminal networks to get them from. Hint. The ones who are doing the killing with guns in the South Side of Chicago aren't buying them from Wisconsin gun stores because they are available within the South Side of Chicago.

You are absolutely correct, yet the "blues" keep harping about wanting more and more restrictions that will have zero effect about that which they perpetually harangue.  Their wet dream will have zero effect on the ones that they really should fear; it will only on those that don't threaten them to begin with.  The fact that they can't or more likely won't (admit) to see(ing) this is only making them enemies who will oppose them on this issue alone and as a result they lose ground on all sorts of other issues.  The fact of the matter is that the lawful gun owners are standing up and saying NO, NO MORE GUN RESTRICTIONS.  NOT ONE DAMNED INCH! But the Democrat party just doubles down on the stupid.

The people will increasingly realize that instead of no more gun restrictions, we want NO MORE GUNS, NOT ONE MORE!

[Classic-Xer]

(10-18-2017, 02:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't rely too much on subsidies, although perhaps a bit more than earlier, since energy subsidies for example have become more available. I have been an independent businessman like you for many years. Your assumptions don't seem too sharp. I doubt you could match my actual education level, and I doubt you have been a school teacher like me. But I don't disrespect those like yourself who are independent businessmen, although I wonder in this age of climate change whether the products you sell are green enough. Oh well, all of us have far to go in that department too. I don't have an electric car or solar panels yet. I hope to get them one of these days.

Independent/individualistic is your value preference, but that does not make your values better. Interdependence and social support and compassion are values too. These days, there are very many wealthy Democrats, because they are well-informed, and because they see where obedience to the slogan ""stealing from productive people under the threat of force to give to the fat, lazy, and ignorant" leads the nation. They may not live in your neighborhood, but in yuppie and uppity neighborhoods in big cities there are plenty of wealthy Democrats who aren't dependent on the social services, which they still vote for because they know it's right to do so. Yes, they probably don't mind paying taxes too; they are rich enough not to care. Still, the most wealthy in America do vote Republican, and do hate and resist taxes. Wealth just is not such a totally reliable indicator anymore of how people vote; exceptions apply to the wealthy=Republican and poor=Democratic paradigm.

The Clintons did not spend their lives primarily serving themselves; that's just the smear propagated by Republicans and has very little basis in fact.

Those who care only about taxes, instead of the prosperity and intelligent behavior of the nation, are the ones who vote Republican and screw up the country big time. To care only about whether the government is forcing you to pay taxes, and to think that only poor, lazy, or dependent people benefit from those tax dollars, is to support the destruction of the social fabric of the nation and allow it to squander its resources on tax breaks and needless wars (including drug wars, walls against immigrants, and other such xenophobic-nationalist nonsense).

I say to you TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party types: pay your damn taxes and stfu about it. And I hope your tax bills go sky high, and soon!

I don't match you as far as your education level. I don't match you as far as having worked as a teacher in the past. However, I'm confident that my level of intelligence more likely exceed your level of intelligence. How much brain does one need to use when the bulk of ones life in spent speaking/dealing with like minded/ indoctrinated/ brain washed people? No much based on what I see here and else where. Don't believe me, read your posts and count the memes. I'm not interested in memes. I'm not interested in ignorant people who use/ see value in the use of ignorant memes.

Compassion is a virtue not a value. You either have it or you don't. I have it but I don't flaunt it or have it tattooed on my forehead. But, I know why you view it as a one. Where would you be without it to use and take advantage of? Where would the liberals be without it to use for themselves? You'd think after many years of posting with you, my opinion of you would be higher. You'd think you would have said something meaningful or contributed something useful that would have raised my opinion of you. Well, nothing has changed. My opinion of you is as low as it has always been. You have admitted to me that you're unable to make any head way beyond the greens/baby blues. Me, I've made a lot of headway. I'm pretty much at your door step. Don't worry, I respect your door step and view your door step as your territory. I respect your right to keep your door shut as well.

Interdependence requires equal balance, equal giving to receiving, equal gains to loses for it to be viewed and considered as viable and acceptable for the long term. Right now, we have some big gaps that exist that we are both aware of, pointing out and dealing with at this time. Gaps that are probably to great for self centered politicians to address and over come at this point. So, where do we end up when the social falling out comes. I assume the flag and the Constitution and the freedoms and the people that it represents are going to stick together during the social falling out. I assume that the State of Minnesota will remain part of the United States of America as well.

