peacefuljeffrey 0 #26 September 14, 2004 QuoteI am sorry you lost people you knew, but i am more sorry you blame an inanimate object rather than the person(s) who actually caused the deaths. QuoteIn fact, I would be happy to see all guns go away for good....but that isn't anything that will happen soon. Until someone creates and sprinkles some really strong magical fairy dust around the world, that will never happen. But in the period between now and the Sprinkling, it is believed by some that it is best to remain unprepared to defend oneself against the guns and their users upon which the dust has not yet worked its magic. OMG I do believe that between you and me, we have coined a new term for the ridiculous panacea that all anti-gunners hang their hopes on: The Sprinkling -- when yet-to-be-created Magic Anti-Gun Dust will be Sprinkled around the world to rid us of the Evil Guns... I propose that we use this term more and more, explaining it as we go, until it is as common a term of ridicule of anti-gunners as "assault weapon" and "gun-nut" are for gun owners. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #27 September 14, 2004 Quote I am sorry you lost people you knew, but i am more sorry you blame an inanimate object rather than the person(s) who actually caused the deaths. It isn't something that I think about often, to be honest. I wouldn't have a FOID if it was a huge painful memory. Yes, I realize that without the person the gun would still be sitting on a shelf somewhere. Nonetheless, a gun was used, bulletts were fired, someone pulled the trigger, people I knew died. Now in skydiving we explore all optioins on how to avoid a repeat of a death....and I do that with guns and part of that means removing the guns from the equation._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #28 September 14, 2004 QuoteBut in the period between now and the Sprinkling, it is believed by some that it is best to remain unprepared to defend oneself against the guns and their users upon which the dust has not yet worked its magic. If my uncle had a gun he would still be dead. I live in Chicago - one of the murder capitals of the world and I have never needed a gun for self defense. Now tell me, who is it that I need a gun, let alone an assualt weapon, to defend myself from?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnischalke 0 #29 September 14, 2004 QuoteI live in Chicago - one of the murder capitals of the world and I have never needed a gun for self defense. Yet another fine example of how draconian gun control laws do nothing to effect crime, other than promote their rates. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #30 September 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteI live in Chicago - one of the murder capitals of the world and I have never needed a gun for self defense. Yet another fine example of how draconian gun control laws do nothing to effect crime, other than promote their rates. If I am not mistaken, gun deaths in this city have gone down while the ban was in effect. And if I am not mistaken, I've pointed out that I very much alive and have never needed to use a gun to defend myself._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #31 September 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteBut in the period between now and the Sprinkling, it is believed by some that it is best to remain unprepared to defend oneself against the guns and their users upon which the dust has not yet worked its magic. If my uncle had a gun he would still be dead. I live in Chicago - one of the murder capitals of the world and I have never needed a gun for self defense. Now tell me, who is it that I need a gun, let alone an assualt weapon, to defend myself from? Chicago is one of the murder capitals of the world -- in spite of having a virtual ban on gun ownership. Curiouser and curiouser. And you use the fact that you have never needed a gun for self defense in the "murder capital of the world" as demonstration that you don't need a gun. Apparently some people there might benefit from being able to defend themselves -- or else how did Chicago earn that monicker? You ask who is it you need a gun to defend yourself from. How would I know? I don't know who your uncle needed to defend himself from, either. I don't know the specifics of any of the numerous people you say you know who have been murdered. Were they even all murdered with guns? Who is it that a young, pretty woman (or even an old crone) might need a gun to protect against being raped by? Well, she doesn't know until he comes along to raper her, now does she? I carry a gun for protection. I have never even had to draw the gun, but I know that some day it might be the only thing that keeps me from getting killed by a violent criminal. I could give it up, having observed that I have never needed it yet. But that's about as reasonable as stopping wearing my seat belt, since no seat belt has ever yet had to save my life in a crash. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnischalke 0 #32 September 14, 2004 Crime has reduced on the whole in this country. For dramatic reductions in crime, look at a city such as Richmond, VA, which has been effected by the passage of Project Exile and liberal concealed carry laws. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #33 September 14, 2004 QuoteIt isn't something that I think about often, to be honest. I wouldn't have a FOID if it was a huge painful memory. Yes, I realize that without the person the gun would still be sitting on a shelf somewhere. Nonetheless, a gun was used, bulletts were fired, someone pulled the trigger, people I knew died. Now in skydiving we explore all optioins on how to avoid a repeat of a death....and I do that with guns and part of that means removing the guns from the equation. And if your example was going to be at all consistent, you would draw the parallel or "removing skydiving" (either by prohibiting it or just not engaging in it) in order to reign in the danger it poses. You are not comparing apples to apples, if you say that to get rid of guns to stop murder is appropriate (despite admitting that someone has to be the criminal and pull the trigger) but NOT to stop skydiving in order to stop skydiving deaths from occurring. