Win one for us gun-totin' Gippers! :-))

Fair enough, just seems rather daft to me. I can't help wondering, if you had someone pointing a gun at your face, whether you would risk it. I doubt it.

Interesting, clearly I misread it. That said, that does rely rather heavily on the firearm in question having a stiff trigger. Having seen firearms go off when the firer accidentally put too much pressure on the trigger I frankly wouldn't risk it.

I didn't say it was useless, I said it was unnecessary. The two are fundamentally different.

Incidentally, you use the word 'know' all too readily don't you. I am perfectly happy for people to be able to defend themselves. I object to every idiot and his dog being able to own a firearm.

Who is talking about running, by the sounds of it you live in some sort of war-zone (the comparison to jet fighter combat), doesn't take a genius to work out that it's better not to live there. If I lived in a crummy part of town where gunmen and muggers lurk behind every corner and I could move to somewhere better I would, however many firearms I could carry on my person. I am perfectly happy to defend myself, I'd just rather not have to, is there something wrong with that?

To be honest, this is a fairly pointless debate. Since you are so sure that everyone is out there to mug you and the second you stop carrying a firearm the streets will fill with drug smugglers, muggers and assorted evildoers you may as well keep carrying your guns. Interesting question though, does the fact that citizens carry guns simply cause criminals to carry them?

 

Within the context of the discussion, the distinction is a minor point of semantics. At any rate, you didn't address my contention that it is neither "useless", nor "unnecessary" to carry a firearm to act as a deterrent crime. Studies have shown that enactment of shall-issue laws and citizens carrying firearms reduce the crime rate in a jurisdiction. So carrying a firearm is an effective measure whether one "uses" it or not.


I

More semantical objections?

You seem to be objecting to a non-existent situation. There is no jurisdiction in this country that I am aware of, where firearms ownership and possession is unrestricted. Neither dogs nor people who have legally demonstrated that they are "idiots" are allowed to possess firearms in any state.

You sure have a knack for changing the terms of debate. The comparison was to the use of a parachute, not jet fighter combat.

Assuming that everyone who decides to carry a defensive firearm must live in a crummy part of town is a false assumption, so the advice to move rather than obtain and carry a gun is fundamentally flawed. No one is required to carry a gun to defend them self, however, we do have the freedom to make that decision, you don't. There is nothing wrong with deciding not to carry a gun, except the decision wasn't yours, so stop kidding yourself.

Now you are attempting to end a debate that you have carried on for several posts, by declaring it "pointless", since I (and by extension, Americans) are paranoid about crime and criminals. Quite a statement from somebody who has demonstrated ignorance of the situation by their statements. I would say it is rather "pointless" since you have little understanding of our laws, or culture, and little apparent desire to learn.

 

And I strongly feel this depends on the nature and mentality of the area in question.

No, just objecting to you making up my views for me based on nothing.

I apologise for my turn of phrase, however whilst dogs have yet to be added to the list of individuals who can own firearms, there are clearly a few idiots who have slipped through that legal loophole.

No, you said 'I suppose you would call a fighter pilot "paranoid" for wearing a parachute even though he never actually has had to use it?' I am simply pointing out that your situation is rather different from that of a fighter pilot as I assume you aren't in a war zone strapped to umptine tons of fuel.

Not very clear on irony are you, sorry, you compared carrying a gun (presumably in your environs) to being a fighter pilot, I simply pointed out that if the area you live in is as dangerous as being a fighter pilot you may want to consider moving.

No, I accuse you of being paranoid because a) you seem convinced that every blade of grass conceals a mugger, b) you seem totally convinced that environmentalists are out to nick your stuff and c) your general tone suggests a general fear that without a gun you would be at the mercy of an evil world. I am fully aware that this does not reflect the attitudes of many people, most of whom are generally content to legally own their firearms without having to justify it/preach about it all over the net, accusing anyone who doesn't carry one as being opposed to people defending themselves and the like.

As for the rest, I am always willing to learn, I honestly feel that this re-ratification of the second ammendment is a good idea, checking over archaic legislation and bringing it up to date always is. I just find your attitude in particular very entertaining.