[David Horn]

(10-18-2017, 09:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Look at the laws in Wisconsin and ask, why isn't there more deaths related to gun violence in Wisconsin than there is in the South Side of Chicago. I assume that the South Side of Chicago doesn't have as many people as the entire States of Wisconsin and Minnesota combined. You live in the middle of a sea of wide open gun laws, yet you don't feel the need to have one yourself or feel the need to move some place else. Why is that? You'd think that you'd be witnessing gun fights and ducking from bullets or being threatened at gun point by your crazy redneck neighbors and gun toting strangers all the time by your views and the way you talk. Now, the reality is that you're no more threatened by gun violence than me. So, what's up??? Are you unable to admit that because you're a blue? Are you looking for attention from blues or are trying rally more blues for support/the cause? You're biggest threat is being hit by a stray bullet during hunting season as you've said in the past. Me, my greatest threat is being caught in the middle of a gun fight in the wrong part of town at the wrong time. I tend to avoid the wrong parts of town so it isn't much of a concern.

Guns aren't the only problem in that part of the city, but having ready access to weapons in an area noted for gang activity is simply nuts. As far as your second point, I live in an area similar, in demographics, income and wealth, to the North Side of Chicago.

Classic-Xer Wrote:Guns don't grow on tree's or live like the tree's do either. As a general rule, I don't view an object like a gun as something that has life of its own. A gun isn't going hurt you by itself. So, you want to get rid of people/exclude those from gun ownership who are prone to gun violence or have been involved with gun violence. Well, we already have federal laws on the books that are supposed to exclude them. As far as criminals, laws aren't going to stop them from getting them when there are other criminals and criminal networks to get them from. Hint. The ones who are doing the killing with guns in the South Side of Chicago aren't buying them from Wisconsin gun stores because they are available within the South Side of Chicago.

This is the standard argument against gun control, but taken to its logical end, it never flies. If guns don't kill, then neither do nuclear weapons. Do you see any private ownership of those? In fact, we're pretty squirrely about the most recent member of the nuclear club. Why?

[David Horn]

(10-19-2017, 10:54 AM)noway2 Wrote:

(10-18-2017, 09:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Guns don't grow on tree's or live like the tree's do either. As a general rule, I don't view an object like a gun as something that has life of its own. A gun isn't going hurt you by itself. So, you want to get rid of people/exclude those from gun ownership who are prone to gun violence or have been involved with gun violence. Well, we already have federal laws on the books that are supposed to exclude them. As far as criminals, laws aren't going to stop them from getting them when there are other criminals and criminal networks to get them from. Hint. The ones who are doing the killing with guns in the South Side of Chicago aren't buying them from Wisconsin gun stores because they are available within the South Side of Chicago.

You are absolutely correct, yet the "blues" keep harping about wanting more and more restrictions that will have zero effect about that which they perpetually harangue.  Their wet dream will have zero effect on the ones that they really should fear; it will only on those that don't threaten them to begin with.  The fact that they can't or more likely won't (admit) to see(ing) this is only making them enemies who will oppose them on this issue alone and as a result they lose ground on all sorts of other issues.  The fact of the matter is that the lawful gun owners are standing up and saying NO, NO MORE GUN RESTRICTIONS.  NOT ONE DAMNED INCH! But the Democrat party just doubles down on the stupid.

I planned to leave this alone, but yours is the second post in a row to make the futility argument.  Really?  We've had a chance to limit the number of guns in circulation for decades, but ignored the problem until it's gotten us here.  We can continue to ignore the problem until something more dramatic than Las Vegas occurs and the public says, ENOUGH!  It just makes it a bigger problem, not a non-issue.  Would you be OK with an epidemic of any other kind?  Eventually, it will become a pandemic ... potentially a nation-ending one.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-19-2017, 11:04 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-19-2017, 10:54 AM)noway2 Wrote:

(10-18-2017, 09:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Guns don't grow on tree's or live like the tree's do either. As a general rule, I don't view an object like a gun as something that has life of its own. A gun isn't going hurt you by itself. So, you want to get rid of people/exclude those from gun ownership who are prone to gun violence or have been involved with gun violence. Well, we already have federal laws on the books that are supposed to exclude them. As far as criminals, laws aren't going to stop them from getting them when there are other criminals and criminal networks to get them from. Hint. The ones who are doing the killing with guns in the South Side of Chicago aren't buying them from Wisconsin gun stores because they are available within the South Side of Chicago.