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnischalke 0 #34 September 14, 2004 QuoteBut in the period between now and the Sprinkling, it is believed by some that it is best to remain unprepared to defend oneself against the guns and their users upon which the dust has not yet worked its magic. Well, I believe the best fairy dust would be the dust that eliminated the inborn propensity toward violence among human beings. Without violence, there'd be no need for any weapons, other than to work on tighter groups in competition. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #35 September 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteI live in Chicago - one of the murder capitals of the world and I have never needed a gun for self defense. Yet another fine example of how draconian gun control laws do nothing to effect crime, other than promote their rates. If I am not mistaken, gun deaths in this city have gone down while the ban was in effect. And if I am not mistaken, I've pointed out that I very much alive and have never needed to use a gun to defend myself. Gun deaths have gone down steadily in this country since even before the '94 ban went into effect! So it's quite possible that they went down in Chicago as part of the overall decline. It's also very likely that they did not go down nearly as much as in those places where concealed firearm carry is permitted, since it has been shown in repeated studies that concealed carry has helped control crime. Your city's gun bans may well have precluded the drop in gun crime from being more significant. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnischalke 0 #36 September 14, 2004 QuoteYou are not comparing apples to apples, if you say that to get rid of guns to stop murder is appropriate (despite admitting that someone has to be the criminal and pull the trigger) but NOT to stop skydiving in order to stop skydiving deaths from occurring. I consider my firearm to be my real-life AAD. Not something I would rely on, but it might certainly save my life someday, as it has for millions of others. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #37 September 14, 2004 Hey, I've been wondering for a while now... Do tigers even live in caves? Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #38 September 14, 2004 QuoteAnd if your example was going to be at all consistent, you would draw the parallel or "removing skydiving" (either by prohibiting it or just not engaging in it) in order to reign in the danger it poses. - That happens all the time. I don't need to consider it because local governments do, lawyers, etc. If you spend more time in this sport you will hear this option brought up. In fact, we were not sure if GA was going to fly again after 9/11. Like I said, I've heard all the arguments before. I don't see the need for conceal and carry or the need for assault rifles. All I need is some cowboy to start shooting cars on the tollway because the line for the manual booth is taking too long. BTW - my uncle would never have had a chance to pull his gun out or shoot because he was shot in the back by someone he had never met before in his entire life. You see reasons for it, I see reasons not for it. Lets agree to disagree because I have no desire to argue this point for dozen more posts._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #39 September 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteAnd if your example was going to be at all consistent, you would draw the parallel or "removing skydiving" (either by prohibiting it or just not engaging in it) in order to reign in the danger it poses. - That happens all the time. I don't need to consider it because local governments do, lawyers, etc. If you spend more time in this sport you will hear this option brought up. In fact, we were not sure if GA was going to fly again after 9/11. There was not a chance in hell that something as huge as GA was "never going to fly again," and for anyone who is reasonable to suggest or claim a belief that it looked like it would not is absurd. It's almost like saying that a bad enough highway pileup would bring about the end of automobile travel. QuoteLike I said, I've heard all the arguments before. I don't see the need for conceal and carry or the need for assault rifles. All I need is some cowboy to start shooting cars on the tollway because the line for the manual booth is taking too long. If this is the extent to which you trust your fellow human beings, then I don't blame you. But the fact that 36 states now have concealed carry laws in place and STILL your little nightmare scenario is a statistical non-event, people like you go about claiming that gun bans are your best means of preempting such anomalies from killing you. Your example is absolutely ridiculous, an example of the desperation to which anti-gunners (and you qualify as one, despite your claims of enjoying target shooting and having a FOID) will go to "show" how dangerous gun ownership is. Crime rates have gone down to a 30-year low despite that we have 36 states allowing background-checked people to carry guns on their persons. How do you possibly account for that? How, if anything you fear is true (tollway shooters and whatnot), could we possibly have crime and murder going down as millions more people come to own and carry millions more guns? QuoteYou see reasons for it, I see reasons not for it. Lets agree to disagree because I have no desire to argue this point for dozen more posts. All I'm saying is, the reason you and other anti-gunners offer NEVER add up -- NEVER -- and never survive scrutiny without being totally disproven and shredded in a logical sense. Anti-gunism cannot survive without parroting lies. