Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Debate about Gun Control
(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.
Reply
(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.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
(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.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(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.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
(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.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
...and let's remember: one of the strongest deterrents to crime is this:

[Image: Dobermann_Black_and_Tan_%22Vito%22.jpg]

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.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
(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.
Reply
(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.
Reply
(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.
Reply
(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.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(10-22-2017, 08:19 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(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.

Stats prove that red states and counties are more prone to crime and violence than blue states and counties, because in blue states people get what they need as opposed to being left on their own. It doesn't matter if some parts of cities (all cities are blue) have more violence or not; on the whole, places with blue governments are safer than those with red governments.

I think it was in Oklahoma and Louisiana where last year I think it was some crazed idiots deliberately went after and shot cops. But a cop shooting a black guy who is not doing anything threatening, is violating his civil rights and is being a murderer. That destroys civil rights for all of us. Red-staters demand that citizens be armed, and then wonder why cops need to be armed. Then, when cops shoot someone without cause, they see that (s)he gets off scot free. What we have, under current red-state control, is a country that is unsafe, and in which people have no rights.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(10-22-2017, 01:17 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: ...and let's remember: one of the strongest deterrents to crime is this:

[Image: Dobermann_Black_and_Tan_%22Vito%22.jpg]

Actually I have found that particular breed to be a bit unstable.  Here is a much better deterrent.

[Image: Redwood-Krests-Wolfgang.jpg]

This guy breaks bones when he bites and yet is surprisingly good around children.  In fact, much better with the kids than your choice.  His main advantage is being at home when you are not but I still like keeping firearms around to deal with problems.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
(10-24-2017, 02:29 AM)Galen Wrote:
(10-22-2017, 01:17 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: ...and let's remember: one of the strongest deterrents to crime is this:

[Image: Dobermann_Black_and_Tan_%22Vito%22.jpg]

Actually I have found that particular breed to be a bit unstable.  Here is a much better deterrent.

[Image: Redwood-Krests-Wolfgang.jpg]

This guy breaks bones when he bites and yet is surprisingly good around children.  In fact, much better with the kids than your choice.  His main advantage is being at home when you are not but I still like keeping firearms around to deal with problems.

A large percentage of gun deaths are suicides. One of the side benefits of dogs as protection is that someone with a dog is much less likely to commit suicide.

The Rottweiler is one of the oldest breeds of dogs, one around since Roman times. It looks as lethal as one of the usual animal stars (except for horses) at the Colosseum; this is the backing to the warning CAVE CANEM. The Romans didn't have lower case letters, but they certainly had dogs. With this dog around, being a burglar was about as dangerous as being a Christian during the worst persecutions, and for much the same reason. I look at that dog and I think 'man-eater' except for the good behavior of both of us. Considering that a dog will eat just about anything that was recently alive, I wouldn't rule out human flesh as something on its potential menu.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
(10-22-2017, 07:29 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(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.

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.

Yes: the infamous proof by anecdote.  Ask a combat vet about the highest risk times he or she served, and one will very likely be the first time they came under fire.  Still, some successes do occur.  So do suicides.  Here's a recent column by a conservative writer who cited that as one reason he opposes the 2nd Amendment.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
(10-24-2017, 11:51 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(10-22-2017, 07:29 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(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.

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 shock, 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.

Yes: the infamous proof by anecdote.  Ask a combat vet about the highest risk times he or she served, and one will very likely be the first time they came under fire.  Still, some successes do occur.  So do suicides.  Here's a recent column by a conservative writer who cited that as one reason he opposes the 2nd Amendment.

I would not trust myself with a gun under such a circumstance unless the situation is completely unambiguous, like a stranger raping my daughter or granddaughter and giving me a clear shot at the offender without putting the life of an innocent person at risk. I would have more concern about the trauma that my daughter or granddaughter from watching someone die than about killing a threat to a loved one, let alone the risk that I would miss the rapist and kill or maim the innocent victim of a crime.

But that is a highly-scripted circumstance. Many scenarios that first look like self-defense that result in lethal gunfire do not involve a crime. But note well: if those result in an accidental death they are still homicide. If one is not a sociopath, one could feel very guilty of killing a loved one, a friend, or a neighbor in a gross error that is dismissed as a non-culpable homicide.