You are absolutely correct, yet the "blues" keep harping about wanting more and more restrictions that will have zero effect about that which they perpetually harangue.  Their wet dream will have zero effect on the ones that they really should fear; it will only on those that don't threaten them to begin with.  The fact that they can't or more likely won't (admit) to see(ing) this is only making them enemies who will oppose them on this issue alone and as a result they lose ground on all sorts of other issues.  The fact of the matter is that the lawful gun owners are standing up and saying NO, NO MORE GUN RESTRICTIONS.  NOT ONE DAMNED INCH! But the Democrat party just doubles down on the stupid.

The people will increasingly realize that instead of no more gun restrictions, we want NO MORE GUNS, NOT ONE MORE!

Come on dude, you should know America better than that. How many years have lived here? America isn't going to give up it guns, it's right to own guns to appease a group of fucking liberals. Did the person you know of some forum, who told you the criminals in Chicago are buying their guns in Indiana tell you how they're doing it, who are purchasing them and who they're buying them from? If they did, did you tell them to turn them into the feds because it's illegal to do what they're doing. I read a lot shit on the internet. You shouldn't believe everything that blues have say on the internet.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-19-2017, 03:16 PM)David Horn Wrote: I planned to leave this alone, but yours is the second post in a row to make the futility argument.  Really?  We've had a chance to limit the number of guns in circulation for decades, but ignored the problem until it's gotten us here.  We can continue to ignore the problem until something more dramatic than Las Vegas occurs and the public says, ENOUGH!  It just makes it a bigger problem, not a non-issue.  Would you be OK with an epidemic of any other kind?  Eventually, it will become a pandemic ... potentially a nation-ending one.

If you want to limit the number of guns in circulation, you crack down on illegal gun sales and destroy the guns that are seized. The cartels/gangs aren't buying their guns from Cabela's or Joe Blows Gun Shop located in Indiana. It ain't like the old days. You haven't bought a gun. You have no clue about the process of buying a gun these days. I can buy a gun. I can buy any gun. I can get a license to carry a hand gun. Why? I've already passed a back ground check several times.

America said ENOUGH! to terrorism, but that didn't stop it from happening here or stop Muslims from coming here. Think terrorism, think about your view of terrorism vs mine and compare your view of gun violence to mine. Similar? Similar but opposite views pertaining to different issues. I own a gun. I know how to use a gun. I'm pretty good with a gun. A spree shooter in my area would find himself matched up against a gun owner who has the skills to kill them or a formidable presence who could draw their attention away from shooting up a neighborhood and keep them occupied until the police arrive. Now, if you want to continue blaming guns for violence, continue attacking people like me for owning them while ignoring the people who are the problem, that's fine.

[noway2]

I realized the other day that the same group that cries and wails and is all up in arms about discrimination and unfair treatment by police is the same one that thinks only the police should be armed. SMH.

[David Horn]

(10-19-2017, 05:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-19-2017, 03:16 PM)David Horn Wrote: I planned to leave this alone, but yours is the second post in a row to make the futility argument.  Really?  We've had a chance to limit the number of guns in circulation for decades, but ignored the problem until it's gotten us here.  We can continue to ignore the problem until something more dramatic than Las Vegas occurs and the public says, ENOUGH!  It just makes it a bigger problem, not a non-issue.  Would you be OK with an epidemic of any other kind?  Eventually, it will become a pandemic ... potentially a nation-ending one.

If you want to limit the number of guns in circulation, you crack down on illegal gun sales and destroy the guns that are seized. The cartels/gangs aren't buying their guns from Cabela's or Joe Blows Gun Shop located in Indiana. It ain't like the old days. You haven't bought a gun. You have no clue about the process of buying a gun these days. I can buy a gun. I can buy any gun. I can get a license to carry a hand gun. Why? I've already passed a back ground check several times.

A great first step would be a requirement that all gun sales require a background check ... all of them. If I sell you a gun and you kill someone, then that falls to me if I skipped that step. More to the point, we need to know who has guns, so a registration regime is needed too. Handling this in the same way we handle drivers and motor vehicles would solve both problems: license 'users', title and register the weapons. There is no misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment that would stop either of those from happening.

