"Slap some leather?"
I've never heard it called *that*.
Jim
================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================
Didn't you ever watch any old Western movies?
mj
Huntress
You'll have to start hanging around a better class of pistol ranges and pick up the jargon. It's a language unto itself.
There are 101 things you can do with a gun. This is just one of them.
Ed Huntress
Only the ignorant ones.
You are completely outclassed, outwitted, and make a bigger ass of yourself every time you respond to Ed.
Did you even graduate high school? Or are you still trying?
Duck
Yeah- it's like kicking dead whales down the beach. I just *had* to see what Richard was posting and I do believe if he was left alone in a room with a baseball bat, he'd beat himself up after a few minutes.
-Carl
On the contrary, the only studies done show a much higher incidence of not being seriously injured.
Not even worth an answer, Gunner.
KG
?????
I take it that you choose not to try to make your argument then? Your mind is made up, and I should not confuse you with the facts, correct?
Interesting, particularly coming from you, whom I consider one of the Great Minds of this newsgroup.
Looks like even the Gods have blind spots. Shrug
Gunner
'If you own a gun and have a swimming pool in the yard, the swimming pool is almost 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.'" Steven Levitt, UOC prof.
Gunner wrote: > On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:47:13 -0500, Kirk Gordon > wrote: >
To make an argement requires that both parties accept the same rules of logic, and the same standards of argument. You and I have tried this before, and I've been disappointed. You haven't offered any facts, confusing or otherwise, which promise even a hint of sound argument, that I can see. That you consider me a "great mind" is flattering; but becomes somewhat hollow when you offer me propositions that any child could shred without effort, if he had reason to spend the time.
I don't know about gods, Gunner. But humans certainly have blind spots aplenty. Maybe we should ALL adjust our mirrors once in a while.
KG
and here I was about to jump all over that one, Gunner. You take all the fun out proving them wrong ;)
ral
I assumed that of you when you from the beginning. What's your point?
Robbers, by way of the simple fact that you called them "robbers" have one intention and that is to "rob"....they, in most cases, forget that they even have the gun in their hand (research and read any of the thousands of case files if you doubt that one) and have the firearm for no other purpose than to intimidate the victims into giving up the goods so to speak. The large majority of them are "surprised" if the gun goes off. Store owners who draw firearms, by comparison, do so with the expressed intent of killing or wounding the threat in front of them in most cases.
Your logic that since the robber has his out first, the shopkeeper is at a disadvantage isn't upheld by the evidence.
ral
We don't have many guns and we don't have much armed robbery, either. Girls walk around here with plenty of cash in their purses in the middle of the night without particular fears of rape or robbery. Of course there's always *some* crime anywhere, but in a fairly gun-free society, getting shot is very uncommon.
Gunner et al are full of shit on the gun issue. These people do absolutely NOTHING when it's TIME to go to Washington and use the damn things, but as a side-effect of their little fixation lots of other people get killed. As far as I can see there is no redeeming value whatsoever to their arguments.
Where do you live? Every city in America which has more than a small fraction of negroes and Mexicans, and Viet Cong gang members in a few cities, has big problems with rape, robbery, and murder.
Tell us where you live, which area is so free of negroes and Mexicans, and perhaps I will move there and lock up my guns.
But in all of the places I have lived, I'll keep my guns handy.
--Tim May
Oh, c'mon, Gunner. I KNOW you're smarter than that. You've slipped up and made it obvious, in spite of yourself, on more than one occasion.
The good guy is ALWAYS justified in trying to defend himself. But in the cases I cited, the shop owners DIDN'T defend themselves. They died. In my book, that's a pretty good definition of not defending oneself, no matter how valiant or how sincere the effort might have been. And no, these people didn't give their lives to protect anyone else. The news reports I mentioned (and which I freely admit are less than complete) gave no indication that others were threatened, or that the bad guys displayed any intentions besides taking the money and running.
As you say, the shop owners made mistakes.
But when someone makes a mistake, and gets killed, you seem extremely quick to blame the victim; but only in carefully selected ways. (The guy I mentioned wasn't a "Darwin event", btw. He was a murder victim. Callousness and brutal insensitivity aren't exactly the traits I like to see in someone who claims to care about protecting folks and making the world safe.)
You think the dead shop owners were "poorly trained?" That'd be my guess, too; though I have no way of knowing how skilled or experienced they were with regard to their guns. "No use of tactics?" You're only assuming that; but I don't know enough about the specific situations to say that you're wrong.
But here's my problem: If we accept that the people in question made bad decisions, failed to respond properly to the situations they faced, etc., then why, and how, can we automatically, necessarily, ALWAYS, find fault with every decision they made EXCEPT the decision to have a gun? Why wasn't that a bad decision, too, if it helped in ANY way to precipitate a deadly shootout? How can we question the sanity and judgement of these individuals in every OTHER way; but magically find them pure and innocent of any foolishness or poor judgement at all, with regard to that one little decision that YOU like to defend?