 

Well, you're wrong. Turns out it happens across the board.

I could, and do, accuse you of the same thing. Calling me paranoid when you know nothing about me, and haven't even understood half of what I've posted.

I

I accept your apology. However, to expect the system to function perfectly is naive, there will always be idiots who seem to be able to slip through any filter.

I see, you're assuming that jet pilots only wear, and feel they need to wear, parachutes when they enter combat. The reality is they wear them every time they fly whether it's a training flight, a combat mission, or simply a flight to make their required flight hours. It's called prudence, not paranoia.

Still trying to twist the debate int terms more favorable to you. I never compared carrying a gun to being a jet fighter pilot, I compared it to wearing a parachute if you are a jet pilot, completely different proposition. You have no idea what kind of area I live in so any advice on moving is invalid. besides that, it doesn't really address the freedom to move throughout one's state without regard to trying to figure out if any given area is "safe".

Let's see, that boils down to being paranoid because I hold a different view of the world than you. Despite the fact at no time have I ever posted any thing that would suggest I felt the world was overrun with muggers and other criminals, you seem to feel that I live in fear of my life. I challenge you to cite a specific statement of mine that would warrant such a conclusion.

As for "environmentalists", to use a euphemism, I dislike having someone piss down my back and tell me it's raining. I dislike it when they use false data to advocate a course of action that would be both unnecessary and costly to me and my country. To suggest I choose to carry a gun because of that is, frankly, an absurdity though one which seems in character for you. You chose to challenge the right to keep and bear arms, not I, but I certainly reserve the right to disagree with you when you do so. I don't consider that preaching about it "all over the internet." It does seem strange to me that you consider yourself qualified to pass judgment on such matters, not being a resident of this country and obviously unfamiliar with the laws and culture here. I have not accused people who choose not to carry a gun of being opposed to people defending themselves And again, I challenge you to cite a specific statement by me to that effect.

Un-huh. if that is true, you certainly are expending a great deal of effort to criticize it.

 

Hi JC, yep--three that I can think of. There were of course, two incidents I had with illegals-but those were different matters. Dang man, you've had several incidents? time for you to move to Texas-where life aint so tough. ;-D

PS, i'd like to hear of your incidents if you feel like telling about them? ;-))

PSS, when I was a Correctional Officer-I had been threatened by that same dork who had raped Heather. This pig had just happened to be at the "farm" where I wwas hired to work at. To make that very long story short, an incident happened between it and myself in Dec 1996-while I was the sole Rover for A-5-8 dorms which housed 200 inmates.

Well, after the incident with said inmate-this inmate was immediately taken to Ad-Seg (Administration Segregation) which means that it was going to be spending its time in a 1 bed cell-and 23 of every 24 hours in said cell. A few weeks later, after it had been transferred to the Roach Unit - which is near the border with Oklahoma, they had what they call a "General Court" which means that for his new crimes committed in prison, that it was going to be tried for those-and as it had made a death threat to me, as well as to the Units Warden, Major and one of the Captains, we were witnesses against this fool.

Anyway, on Court date, it came to my time to testify-which I did. The inmate decided to fire its lawyer (big big mistake) and represent itself. Its attempted charge against me-which was the charge of that I had gotten a job at that very prison-just so I could have a chance to kill it-to which everybody know was pure BS-as when one if applying for a State Correctional Officer position-and flat out state that I would work at any unit state-wide-which at that time, they had about 100 state prison units and three more about to open up) that I had no way to know where I was going to be hired at-and I just happen to be hired at the Garza West unit in Beeville-where this rapist just happened to be incarcerated at.