I have also heard of circumstances in which someone had a gun 'for defense', and the criminal wrested the gun away and used the gun against the failed self-defender.

[Image: Redwood-Krests-Wolfgang.jpg]

The creature above is far safer than a firearm, except perhaps to a criminal. With this dog, burglars (many of them rapists) are meat. It can read people for bad intentions, and it knows who does not belong where by scent.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
(10-24-2017, 11:51 AM)David Horn Wrote: Yes: the infamous proof by anecdote.  Ask a combat vet about the highest risk times he or she served, and one will very likely be the first time they came under fire.  Still, some successes do occur.  So do suicides.  Here's a recent column by a conservative writer who cited that as one reason he opposes the 2nd Amendment.
I don't believe eliminating the 2nd Amendment would significantly reduce the amount of suicides. I don't believe it would have much, if any impact on the amount of suicide deaths. People who really want to kill themselves will kill themselves one way or another even if there isn't a gun around to do it wit . I don't know anyone who killed themselves with a gun. Every person that I knew who killed themselves, killed themselves without one. I actually knew quite a few of them (at least 20 or more since graduating from high school). Keep in mind, I went to school with thousands of kids who were about the same age as me.
Reply
(10-24-2017, 12:15 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(10-24-2017, 11:51 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(10-22-2017, 07:29 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(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.

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 shock, 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.

Yes: the infamous proof by anecdote.  Ask a combat vet about the highest risk times he or she served, and one will very likely be the first time they came under fire.  Still, some successes do occur.  So do suicides.  Here's a recent column by a conservative writer who cited that as one reason he opposes the 2nd Amendment.

I would not trust myself with a gun under such a circumstance unless the situation is completely unambiguous, like a stranger raping my daughter or granddaughter and giving me a clear shot at the offender without putting the life of an innocent person at risk. I would have more concern about the trauma that my daughter or granddaughter from watching someone die than about killing a threat to a loved one, let alone the risk that I would miss the rapist and kill or maim the innocent victim of a crime.

But that is a highly-scripted circumstance. Many scenarios that first look like self-defense that result in lethal gunfire do not involve a crime. But note well: if those result in an accidental death they are still homicide. If one is not a sociopath, one could feel very guilty of killing a loved one, a friend, or a neighbor in a gross error that is dismissed as a non-culpable homicide.

I have also heard of circumstances in which someone had a gun 'for defense', and the criminal wrested the gun away and used the gun against the failed self-defender.  

[Image: Redwood-Krests-Wolfgang.jpg]

The creature above is far safer than a firearm, except perhaps to a criminal. With this dog, burglars (many of them rapists) are meat. It can read people for bad intentions, and it knows who does not belong where by scent.
I've got a big dog and I've got a gun around to back him up and protect him with. Geez, only a liberal would place more value on the life of a criminal than they do on the life of the family dog.
Reply
(10-25-2017, 01:59 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(10-24-2017, 12:15 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [Image: Redwood-Krests-Wolfgang.jpg]

The creature above is far safer than a firearm, except perhaps to a criminal. With this dog, burglars (many of them rapists) are meat. It can read people for bad intentions, and it knows who does not belong where by scent.
I've got a big dog and I've got a gun around to back him up and protect him with. Geez, only a liberal would place more value on the life of a criminal than they do on the life of the family dog.

That is a typical liberal, sacrifice a person or an animal for their benefit.  These days that would probably get you sued by the animal rights people.

As a practical manner, some of us live in places too small for a dog of useful size.  Dogs are pretty high maintenance and there are a great many places that won't allow you to take a dog.  Come to think of it, many apartment buildings will not let you keep a dog.  In that case I find a hand cannon to be quite useful and necessary.

As for the suicides, they will just find another even messier and more painful way to take themselves out.  A tragedy to be sure but they are only a threat to themselves.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
(10-25-2017, 02:11 AM)Galen Wrote:
(10-25-2017, 01:59 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(10-24-2017, 12:15 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [Image: Redwood-Krests-Wolfgang.jpg]

The creature above is far safer than a firearm, except perhaps to a criminal. With this dog, burglars (many of them rapists) are meat. It can read people for bad intentions, and it knows who does not belong where by scent.
I've got a big dog and I've got a gun around to back him up and protect him with. Geez, only a liberal would place more value on the life of a criminal than they do on the life of the family dog.