Classic-Xer Wrote:America said ENOUGH! to terrorism, but that didn't stop it from happening here or stop Muslims from coming here. Think terrorism, think about your view of terrorism vs mine and compare your view of gun violence to mine. Similar? Similar but opposite views pertaining to different issues. I own a gun. I know how to use a gun. I'm pretty good with a gun. A spree shooter in my area would find himself matched up against a gun owner who has the skills to kill them or a formidable presence who could draw their attention away from shooting up a neighborhood and keep them occupied until the police arrive. Now, if you want to continue blaming guns for violence, continue attacking people like me for owning them while ignoring the people who are the problem, that's fine.

Oh really? First you hammer away at the anti-immigrant memes, then you claim that private firepower can save the day. I assume you have no experience with this at all. Go ask a combat vet whether your plan has a snowball's chance in hell of actually working. FWIW, once the shooting starts, it's the definition of chaos. Combat units train to work past that, and have tactical tools to make that possible. Even then, they have death-by-friendly-fire incidents on a regular basis. I doubt you and your amateur gunners will do 10% as well.

I grew-up and currently live in an area where hunting is common. If you want to hunt, get a license, follow the rules and go at it. My next door neighbor is a taxidermist who will be glad to handle the rest. Just don't tell me that you are acting in my defense or even just your own. Once you do that, I'm at risk and so are members of my family and friends.

[David Horn]

(10-20-2017, 12:10 PM)noway2 Wrote: I realized the other day that the same group that cries and wails and is all up in arms about discrimination and unfair treatment by police is the same one that thinks only the police should be armed.  SMH.

I'm not big on guns for the police either, but reality says that's a must.  On the other hand, the police are now on hair-trigger alert, because they never know when a gun will pop out and become a risk.  That they tend to fear 'others' is a downside of human nature, and the cause of so many reflexive shootings of blacks and Latinos.  I don't excuse it, but adding more guns to the mix makes only makes things worse.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-21-2017, 08:47 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-19-2017, 05:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: If you want to limit the number of guns in circulation, you crack down on illegal gun sales and destroy the guns that are seized. The cartels/gangs aren't buying their guns from Cabela's or Joe Blows Gun Shop located in Indiana. It ain't like the old days. You haven't bought a gun. You have no clue about the process of buying a gun these days. I can buy a gun. I can buy any gun. I can get a license to carry a hand gun. Why? I've already passed a back ground check several times.

A great first step would be a requirement that all gun sales require a background check ... all of them.  If I sell you a gun and you kill someone, then that falls to me if I skipped that step.  More to the point, we need to know who has guns, so a registration regime is needed too.  Handling this in the same way we handle drivers and motor vehicles would solve both problems: license 'users', title and register the weapons. There is no misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment that would stop either of those from happening.

Classic-Xer Wrote:America said ENOUGH! to terrorism, but that didn't stop it from happening here or stop Muslims from coming here. Think terrorism, think about your view of terrorism vs mine and compare your view of gun violence to mine. Similar? Similar but opposite views pertaining to different issues. I own a gun. I know how to use a gun. I'm pretty good with a gun. A spree shooter in my area would find himself matched up against a gun owner who has the skills to kill them or a formidable presence who could draw their attention away from shooting up a neighborhood and keep them occupied until the police arrive. Now, if you want to continue blaming guns for violence, continue attacking people like me for owning them while ignoring the people who are the problem, that's fine.

Oh really?  First you hammer away at the anti-immigrant memes, then you claim that private firepower can save the day.  I assume you have no experience with this at all.  Go ask a combat vet whether your plan has a snowball's chance in hell of actually working.  FWIW, once the shooting starts, it's the definition of chaos.  Combat units train to work past that, and have tactical tools to make that possible.  Even then, they have death-by-friendly-fire incidents on a regular basis.  I doubt you and your amateur gunners will do 10% as well.

I grew-up and currently live in an area where hunting is common.  If you want to hunt, get a license, follow the rules and go at it.  My next door neighbor is a taxidermist who will be glad to handle the rest.  Just don't tell me that you are acting in my defense or even just your own.  Once you do that, I'm at risk and so are members of my family and friends.