Anyway, it wanted to ask me some questions-to which I had the option of not answering if I did not want to-and I agreed to answer. Well, I don't remember what was asked but-everyone there knew it was all bullship-as well as the inmate knew it was pure BS. Well, when the presiding Judge read out the verdict-the inmate apparently did not like what his sentencing was and pretty much witn insane in the Courtroom-having to be restrained by some Baliffs and attending Officers. While yelling at who it was going to kill when it was released from the Roach unit-I was asked by the Judge if I wanted to make a parting statement to the inmate-to which I said yes I did. I then told the inmate that if he ever showed up at my door (and I thanked it for the advance warninig) that it would be meeting with not only myself but, my friends Walther, Colt, Mauser & Luger. ;-D

This happened almost 12 years ago, and I have never seen this it again. ;-D

 

I wouldn't. For one thing there are a number of videos that show people successfully doing it. I remember seeing a shop keeper confronted by at least 3 armed robbers

Take England as an example. The problem with gun carrying criminals is increasing and most of their police still don't carry guns. IE the answer is no.

Another telling data point was Florida. They had to change the law concerning licensing of rental cars after they passed their concealed carry laws. Seams the criminals started concentrating on rental cars because they were likely to be driven by those from out of state and thus unarmed. Laws granting reciprocal rights have taken care of part of that problem.

 

Sorry, should have put that better, as in does it cause 'more' criminals to carry them on the basis that their 'quarry' is more likely to be armed.

 

Actually, I trained for it (with instructors as well as solo) for a long time including blind shooting, target aquisition, field progression, camuflage, ambush technics, disarming an opponent (tough we used bb guns) and plenty other things. Hell I've bought and dl everything I could find on combat technics and applied it (I got to scare my mom wandering fully equiped with a bb M15 around the house at 2AM clearing the area).
Oh and a strong physical component of course!
I got to hear some nice stories too like how a SEAL droped out from the Portuguese "Atiradores de infantaria" course due to it being "inhumane" and that he spotted several attempts to the "human rights"... Seriously the guys are more show offs than anything.


As for my psichological expertise, you don't have to thrust me, you can thrust in any decent police force around the world who'll tell you the exact same thing.

As for changing the scenario, I didn't.
The kid had the gun like 10cm away wich is a lot less confortable than I ever wanna get. And, as I told earlier, I probably wouldn't have reacted anyway even if he was rubbing his gun on my face. Quite francly, you know nothing of me as I know nothing of you. So, I avoid making sopositions about you or your knowleges on anything. I merely stated what I think is the error of your reasoning and Stefan reiterated it.

What I say is at gun point quite frankly it's sheer stupidity to resist it's just geting yourself killed. Sure there are stories and videos but what about the other side? People who get kiled for trying to play the hero?



Cheers...

 

Ok, so you're a cross between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Vin Diesel; congratulations.

Back in the '60's and early '70's, I served in the US Navy. I won't go into the job I did, but it brought me into close contact with quite a few SEALS personnel, and some are still friends of mine. They are retired now, of course, but still keep in touch with the community. I recently talked with one of them and asked him about what you have said. His comment was; "BS!" He ranks the SEALS equal with the SAS in ability though both have some areas where one is better than the other. His comment on other special forces was; "third place in a two-horse race." Take it for what it's worth, but I know this guy and respect his judgment.

Any police force will tell you a lot of stuff that isn't true. They have their reasons, of course, legal liability, protecting their jobs, etc, but it doesn't make it true.

Your comments have convinced me that you have little understanding of conditions here, or the dynamics of a confrontation between two armed opponents. So, no offense, I'll continue to use my own judgment as to what constitutes the proper course of action when defending one's self with deadly force. I've had training in such matters from experts whom I consider better qualified than you, and I feel confident that I can keep myself alive.

 

Ok I know nothing of nothing. In the US all criminals are junkies who know not hoe to shoot a gun and never borthered to learn. I'm a corss between Shwartz and Vin? I've been called worse but it really blunders this whole discussion you trying to insult me. I merely tried to show you I'm not inexperienced when it comes to evaluating SecOps quality. Also, my opinions are less biased than the a SEAL opinion after the brainwash they receive and more people agree... Actually, everyone else in the world agrees... But hey You're probably right as I know nothing.

this is getting tiring. I'm not gonna argue anymore since it seems to me it's just a waste of "breath"... I do hope you're right and can keep yourself alive.