A couple posts back, you asked something about whether I'd let an untrained, inexperienced 16 year old drive my car in the snow, or in some other dangerous situation. I found that question interesting because it was EXACTLY the same thing I'd asked you just a few weeks ago. I asked about inexperienced drivers, if I recall correctly, and also about whether untrained people should fly airplanes, or whether that activity should be reserved only for skilled pilots. And I offered other, similar forms of the same question, even though I don't remember the exact details right now. And I asked why, in light of the obvious answers to these questions, you'd advocate letting anybody and everybody own and carry a gun, without apparent concern for their training, their skill, their temperment, or any of the other factors that seem to matter with cars, airplanes, or whatever.
I also asked, clearly and carefully, if your own experiences in the military, and as a police officer, martial artist, etc., might not offer some clues about how hard it is, and how long it takes, to develop the skills YOU rely on when you consider yourself qualified to carry a gun. And I asked how likely you thought it was that the average guy on the street would have your training, or your skills, or your experience.
You didn't answer my question at the time; but since you've repeated a part of it almost verbatim, I gather that your answer - at least in regard to non-gun devices - is the same as my own. ANY DEVICE which can be dangerous to others should be owned and operated ONLY by people who know how to use it safely. That doesn't mean that dangerous things should be outlawed. It doesn't mean that limits or regulations should be more stringent than necessary. But they SHOULD be stringent enough, in all cases, to ensure everyone's safety as much as possible.
So, to attempt to get this discussion back onto something like sane and logical grounds. Let me ask another question:
If pilots need licenses, before they're allowed to fly; and if drivers can have their driving privileges revoked for doing things that are stupid or dangerous (or even just for failing to pass an eye exam or a simple written test), and if electricians need to be trained and licensed before they're allowed to touch the wires in someone's home or business, etc., etc., etc...
Then what limits, what restrictions, and what controls, exactly, do logic, experience, and a genuine concern for safety, require for those who want to own and operate those other potentially dangerous things that we call firearms?
Stories about someone who used a gun to protect herself (or any of the other stories you've quoted) aren't of interest, as far as I'm concerned. Shit happens every day. Good shit, bad shit, and all the other kinds in between. Somebody recently swam over Niagara Falls and survived; but that doesn't mean it was a good idea. And for every story about a gun that was used saved someone's life, there's another story about a gun used as a murder weapon. And in BOTH stories, the details are probably more convoluted than either of us will ever know, and maybe too complex to make much of a case in either direction. Few things are as simple in real life as they seem when printed in a newspaper.
Statistics can't be resolved or made convincing either. The collection and interpretation of them is selective, and never includes ALL the right questions. And they're often too subjective, and too easily made to show anything we want to see.
And the second ammendment isn't an issue here either. Just because we have the right to bear arms, doesn't mean we need to exercise that right every day, all the time, without considering some clear and compelling reasons. I have a right to drink liquor, since I'm over 21 years old, and not planning on driving tonight. But that doesn't mean that I NEED to get drunk.
So how do we decide what limits to put on ownership and carrying of guns? How would YOU do it, if we made you king for a minute and half?
Think carefully. I AM going to respond to your answer, if it's even slightly coherent. And think about this, too: The comparisons between guns and cars, or airplanes, or whatever else, are imperfect in one critical way; and the logic derived from those other things has one critical flaw. Cars ARE extremely dangerous when owned by idiots, or when operated carelessly. But a car has other features - fundamental features - which exist despite the danger. I could kill somebody with my car just as easily as with a gun; but I can't drive a gun to work, no matter how hard I try. Same thing with airplanes. And electricity is dangerous; but at least it'll light my home. A gun won't. In fact, except for shooting sports (which I don't object to; but which are optional, and not nearly in the same category as transportation and electricity), guns aren't, can't be, and aren't SUPPOSED to be, anything EXCEPT dangerous. Even when they have value as protection or deterence in the face of crime, they accomplish their purpose merely by being dangerous to the right kinds of people. But danger is still the ONLY thing a gun can do. And that, I think, requires some special consideration, and places some special burdens on those who promote widespread gun ownership.
So, how do we do it, Gunner? How do we justify, or not, the idea of people carrying guns as commonly as they carry cell-phones or cigarette lighters? How do we identify those who SHOULDN'T carry guns, and prevent those people (the people, not the guns) from becoming dangerous beyond our reasonable and practical expectations?
I have some ideas of my own; but YOU'RE the one who insists on making firearms a part of every thread you visit - if only with your signature lines. So the ball is in your court. The burden for telling us how and why we should do something that appears to be a very dangerous idea, belongs in your holster. And it's time to test your aim.
KG
Haha! I can't wait until Tim hears the answer to this one.
Not many Mexicans there, Tim. Not many Africans, either.
They tried to defend themselves. In these two cases, unsucessfully. Why? Not enough data. But at least, they tried. If they had been herded into the cold box and put on their knees, and then shot in the back of the head..they would have been no less dead. And without that firearm..they would have had no chance whatsoever in either case. Did the guns they owned kill them? No. The bad guys did. Did they perhaps f*ck up? Only way to tell is to be able to mind read the bad guys and watch the video tapes.