Private gun ownership could save the day. I'm sure there is/ would be confusion, initial shock, initial fear when a situation involving lots of shooting/ mass shooter begins in a place/area where lots of shooting doesn't normally occur. However, if you are capable of adjusting to that situation and capable of using a firearm that's available, one could address the issue or present a problem/threat that such a shooter would have to deal with for obvious reasons.

The question seems to be, am I one who could get over the shock, keep my wits together, summon up the courage, engage and take down a spree shooter or keep them busy until the pro's arrive. I say yes because I know what I'm capable of doing & acting under extreme pressure. I'd have a significant advantage over them at that point. The dude/dudette would be in the unenviable position of dealing with the threat of an experienced hunter who has changed the situation with them. I'm sure there would be a psychological impact and an adjustment that would occur with them when a bullet either hits them or buzzes by them. I'm sure the situation (the confusion, the initial shock/ fear, entry into the unknown) that had already occurred with me would occur with them. A spree shooter would have to adjust to the presence of another shooter who is seriously targeting them. Once I do that, you're at risk and you're family is at risk. The same risk that you and your family and every one else involved were already in. However, the situation you were in would change. The spree shooter would now be at risk too. The spree shooter would have to adjust to defending themselves. The spree shooting would become less as the shooter adjusts to the change with the situation. The risk relating to you and you're family would become lower as well as the shooter adjusts to the presence of a shooter targeting them. Now, if you happen to be living in the home where the spree shooter is near, you'll still be at risk of being shot like you were with the spree shooter but you'd only be facing a few rounds coming from me. Remember, I'll be facing the bulk of the rounds. I'll be trying to kill them or seriously wound them and keeping them hunkered down/ busy until police arrive. I won't be acting like the spree shooter. I have to say, I'm getting tired of the you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't, arm chair (safe place), can't/don't do anything that could hurt me positions that blues tend to use and apply all the time.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-21-2017, 08:53 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-20-2017, 12:10 PM)noway2 Wrote: I realized the other day that the same group that cries and wails and is all up in arms about discrimination and unfair treatment by police is the same one that thinks only the police should be armed.  SMH.

I'm not big on guns for the police either, but reality says that's a must.  On the other hand, the police are now on hair-trigger alert, because they never know when a gun will pop out and become a risk.  That they tend to fear 'others' is a downside of human nature, and the cause of so many reflexive shootings of blacks and Latinos.  I don't excuse it, but adding more guns to the mix makes only makes things worse.

I don't think cops have time to take into account the importance/ value of ones skin color, ethnic back ground like liberals seem to before pulling a trigger of a gun and shooting a person who they've deemed as being a direct threat to them, their lives or the public's in general at the time of the shooting.

[pbrower2a]

(10-21-2017, 02:22 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-21-2017, 08:53 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-20-2017, 12:10 PM)noway2 Wrote: I realized the other day that the same group that cries and wails and is all up in arms about discrimination and unfair treatment by police is the same one that thinks only the police should be armed.  SMH.

I'm not big on guns for the police either, but reality says that's a must.  On the other hand, the police are now on hair-trigger alert, because they never know when a gun will pop out and become a risk.  That they tend to fear 'others' is a downside of human nature, and the cause of so many reflexive shootings of blacks and Latinos.  I don't excuse it, but adding more guns to the mix makes only makes things worse.

I don't think cops have time to take into account the importance/ value of ones skin color, ethnic back ground like liberals seem to before pulling a trigger of a gun and shooting a person who they've deemed as being a direct threat to them, their lives or the public's in general at the time of the shooting.

Pull a gun on a cop... and die. Now that the cops have bullet-proof armor, the crook might get one non-lethal shot at the cop's chest before the cop can shoot the crook in the chest. Without bullet-proof armor, a shot to the chest cavity is usually fatal, and quickly so. In case you are wondering whether the crook might kill a cop by pointing to the cop's head or neck, then the time necessary for aiming such a shot gives the cop the time in which to fire a shot into the crook's chest cavity.

This may explain why there are fewer death penalty cases and convictions: many had been for crooks who killed cops, and now it is the cop who delivers the lethal shot to a crook. Killing a cop practically takes an ambush. It is now unlikely at a traffic stop.