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #40 September 14, 2004 QuoteLike I said, I've heard all the arguments before. I don't see the need for conceal and carry or the need for assault rifles. There are women who have saved their own lives from rapists, muggers and murderers because they had a gun. They might take issue with your claim that there is "no need" for concealed carry. They are here to raise their children because of their guns, in some cases. Maybe you could poll the children about the "need" for their mother to have that lifesaving gun at that critical moment. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #41 September 14, 2004 QuoteThere was not a chance in hell that something as huge as GA was "never going to fly again," and for anyone who is reasonable to suggest or claim a belief that it looked like it would not is absurd. It's almost like saying that a bad enough highway pileup would bring about the end of automobile travel. You have a short term memory. AOPA and a few others had to prevent certain new rules and laws from going into effect that would have shut down every unfenced, un guarded, no tower airport. There was talk of making every flight IFR because VFR flights were considered a threat to national security. Just like politics, I don't fit into a category when it comes to guns. I have my beliefs and like I said before I came to them from a combination of real world experiences and listening to the rhetoric on both sides. I don't support or claim to be a part of either side and the tactics both use are embarrising. BTW - take a look at Ireland. How many gun deaths do they have there a year? Same goes for the UK. There are models that work and have a proven track record. As far as my trust about my fellow humans? Spend some time at Juvi Hall counseling kids. I've mentioned it on here a bunch of times but talking to kids that shot a family member because "they pissed me off" does wonders for your spirit. And if I am not mistaken, wasn't there quite a few of expressway shootings in LA for a while?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #42 September 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteLike I said, I've heard all the arguments before. I don't see the need for conceal and carry or the need for assault rifles. There are women who have saved their own lives from rapists, muggers and murderers because they had a gun. They might take issue with your claim that there is "no need" for concealed carry. They are here to raise their children because of their guns, in some cases. Maybe you could poll the children about the "need" for their mother to have that lifesaving gun at that critical moment. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - You are repeating your arguments and I said I had heard this one. I believe there are other ways to solve these issues. But you would not like my way of doing things and I have no say in the matter anyhow - so who cares?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #43 September 14, 2004 QuoteBTW - take a look at Ireland. How many gun deaths do they have there a year? Same goes for the UK. There are models that work and have a proven track record. You must not have been paying attention to any of the gun-threads in this forum for the last three months or so. We have dealt repeatedly with the failure of gun control in Britain. Since their gun ban went into effect in 1997, their gun crime rate has had triple-digit increases -- about 40% per year, by many estimates. Besides, the defenders of that ban here on this forum -- Brits themselves -- have repeatedly insisted that WE should not claim that GUN OWNERSHIP FOR SELF DEFENSE should be engaged over there because what works for one country won't necessarily work for the other. So you're arguing against the very insistence made by the people in the country you're saying we should emulate. They say that gun ownership would be a disaster over there, and even concede that gun banning probably would not help over here. QuoteAs far as my trust about my fellow humans? Spend some time at Juvi Hall counseling kids. I've mentioned it on here a bunch of times but talking to kids that shot a family member because "they pissed me off" does wonders for your spirit. And if I am not mistaken, wasn't there quite a few of expressway shootings in LA for a while? I never said that there were not the various hopeless cases in society. People who would shoot anyone just because "they pissed me off" should be removed from society in one way or another. Care to explain why I should not be able to carry a gun to defend myself against such people, who may decide that I "pissed them off"? And if you want to try to stay with me, here, when did California pass "shall-issue concealed carry permit laws" which would make what happens in L.A. relevant to our discussion? If there were freeway shootings happening in L.A. in recent memory, it sure as hell was not being committed by people with permits to carry their guns! I continue to believe that you do not involve a lot of factual information in the way you draw your conclusions and form your opinions and position on guns and gun ownership. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #44 September 14, 2004 QuoteYou are repeating your arguments and I said I had heard this one. I believe there are other ways to solve these issues. But you would not like my way of doing things and I have no say in the matter anyhow - so who cares? Who cares? The people who are trying to keep a right that people who feel the way you feel about it are constantly trying to take away from us forever. What "other way to solve these issues" is going to stop a woman tomorrow from getting raped and strangled in an empty parking lot, or her one-bedroom apartment? Social programs, education funding, blah blah blah do not help anyone in the here and now, nor can they be expected to eliminate 100% of the rapists and murderers from the population, so there will always be people who might come down to the nitty-gritty of needing a gun or other weapon to defend themselves and save their own lives. You know, saying "I've read this before" does not actually refute anything I've said. Just waving your hand and saying, "Yeah yeah" and dismissing a valid argument is not equivalent of stating cogent