Callousness and brutal insensitivity...hummmm...perhaps. I neither knew either victim, nor trained them. Perhaps Ive seen more than my fair share of people dying and dead. Shrug.. Ive held them in my arms and stared into their eyes as the life went away. After a while, one tends to distance himself. Shrug .
Good. At least you are admitting your ignorance of something for a change.
Because Kirk..it was their decision to own that gun. To use it or not to use it. It was not removed from them like life choices removed from a slave, and frankly Kirk..they died on their feet, not on their knees. And Kirk..that speaks volumes for me. Perhaps not to you..hell..I suspect you would prefer to be a slave, rather than try to do whats right and proper, no matter if it may kill you or not. Were they foolish? Who knows. The thing is..they tried.
Kirk..it takes a very short time to learn to handle a firearm, both safely and effectivly. My skills and techniques may someday not prevail either. Some doped up 13 yr old with a Lorcin 25 may kill me. Shrug..and with luck, Ill take him with me. I strongly believe in Viking Funerals.
On the other hand..while I drive a car daily, Ive never been to the Daytona Driving schools etc etc. Most folks havent..and they still drive. My training in the various arts, is simply to give me an Extra edge, to hone the skills I already have. Quite frankly Kirk..there are damned few..damned few people anywhere on the planet with my skills in various arts. On the other hand..the 2.5 million people that use a firearm every year defensivly dont have my skills either. And they seem to muddle along just fine.
Hummm Evidently you missed the post where I gave my recommendations about training, how it should be taught in schools from kindergarten onwards. Or do you simply wish to ignore that post. Im sure Ed will verify what I wrote, as he commented on it.
They only need those licenses because of the Rules of the State. Licenses mean nothing. I know way too many incompetent electricians, drivers and so forth. Incompetent pilots tend to sort themselves out early on. Like motorcycle riders. They live or die.
My logic, or yours? My logic says a good basic safety and handling course taught every year in school. Hands on, live ammo on the range, the whole works. Pass/fail. And a certification that allows you to carry what you want, when you want, no registration, no restrictions in public. No certs needed for what/when/why on your own property. Full auto or sawed off shotgun. The whole encilada.
Actually no...for every story of a murder, is about 150,000 stories of those who suceeded in defending themselves. If they are not as simple in real life..why attempt to use two stories neither of us know nothing about, as some shining example of why you should never have a gun for self defense? You did make that statement..its implicit in your tirade.
Yawn..get to your point, ok?
So when you drink, you get drunk? Odd. Id seek help for that lil problem. Seems most everyone else manages to consume acohol in a far more responsible manner. I dont even drink. However you are attempting to make the case that only a very select few should be allowed access to booze, or to ban it entirely. Correct? Its implicit in your tirade.
See above.
Danger is the only thing a firearm can do? Odd..Id have said the same about cars. Yes, cars and firearms can be dangerous to some. Far more people die in cars every year than are killed with guns by several orders. And yes, firearms may be used to put another in danger..by those whom wish to protect themselves from harm. You said simply that firearms have NO utility value except as dangerous tools. Shooting sports..then blew it away. Well Ill tell you something bub...a firearm is a very fine tool for helping keep me safe. I take it you forgot the Massad quote already? If it takes putting the bad guy in danger, to help keep me and mine safe..so be it. Gary babbles on occasionally..but he does mention Life Certificates...and frankly Kirk..using them to keep people alive is a damned good reason to me, and about 2,500,000 people each year.
We cant. We can only train each and every person whom is not a felon, or a nut case, and let them carry what they wish, when they wish it. We cannot keep the nutz or the felons from carrying, never could never will, but at least we can level the playing field.
See above. As to my sigs, etc etc..feel free to kill file me if you are offended. Yawn.
I notice you somehow missed that long list of cites I gave you about storekeepers. Is there some reason you decided not to give mention to those people? Or did you save it for another post? I hope you simply didnt blow them off as they dont fit your world view. Ill read the rest of your posts with interest.
Gunner
'If you own a gun and have a swimming pool in the yard, the swimming pool is almost 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.'" Steven Levitt, UOC prof.
Chuckle..apples and oranges. There is very little repeat crime of this nature in China, as they are tried, convicted, taken to a field, a AK-47 with extended bayonet is held to the back of their skull and on command, fired. Tends to keep the now deceased perp from repeating the crime again and again and again...
Hummm seems to me that a good case can be made that Guns DO prevent such crimes in China, no?
Chuckle...given you, a proponent of a failed political system that has been responsible for the deaths of 175,000,000 unarmed people..I think we can safely discount your opinion on the subject.... Snicker
Gunner
'If you own a gun and have a swimming pool in the yard, the swimming pool is almost 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.'" Steven Levitt, UOC prof.
China.
Ok. Lemme see if I've got all this straight. You believe that...
Clearly, Gunner, I was wrong. You're not all that smart. I'm not going to comment further, though. I'm afraid that if I make you angry, you might do something drastic and dangerous, like putting a swimming pool in my back yard.
KG
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.