I think that it is the gun that tips off the police officer that someone is dangerous, whatever the skin color. Say what you want about Black Lives Matter, but Black Lives Matters isn't often defending offenders who had firearms on their persons, let alone took aim at a cop and died for that mistake.

[Eric the Green]

(10-21-2017, 02:22 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-21-2017, 08:53 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-20-2017, 12:10 PM)noway2 Wrote: I realized the other day that the same group that cries and wails and is all up in arms about discrimination and unfair treatment by police is the same one that thinks only the police should be armed.  SMH.

I'm not big on guns for the police either, but reality says that's a must.  On the other hand, the police are now on hair-trigger alert, because they never know when a gun will pop out and become a risk.  That they tend to fear 'others' is a downside of human nature, and the cause of so many reflexive shootings of blacks and Latinos.  I don't excuse it, but adding more guns to the mix makes only makes things worse.

I don't think cops have time to take into account the importance/ value of ones skin color, ethnic back ground like liberals seem to before pulling a trigger of a gun and shooting a person who they've deemed as being a direct threat to them, their lives or the public's in general at the time of the shooting.

And yet, beyond what you think, that's what happens. It's the young folks who are black who most likely get shot. And so what is in the mind of a policeman, may not be what (s)he may rationally think, but might be a fear or prejudice.

I'm not big on having shootouts between citizens and police. Neither are those who protest police misconduct. The police are armed in order to protect themselves as they directly protect law and order. But the fewer guns are out there, the closer we can be to having more police go without guns. I would like to see more police go without guns. But if the police are armed, the greater is the need for police to obey the law themselves, learn to be above prejudice and fear, and be subject to review and supervision by the public as well as the law.

[David Horn]

(10-21-2017, 01:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-21-2017, 08:47 AM)David Horn Wrote: ... First you hammer away at the anti-immigrant memes, then you claim that private firepower can save the day.  I assume you have no experience with this at all.  Go ask a combat vet whether your plan has a snowball's chance in hell of actually working.  FWIW, once the shooting starts, it's the definition of chaos.  Combat units train to work past that, and have tactical tools to make that possible.  Even then, they have death-by-friendly-fire incidents on a regular basis.  I doubt you and your amateur gunners will do 10% as well.

I grew-up and currently live in an area where hunting is common.  If you want to hunt, get a license, follow the rules and go at it.  My next door neighbor is a taxidermist who will be glad to handle the rest.  Just don't tell me that you are acting in my defense or even just your own.  Once you do that, I'm at risk and so are members of my family and friends.

Private gun ownership could save the day. I'm sure there is/ would be confusion, initial shock, initial fear when a situation involving lots of shooting/ mass shooter begins in a place/area where lots of shooting doesn't normally occur. However, if you are capable of adjusting to that situation and capable of using a firearm that's available, one could address the issue or present a problem/threat that such a shooter would have to deal with for obvious reasons.

This is the exact problem you fail to understand. Unless you are trained to overcome the loss of your bearings that occurs in high stress situations, they tend to grow worse rather than better. Adrenaline is good for fight or flight, but not for rational decision making. I had this same discussion with 'nihilist moron' on the old forum. She wisely decided to stay away from that topic.

Classic-Xer Wrote:The question seems to be, am I one who could get over the shock, keep my wits together, summon up the courage, engage and take down a spree shooter or keep them busy until the pro's arrive. I say yes because I know what I'm capable of doing & acting under extreme pressure. I'd have a significant advantage over them at that point. The dude/dudette would be in the unenviable position of dealing with the threat of an experienced hunter who has changed the situation with them. I'm sure there would be a psychological impact and an adjustment that would occur with them when a bullet either hits them or buzzes by them. I'm sure the situation (the confusion, the initial shock/ fear, entry into the unknown) that had already occurred with me would occur with them. A spree shooter would have to adjust to the presence of another shooter who is seriously targeting them.

On what would you base your expectations, just to be clear about it? My experience is 180 degrees counter to your belief. Here's why. Unless you arrive with the full expectation that a shooter will target the area, you will be surprised when the shooting starts. The adrenaline kicks in, but you, having no training to channel that in a positive way, will get hyperactive and disoriented. What follows at that point is hard to predict, but it's less likely to go well than badly.