arguments that contradict mine. -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #45 September 14, 2004 Quote Like I said, I've heard all the arguments before. I don't see the need for conceal and carry or the need for assault rifles. All I need is some cowboy to start shooting cars on the tollway because the line for the manual booth is taking too long. CCWs don't change the risk of this sort of public shooting one bit. The difference is that someone would shoot back. BTW, shooting cars in *front* of you in a queue doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense, does it? You made a reference to CA shootings. Sad to tell you, that was a media event in search of news, just as the wave of reportings of pit bull attacks comes and goes. That summer was a light one for such shootings, in spite of the fact that we are not allowed to carry loaded weapons in our cars. But let's go back to the main topic, the AWB sunset. Any objective viewing of it proves it to be merely a symbolic act. Few weapons were covered, and restricting new, legal magazines to 10 rounds does not to stop mass shootings. One can reload a semi automatic pistol in a second or two. The law changed nothing about the criminals' ability to kill [each] others and the actual crime statistics show that. Generously rounding up you might get to 10%. The law's only potential value was as a stepping stone to a larger ban. BTW, anyone know how the sunset provision got added? Ingenious - we'll have before, during, and after statistics. Though the timing of the ban during a nice business cycle should have HCI number crunchers getting their lies ready. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
mnischalke 0 #29 September 14, 2004 QuoteI live in Chicago - one of the murder capitals of the world and I have never needed a gun for self defense. Yet another fine example of how draconian gun control laws do nothing to effect crime, other than promote their rates. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #30 September 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteI live in Chicago - one of the murder capitals of the world and I have never needed a gun for self defense. Yet another fine example of how draconian gun control laws do nothing to effect crime, other than promote their rates. If I am not mistaken, gun deaths in this city have gone down while the ban was in effect. And if I am not mistaken, I've pointed out that I very much alive and have never needed to use a gun to defend myself._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #31 September 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteBut in the period between now and the Sprinkling, it is believed by some that it is best to remain unprepared to defend oneself against the guns and their users upon which the dust has not yet worked its magic. If my uncle had a gun he would still be dead. I live in Chicago - one of the murder capitals of the world and I have never needed a gun for self defense. Now tell me, who is it that I need a gun, let alone an assualt weapon, to defend myself from? Chicago is one of the murder capitals of the world -- in spite of having a virtual ban on gun ownership. Curiouser and curiouser. And you use the fact that you have never needed a gun for self defense in the "murder capital of the world" as demonstration that you don't need a gun. Apparently some people there might benefit from being able to defend themselves -- or else how did Chicago earn that monicker? You ask who is it you need a gun to defend yourself from. How would I know? I don't know who your uncle needed to defend himself from, either. I don't know the specifics of any of the numerous people you say you know who have been murdered. Were they even all murdered with guns? Who is it that a young, pretty woman (or even an old crone) might need a gun to protect against being raped by? Well, she doesn't know until he comes along to raper her, now does she? I carry a gun for protection. I have never even had to draw the gun, but I know that some day it might be the only thing that keeps me from getting killed by a violent criminal. I could give it up, having observed that I have never needed it yet. But that's about as reasonable as stopping wearing my seat belt, since no seat belt has ever yet had to save my life in a crash. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnischalke 0 #32 September 14, 2004 Crime has reduced on the whole in this country. For dramatic reductions in crime, look at a city such as Richmond, VA, which has been effected by the passage of Project Exile and liberal concealed carry laws. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #33 September 14, 2004 QuoteIt isn't something that I think about often, to be honest. I wouldn't have a FOID if it was a huge painful memory. Yes, I realize that without the person the gun would still be sitting on a shelf somewhere. Nonetheless, a gun was used, bulletts were fired, someone pulled the trigger, people I knew died. Now in skydiving we explore all optioins on how to avoid a repeat of a death....and I do that with guns and part of that means removing the guns from the equation. And if your example was going to be at all consistent, you would draw the parallel or "removing skydiving" (either by prohibiting it or just not engaging in it) in order to reign in the danger it poses. You are not comparing apples to apples, if you say that to get rid of guns to stop murder is appropriate (despite admitting that someone has to be the criminal and pull the trigger) but NOT to stop skydiving in order to stop skydiving deaths from occurring. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnischalke 0 #34 September 14, 2004 QuoteBut in the period between now and the Sprinkling, it is believed by some that it is best to remain unprepared to defend oneself against the guns and their users upon which the dust has not yet worked its magic. Well, I believe the best fairy dust would be the dust that eliminated the inborn propensity toward violence among human beings. Without violence, there'd be no need for any weapons, other than to work on tighter groups in competition. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #35 September 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteI live in Chicago - one of the murder capitals of the world and I have never needed a gun for self defense. Yet another fine example of how draconian gun control laws do nothing to effect crime, other than promote their rates. If I am not mistaken, gun deaths in this city have gone down while the ban was in effect. And if I am not mistaken, I've pointed out that I very much alive and have never needed to use a gun to defend myself. Gun deaths have gone down steadily in this country since even before the '94 ban went into effect! So it's quite possible that they went down in Chicago as part of the overall decline. It's also very likely that they did not go down nearly as much as in those places where concealed firearm carry is permitted, since it has been shown in repeated studies that concealed carry has helped control crime. Your city's gun bans may well have precluded the drop in gun crime from being more significant. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnischalke 0 #36 September 14, 2004 QuoteYou are not comparing apples to apples, if you say that to get rid of guns to stop murder is appropriate (despite admitting that someone has to be the criminal and pull the trigger) but NOT to stop skydiving in order to stop skydiving deaths from occurring. I consider my firearm to be my real-life AAD. Not something I would rely on, but it might certainly save my life someday, as it has for millions of others. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #37 September 14, 2004 Hey, I've been wondering for a while now... Do tigers even live in caves? Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #38 September 14, 2004 QuoteAnd if your example was going to be at all consistent, you would draw the parallel or "removing skydiving" (either by prohibiting it or just not engaging in it) in order to reign in the danger it poses. - That happens all the time. I don't need to consider it because local governments do, lawyers, etc. If you spend more time in this sport you will hear this option brought up. In fact, we were not sure if GA was going to fly again after 9/11. Like I said, I've heard all the arguments before. I don't see the need for conceal and carry or the need for assault rifles. All I need is some cowboy to start shooting cars on the tollway because the line for the manual booth is taking too long. BTW - my uncle would never have had a chance to pull his gun out or shoot because he was shot in the back by someone he had never met before in his entire life. You see reasons for it, I see reasons not for it. Lets agree to disagree because I have no desire to argue this point for dozen more posts._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #39 September 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteAnd if your example was going to be at all consistent, you would draw the parallel or "removing skydiving" (either by prohibiting it or just not engaging in it) in order to reign in the danger it poses. - That happens all the time. I don't need to consider it because local governments do, lawyers, etc. If you spend more time in this sport you will hear this option brought up. In fact, we were not sure if GA was going to fly again after 9/11. There was not a chance in hell that something as huge as GA was "never going to fly again," and for anyone who is reasonable to suggest or claim a belief that it looked like it would not is absurd. It's almost like saying that a bad enough highway pileup would bring about the end of automobile travel. QuoteLike I said, I've heard all the arguments before. I don't see the need for conceal and carry or the need for assault rifles. All I need is some cowboy to start shooting cars on the tollway because the line for the manual booth is taking too long. If this is the extent to which you trust your fellow human beings, then I don't blame you. But the fact that 36 states now have concealed carry laws in place and STILL your little nightmare scenario is a statistical non-event, people like you go about claiming that gun bans are your best means of preempting such anomalies from killing you. Your example is absolutely ridiculous, an example of the desperation to which anti-gunners (and you qualify as one, despite your claims of enjoying target shooting and having a FOID) will go to "show" how dangerous gun ownership is. Crime rates have gone down to a 30-year low despite that we have 36 states allowing background-checked people to carry guns on their persons. How do you possibly account for that? How, if anything you fear is true (tollway shooters and whatnot), could we possibly have crime and murder going down as millions more people come to own and carry millions more guns? QuoteYou see reasons for it, I see reasons not for it. Lets agree to disagree because I have no desire to argue this point for dozen more posts. All I'm saying is, the reason you and other anti-gunners offer NEVER add up -- NEVER -- and never survive scrutiny without being totally disproven and shredded in a logical sense. Anti-gunism cannot survive without parroting lies. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #40 September 14, 2004 QuoteLike I said, I've heard all the arguments before. I don't see the need for conceal and carry or the need for assault rifles. There are women who have saved their own lives from rapists, muggers and murderers because they had a gun. They might take issue with your claim that there is "no need" for concealed carry. They are here to raise their children because of their guns, in some cases. Maybe you could poll the children about the "need" for their mother to have that lifesaving gun at that critical moment. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #41 September 14, 2004 QuoteThere was not a chance in hell that something as huge as GA was "never going to fly again," and for anyone who is reasonable to suggest or claim a belief that it looked like it would not is absurd. It's almost like saying that a bad enough highway pileup would bring about the end of automobile travel. You have a short term memory. AOPA and a few others had to prevent certain new rules and laws from going into effect that would have shut down every unfenced, un guarded, no tower airport. There was talk of making every flight IFR because VFR flights were considered a threat to national security. Just like politics, I don't fit into a category when it comes to guns. I have my beliefs and like I said before I came to them from a combination of real world experiences and listening to the rhetoric on both sides. I don't support or claim to be a part of either side and the tactics both use are embarrising. BTW - take a look at Ireland. How many gun deaths do they have there a year? Same goes for the UK. There are models that work and have a proven track record. As far as my trust about my fellow humans? Spend some time at Juvi Hall counseling kids. I've mentioned it on here a bunch of times but talking to kids that shot a family member because "they pissed me off" does wonders for your spirit. And if I am not mistaken, wasn't there quite a few of expressway shootings in LA for a while?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #42 September 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteLike I said, I've heard all the arguments before. I don't see the need for conceal and carry or the need for assault rifles. There are women who have saved their own lives from rapists, muggers and murderers because they had a gun. They might take issue with your claim that there is "no need" for concealed carry. They are here to raise their children because of their guns, in some cases. Maybe you could poll the children about the "need" for their mother to have that lifesaving gun at that critical moment. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - You are repeating your arguments and I said I had heard this one. I believe there are other ways to solve these issues. But you would not like my way of doing things and I have no say in the matter anyhow - so who cares?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #43 September 14, 2004 QuoteBTW - take a look at Ireland. How many gun deaths do they have there a year? Same goes for the UK. There are models that work and have a proven track record. You must not have been paying attention to any of the gun-threads in this forum for the last three months or so. We have dealt repeatedly with the failure of gun control in Britain. Since their gun ban went into effect in 1997, their gun crime rate has had triple-digit increases -- about 40% per year, by many estimates. Besides, the defenders of that ban here on this forum -- Brits themselves -- have repeatedly insisted that WE should not claim that GUN OWNERSHIP FOR SELF DEFENSE should be engaged over there because what works for one country won't necessarily work for the other. So you're arguing against the very insistence made by the people in the country you're saying we should emulate. They say that gun ownership would be a disaster over there, and even concede that gun banning probably would not help over here. QuoteAs far as my trust about my fellow humans? Spend some time at Juvi Hall counseling kids. I've mentioned it on here a bunch of times but talking to kids that shot a family member because "they pissed me off" does wonders for your spirit. And if I am not mistaken, wasn't there quite a few of expressway shootings in LA for a while? I never said that there were not the various hopeless cases in society. People who would shoot anyone just because "they pissed me off" should be removed from society in one way or another. Care to explain why I should not be able to carry a gun to defend myself against such people, who may decide that I "pissed them off"? And if you want to try to stay with me, here, when did California pass "shall-issue concealed carry permit laws" which would make what happens in L.A. relevant to our discussion? If there were freeway shootings happening in L.A. in recent memory, it sure as hell was not being committed by people with permits to carry their guns! I continue to believe that you do not involve a lot of factual information in the way you draw your conclusions and form your opinions and position on guns and gun ownership. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #44 September 14, 2004 QuoteYou are repeating your arguments and I said I had heard this one. I believe there are other ways to solve these issues. But you would not like my way of doing things and I have no say in the matter anyhow - so who cares? Who cares? The people who are trying to keep a right that people who feel the way you feel about it are constantly trying to take away from us forever. What "other way to solve these issues" is going to stop a woman tomorrow from getting raped and strangled in an empty parking lot, or her one-bedroom apartment? Social programs, education funding, blah blah blah do not help anyone in the here and now, nor can they be expected to eliminate 100% of the rapists and murderers from the population, so there will always be people who might come down to the nitty-gritty of needing a gun or other weapon to defend themselves and save their own lives. You know, saying "I've read this before" does not actually refute anything I've said. Just waving your hand and saying, "Yeah yeah" and dismissing a valid argument is not equivalent of stating cogent arguments that contradict mine. -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #45 September 14, 2004 Quote Like I said, I've heard all the arguments before. I don't see the need for conceal and carry or the need for assault rifles. All I need is some cowboy to start shooting cars on the tollway because the line for the manual booth is taking too long. CCWs don't change the risk of this sort of public shooting one bit. The difference is that someone would shoot back. BTW, shooting cars in *front* of you in a queue doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense, does it? You made a reference to CA shootings. Sad to tell you, that was a media