Cheers...

 

Ahhh, Carl, it's great to have friends

Changing a bit the drift of the conversation, I have said in the past that I don't have anything against gun ownership and I'm sorry I can't afford or be allowed to go to the hardware store like some of you people! My only gripe is with this so damned ambiguous 2nd Amendment, which apparently required over 200 years for the SCUS to come up with a clarification, and will see if it ends there!

Having worked in the past with a US engineering firm (Henry Kaiser of Hoover Dam and Liberty Ships fame, for instance) it was with some amusement that I was assigned to a mine project in Portugal's hinterland. Now Portugal as everyone knows is the wildest place since Tombstone before the Earps

Well, our US colleagues were miffed at having to leave their hardware at home and not beng able to bring it over, they got to wearing big knives, to the amusement of the local population, who found the Gringos were rather crazy as the most dangerous wildlife were hares, even the snakes had migrated to Ireland (see St. Patrick's legend )

After a while the project manager had to call a general expat meeting and tell them to cut off that particular crap, because the worst danger they incurred in was if a stray pigeon shat on their hardhats. And there the matter rested

(Of course we didn't have any budding Bruce Lee candidates nearby :lol: )

 

I'm wondering if this comment was really necessary? We're better than that.

 

Give yourself a big pat on the back then.

 

Scott, DA isn't out to win any popularity contests, you may have noticed

 

Yeah, I noticed that. Most everybody on this site doesn't have to start with name calling when involved in a good debate, since he's new I thought I would point that out. But apparently it fell on deaf ears!

 

I suppose you're the guy who enforces etiquette around here? Calling someone a combination of Schwarzenegger (a very successful movie star and current governor of California) and Diesel (another popular and successful movie star) hardly strikes me as a mortal insult. That Miguel chose to view it that way and take offense is not my problem.

And no, I didn't come to this forum to engage in a popularity contest, at least not with the likes of you and Stefan as judges. if you don't like what I have to say, you may always use the delete button, I do not consider it a great loss.

 

Wow!

 

I don't think the wording is very ambiguous at all. The problem is a bunch of people don't like what is says so they try to warp it into something closer to their desires. That's a big part of what lawyers do and have always done no matter what side they are on.

 

Miguel B, you got it worong. I don't live in fear, nor am I scared when I waltz outside the door to my humble abode either. However, in my case, if the law allows me to cary a weapon-then I will do so. Simply put, if im at home and a burglar breaks into my house, im going to shoot to kill that sum-bitch. Why should I, allow some scum to come into MY house and steal the things I bought with MY earned monies? If that burglar wants what I have, then he needs to get off og his lazy welfare-ridden ass, and go out there and get a job to earn money he can save to buy these things--just like I did, and just like everybody else has done.

Also, not everybody is like you or those who know some sort of Martial Arts. I too know a few moves-only because they were those that were tought to me while training to become a State of Texas Correctional Officer-and which became part of what I had to know to have the job I was training for. True though, I sure as heck aint no black belt-but, I think I can defend myself against some turd with a knife-if im unarmed. I know how to use your thumb against you and to my advantage, as well as your arms and such. However, a loaded handgun gives one a much bigger "edge" when it comes to protecting ones own self/family.

Best regards-C.

PS, the Governor of the State of Texas, as well as the State Attorney and also the Disctict Atty of my area, all have publicly said that they will fully back us-the home owner, in doing what is needed in order to protect our property and or family. I met Carlos Valdez in person a few weeks ago and had a nice chat with him about this. I felt even better when leaving him after asking him about his position on this subject.

 

To make this reply short, you cannot compare the numbers of anything here as to what happens in Estonia-your only grabbing at air in your attempts at trying to make gun ownership such a bad thing. Also, you fail to mention that most of thos emurders that happened with usage of handguns are in fact, those committed by persons who illegally got their handguns-i.e. buying them off the street. I remember onetime several years ago-when some guy approached me and said he could sell me an MP-40 for $100 bucks.

Are you kidding? i'd love ot owna fully functional MP-40-but not illegally.