FWIW, I attended the Special Forces Training Center on Okinawa during my sojourn in the Army. We were expecting to be attacked during our various training exercises, but they still came as a surprise every time. Wisely, only the guy on point had live ammo, or some of us may have spent a lot longer on the island.

Classic-Xer Wrote:Once I do that, you're at risk and you're family is at risk. The same risk that you and your family and every one else involved were already in. However, the situation you were in would change. The spree shooter would now be at risk too. The spree shooter would have to adjust to defending themselves. The spree shooting would become less as the shooter adjusts to the change with the situation. The risk relating to you and you're family would become lower as well as the shooter adjusts to the presence of a shooter targeting them. Now, if you happen to be living in the home where the spree shooter is near, you'll still be at risk of being shot like you were with the spree shooter but you'd only be facing a few rounds coming from me. Remember, I'll be facing the bulk of the rounds. I'll be trying to kill them or seriously wound them and keeping them hunkered down/ busy until police arrive. I won't be acting like the spree shooter. I have to say, I'm getting tired of the you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't, arm chair (safe place), can't/don't do anything that could hurt me positions that blues tend to use and apply all the time.

This is a nice plan, but the incidents we're discussing don't succumb to planning.

[David Horn]

(10-21-2017, 02:22 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-21-2017, 08:53 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-20-2017, 12:10 PM)noway2 Wrote: I realized the other day that the same group that cries and wails and is all up in arms about discrimination and unfair treatment by police is the same one that thinks only the police should be armed.  SMH.

I'm not big on guns for the police either, but reality says that's a must.  On the other hand, the police are now on hair-trigger alert, because they never know when a gun will pop out and become a risk.  That they tend to fear 'others' is a downside of human nature, and the cause of so many reflexive shootings of blacks and Latinos.  I don't excuse it, but adding more guns to the mix makes only makes things worse.

I don't think cops have time to take into account the importance/ value of ones skin color, ethnic back ground like liberals seem to before pulling a trigger of a gun and shooting a person who they've deemed as being a direct threat to them, their lives or the public's in general at the time of the shooting.

Have you actually seen the video of any of these shootings?  In one, a cop approaches a car at a traffic stop, pulls his weapon then shoots ... about 10 seconds later.  There were no signs of aggression, but the guy did have a fully legal handgun in the car, and possessed a concealed-carry permit.  There was plenty of time to think things through, but it didn't happen.  I doubt the cop wanted to shoot the guy.  He was being filmed by his own dash-cam.

[pbrower2a]

...and let's remember: one of the strongest deterrents to crime is this:



It's not a particularly large dog, but it might be just above us in the food chain. Swift, strong, agile, powerful, cunning, with keen senses, sharp claws and teeth, and a fearsome bite. This cousin of tigers can overpower a man twice the dog's mass.  It can detect an intruder before the intruder knows that the dog is there -- unless the dog gives off some loud barks that cause people to retreat in instinctive fear. If you don't retreat you will be knocked down and kept down. At the least you will get a barrage of ferocious barking while the predator shows fangs suitable for doing great harm to your neck. It might be a loving, trustworthy pet, but a burglar meets the diametric opposite of a loving companion. A man's home is his castle -- and his dog's jungle.

Got a gun? The dog will bite the hand wielding the gun and cause such sharp pain that you will drop it. The dog has you figured for the clumsy coward that you are.

Good behavior is all that keeps a dog this size from being a man-eater. But human good behavior is necessary for keeping a dog like this from attacking.  Respect the dog, the dog's territory, and people to whom the dog shows affection, and you will be fine.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-22-2017, 10:21 AM)David Horn Wrote: This is the exact problem you fail to understand.  Unless you are trained to overcome the loss of your bearings that occurs in high stress situations, they tend to grow worse rather than better.  Adrenaline is good for fight or flight, but not for rational decision making.  I had this same discussion with 'nihilist moron' on the old forum.  She wisely decided to stay away from that topic.



On what would you base your expectations, just to be clear about it?  My experience is 180 degrees counter to your belief.  Here's why.  Unless you arrive with the full expectation that a shooter will target the area, you will be surprised when the shooting starts.  The adrenaline kicks in, but you, having no training to channel that in a positive way, will get hyperactive and disoriented.  What follows at that point is hard to predict, but it's less likely to go well than badly.