event in search of news, just as the wave of reportings of pit bull attacks comes and goes. That summer was a light one for such shootings, in spite of the fact that we are not allowed to carry loaded weapons in our cars. But let's go back to the main topic, the AWB sunset. Any objective viewing of it proves it to be merely a symbolic act. Few weapons were covered, and restricting new, legal magazines to 10 rounds does not to stop mass shootings. One can reload a semi automatic pistol in a second or two. The law changed nothing about the criminals' ability to kill [each] others and the actual crime statistics show that. Generously rounding up you might get to 10%. The law's only potential value was as a stepping stone to a larger ban. BTW, anyone know how the sunset provision got added? Ingenious - we'll have before, during, and after statistics. Though the timing of the ban during a nice business cycle should have HCI number crunchers getting their lies ready. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
mnischalke 0 #32 September 14, 2004 Crime has reduced on the whole in this country. For dramatic reductions in crime, look at a city such as Richmond, VA, which has been effected by the passage of Project Exile and liberal concealed carry laws. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #33 September 14, 2004 QuoteIt isn't something that I think about often, to be honest. I wouldn't have a FOID if it was a huge painful memory. Yes, I realize that without the person the gun would still be sitting on a shelf somewhere. Nonetheless, a gun was used, bulletts were fired, someone pulled the trigger, people I knew died. Now in skydiving we explore all optioins on how to avoid a repeat of a death....and I do that with guns and part of that means removing the guns from the equation. And if your example was going to be at all consistent, you would draw the parallel or "removing skydiving" (either by prohibiting it or just not engaging in it) in order to reign in the danger it poses. You are not comparing apples to apples, if you say that to get rid of guns to stop murder is appropriate (despite admitting that someone has to be the criminal and pull the trigger) but NOT to stop skydiving in order to stop skydiving deaths from occurring. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #34 September 14, 2004 QuoteBut in the period between now and the Sprinkling, it is believed by some that it is best to remain unprepared to defend oneself against the guns and their users upon which the dust has not yet worked its magic. Well, I believe the best fairy dust would be the dust that eliminated the inborn propensity toward violence among human beings. Without violence, there'd be no need for any weapons, other than to work on tighter groups in competition. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #35 September 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteI live in Chicago - one of the murder capitals of the world and I have never needed a gun for self defense. Yet another fine example of how draconian gun control laws do nothing to effect crime, other than promote their rates. If I am not mistaken, gun deaths in this city have gone down while the ban was in effect. And if I am not mistaken, I've pointed out that I very much alive and have never needed to use a gun to defend myself. Gun deaths have gone down steadily in this country since even before the '94 ban went into effect! So it's quite possible that they went down in Chicago as part of the overall decline. It's also very likely that they did not go down nearly as much as in those places where concealed firearm carry is permitted, since it has been shown in repeated studies that concealed carry has helped control crime. Your city's gun bans may well have precluded the drop in gun crime from being more significant. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #36 September 14, 2004 QuoteYou are not comparing apples to apples, if you say that to get rid of guns to stop murder is appropriate (despite admitting that someone has to be the criminal and pull the trigger) but NOT to stop skydiving in order to stop skydiving deaths from occurring. I consider my firearm to be my real-life AAD. Not something I would rely on, but it might certainly save my life someday, as it has for millions of others. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #37 September 14, 2004 Hey, I've been wondering for a while now... Do tigers even live in caves? Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #38 September 14, 2004 QuoteAnd if your example was going to be at all consistent, you would draw the parallel or "removing skydiving" (either by prohibiting it or just not engaging in it) in order to reign in the danger it poses. - That happens all the time. I don't need to consider it because local governments do, lawyers, etc. If you spend more time in this sport you will hear this option brought up. In fact, we were not sure if GA was going to fly again after 9/11. Like I said, I've heard all the arguments before. I don't see the need for conceal and carry or the need for assault rifles. All I need is some cowboy to start shooting cars on the tollway because the line for the manual booth is taking too long. BTW - my uncle would never have had a chance to pull his gun out or shoot because he was shot in the back by someone he had never met before in his entire life. You see reasons for it, I see reasons not for it. Lets agree to disagree because I have no desire to argue this point for dozen more posts._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #39 September 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteAnd if your example was going to be at all consistent, you would draw the parallel or "removing skydiving" (either by prohibiting it or just not engaging in it) in order to reign in the danger it poses. - That happens all the time. I don't need to consider it because local governments do, lawyers, etc. If you spend more time in this sport you will hear this option brought up. In fact, we were not sure if GA was going to fly again after 9/11. There