That is a typical liberal, sacrifice a person or an animal for their benefit.  These days that would probably get you sued by the animal rights people.

As a practical manner, some of us live in places too small for a dog of useful size.  Dogs are pretty high maintenance and there are a great many places that won't allow you to take a dog.  Come to think of it, many apartment buildings will not let you keep a dog.  In that case I find a hand cannon to be quite useful and necessary.

As for the suicides, they will just find another even messier and more painful way to take themselves out.  A tragedy to be sure but they are only a threat to themselves.

1. The dog has far better night vision than we do, and more acute hearing.

2. A terrier may be 'only' an ankle-biter... but that painful ankle bite can force a fall.

3. Your loaded gun poses a danger to the family dog just as it does to any loved one.

4. The gun is the easiest, fastest, and most reliable way with which to commit suicide. There is no 'neat, clean suicide' any more than there is a 'neat, clean coronary'. Any delay in committing a suicide, such as having to buy a gun and go through the hoops of background checks might give someone time in which to think of doing something else.

I have been there. I had a visit by the police after I said a few things about putting an end to a nasty, unpromising situation in life and debasing the value that many people put on life.

5. A criminal can turn your gun against you if he gets to you before you do. But if he gets to your dog before you do, he stands to be mauled.

6. It is telling that one of the first regulations that the Nazis imposed upon Jews was a ban on their ownership of dogs. Cats were OK, but dogs might deliver nasty bites to the Gestapo or the SS when it came time to haul off the Jews to prison or the camps.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
(10-25-2017, 01:47 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(10-24-2017, 11:51 AM)David Horn Wrote: Yes: the infamous proof by anecdote.  Ask a combat vet about the highest risk times he or she served, and one will very likely be the first time they came under fire.  Still, some successes do occur.  So do suicides.  Here's a recent column by a conservative writer who cited that as one reason he opposes the 2nd Amendment.

I don't believe eliminating the 2nd Amendment  would significantly reduce the amount of suicides. I don't believe it would have much, if any impact on the amount of suicide deaths. People who really want to kill themselves will kill themselves one way or another even if there isn't a gun around to do it wit  . I don't know anyone who killed themselves with a gun. Every person that I knew who killed themselves, killed themselves without one. I actually knew quite a few of them (at least 20 or more since graduating from high school). Keep in mind, I went to school with thousands of kids who were about the same age as me.

I think Stephen's point has more to do with Sanctity of Guns we wrapped around this issue.  By making it a right, rather than a privilege, we pretend that having guns is the moral equivalent of the many freedoms found in the other 9 amendments we call the Bill of Rights.  We need some oversight, but seem unable to get any.  And to your point that suicides will happen regardless, most failed suicides never try again.  Attempts by firearm tend to be deadly on the first try.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure nebraska 1,204 171,363 06-06-2020, 06:13 PM
Last Post: Tavo5
  debate TheNomad 9 203 03-17-2020, 03:56 AM
Last Post: Bob Butler 54
  Hawaii bill would allow gun seizure after hospitalization nebraska 17 2,917 05-05-2019, 10:05 AM
Last Post: misswali
  The dangers of government control nebraska 0 597 01-29-2018, 08:28 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  Gov. Malloy Asks Legislature to Expand Gun Control and Ban 'Bump Stocks' nebraska 0 688 01-22-2018, 05:56 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  U.S. moving toward more control by government nebraska 0 568 01-20-2018, 11:16 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  In DACA talks, Trump angers both sides of immigration debate nebraska 0 496 01-11-2018, 07:42 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  Rep. Ing Introduces Rent Control Bill nebraska 0 466 12-27-2017, 10:21 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  U.S. moving toward more control by government nebraska 0 493 12-27-2017, 09:51 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Political Polarity To Reverse On Gun Control, States' Rights? Anthony '58 21 8,246 02-04-2017, 05:51 AM
Last Post: Galen

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)