FWIW, I attended the Special Forces Training Center on Okinawa during my sojourn in the Army. We were expecting to be attacked during our various training exercises, but they still came as a surprise every time.  Wisely, only the guy on point had live ammo, or some of us may have spent a lot longer on the island.



This is a nice plan, but the incidents we're discussing don't succumb to planning.

I assume Rani figured she wasn't going to convince you otherwise and she decided it wasn't worth it to continue the effort with you. Me, I don't approach you with the intent to convince of anything that you don't believe in or view as important. You're a bit to block headed/close minded to convince that their view of things or belief of things could be wrong. The next time something horrible happens, I'd suggest you pay more attention to the stories of regular folks who were able to over come the initial shook, regain their bearings and take part in heroic deeds without any official training. We see it, hear of it, are made aware of it occurring during every major crisis/accident but according to you that doesn't/can't/won't/shouldn't happen unless a person is/has been trained. I'm glad that I wasn't raised by blues or indoctrinated by blues because I wouldn't have amounted to much of anything at this point.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-22-2017, 10:32 AM)David Horn Wrote: Have you actually seen the video of any of these shootings?  In one, a cop approaches a car at a traffic stop, pulls his weapon then shoots ... about 10 seconds later.  There were no signs of aggression, but the guy did have a fully legal handgun in the car, and possessed a concealed-carry permit.  There was plenty of time to think things through, but it didn't happen.  I doubt the cop wanted to shoot the guy.  He was being filmed by his own dash-cam.

Is that the one that happened in my area? If it is, I saw that one in its entirety. We didn't see what was going on with the person in the car. We didn't see what was going on in the mind of the person in the car either. We heard an officer tell the person not to move or make any sudden moves and then we heard a bunch shots and we heard the voice of the officer explaining to the passenger the reason for the shooting of the driver. I know the cop didn't want to shoot the guy. How much time do you need to think things through? Less than 10 seconds? I bet I kill you if I wanted to in less than 10 seconds. So, you better be able to think through without reacting the wrong way in the minds of blues within 5 seconds or less. Sound reasonable to you and sound like a reasonable rule to apply to cops. Now, keep in mind, I don't give a fuck whether blues continue to have police forces or not at this point. Blues don't deserve them in my opinion. I've yet to see a blue who I'd view as being worth placing my life at risk or dying for or worth dealing with all the shit that seems to occur in their areas. I have no doubt that cops would be much happier and feel much more appreciated in redder areas.

[noway2]

(10-22-2017, 01:17 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: It's not a particularly large dog, but it might be just above us in the food chain. Swift, strong, agile, powerful, cunning, with keen senses, sharp claws and teeth, and a fearsome bite. This cousin of tigers can overpower a man twice the dog's mass.  It can detect an intruder before the intruder knows that the dog is there -- unless the dog gives off some loud barks that cause people to retreat in instinctive fear. If you don't retreat you will be knocked down and kept down. At the least you will get a barrage of ferocious barking while the predator shows fangs suitable for doing great harm to your neck. It might be a loving, trustworthy pet, but a burglar meets the diametric opposite of a loving companion. A man's home is his castle -- and his dog's jungle.

And for all it's advantages, it is easily dealt with via OC spray and mace.  That nose that is 10,000 times more sensitive than that of a human is going to be very susceptible to pain inducing olfactory agents.

[Eric the Green]

(10-23-2017, 09:16 AM)noway2 Wrote:

(10-22-2017, 01:17 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: It's not a particularly large dog, but it might be just above us in the food chain. Swift, strong, agile, powerful, cunning, with keen senses, sharp claws and teeth, and a fearsome bite. This cousin of tigers can overpower a man twice the dog's mass.  It can detect an intruder before the intruder knows that the dog is there -- unless the dog gives off some loud barks that cause people to retreat in instinctive fear. If you don't retreat you will be knocked down and kept down. At the least you will get a barrage of ferocious barking while the predator shows fangs suitable for doing great harm to your neck. It might be a loving, trustworthy pet, but a burglar meets the diametric opposite of a loving companion. A man's home is his castle -- and his dog's jungle.

And for all it's advantages, it is easily dealt with via OC spray and mace.  That nose that is 10,000 times more sensitive than that of a human is going to be very susceptible to pain inducing olfactory agents.

The same applies to most intruders. Besides dogs, there are many alternatives available for protection besides guns.