was not a chance in hell that something as huge as GA was "never going to fly again," and for anyone who is reasonable to suggest or claim a belief that it looked like it would not is absurd. It's almost like saying that a bad enough highway pileup would bring about the end of automobile travel. QuoteLike I said, I've heard all the arguments before. I don't see the need for conceal and carry or the need for assault rifles. All I need is some cowboy to start shooting cars on the tollway because the line for the manual booth is taking too long. If this is the extent to which you trust your fellow human beings, then I don't blame you. But the fact that 36 states now have concealed carry laws in place and STILL your little nightmare scenario is a statistical non-event, people like you go about claiming that gun bans are your best means of preempting such anomalies from killing you. Your example is absolutely ridiculous, an example of the desperation to which anti-gunners (and you qualify as one, despite your claims of enjoying target shooting and having a FOID) will go to "show" how dangerous gun ownership is. Crime rates have gone down to a 30-year low despite that we have 36 states allowing background-checked people to carry guns on their persons. How do you possibly account for that? How, if anything you fear is true (tollway shooters and whatnot), could we possibly have crime and murder going down as millions more people come to own and carry millions more guns? QuoteYou see reasons for it, I see reasons not for it. Lets agree to disagree because I have no desire to argue this point for dozen more posts. All I'm saying is, the reason you and other anti-gunners offer NEVER add up -- NEVER -- and never survive scrutiny without being totally disproven and shredded in a logical sense. Anti-gunism cannot survive without parroting lies. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #40 September 14, 2004 QuoteLike I said, I've heard all the arguments before. I don't see the need for conceal and carry or the need for assault rifles. There are women who have saved their own lives from rapists, muggers and murderers because they had a gun. They might take issue with your claim that there is "no need" for concealed carry. They are here to raise their children because of their guns, in some cases. Maybe you could poll the children about the "need" for their mother to have that lifesaving gun at that critical moment. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #41 September 14, 2004 QuoteThere was not a chance in hell that something as huge as GA was "never going to fly again," and for anyone who is reasonable to suggest or claim a belief that it looked like it would not is absurd. It's almost like saying that a bad enough highway pileup would bring about the end of automobile travel. You have a short term memory. AOPA and a few others had to prevent certain new rules and laws from going into effect that would have shut down every unfenced, un guarded, no tower airport. There was talk of making every flight IFR because VFR flights were considered a threat to national security. Just like politics, I don't fit into a category when it comes to guns. I have my beliefs and like I said before I came to them from a combination of real world experiences and listening to the rhetoric on both sides. I don't support or claim to be a part of either side and the tactics both use are embarrising. BTW - take a look at Ireland. How many gun deaths do they have there a year? Same goes for the UK. There are models that work and have a proven track record. As far as my trust about my fellow humans? Spend some time at Juvi Hall counseling kids. I've mentioned it on here a bunch of times but talking to kids that shot a family member because "they pissed me off" does wonders for your spirit. And if I am not mistaken, wasn't there quite a few of expressway shootings in LA for a while?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #42 September 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteLike I said, I've heard all the arguments before. I don't see the need for conceal and carry or the need for assault rifles. There are women who have saved their own lives from rapists, muggers and murderers because they had a gun. They might take issue with your claim that there is "no need" for concealed carry. They are here to raise their children because of their guns, in some cases. Maybe you could poll the children about the "need" for their mother to have that lifesaving gun at that critical moment. Blue skies, -Jeffrey - You are repeating your arguments and I said I had heard this one. I believe there are other ways to solve these issues. But you would not like my way of doing things and I have no say in the matter anyhow - so who cares?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #43 September 14, 2004 QuoteBTW - take a look at Ireland. How many gun deaths do they have there a year? Same goes for the UK. There are models that work and have a proven track record. You must not have been paying attention to any of the gun-threads in this forum for the last three months or so. We have dealt repeatedly with the failure of gun control in Britain. Since their gun ban went into effect in 1997, their gun crime rate has had triple-digit increases -- about 40% per year, by many estimates. Besides, the defenders of that ban here on this forum -- Brits themselves -- have repeatedly insisted that WE should not claim that GUN OWNERSHIP FOR SELF DEFENSE should be engaged over there because what works for one country won't necessarily work for the other. So you're arguing against the very insistence made by the people in the country you're saying we should emulate. They say that gun ownership would be a disaster over there, and even concede that gun banning probably would not help over here. QuoteAs far as my trust about my fellow humans? Spend some time at Juvi Hall counseling kids. I've mentioned it on here a bunch of times but talking to kids that shot a family member because "they pissed me off" does wonders for your spirit. And if I am not mistaken, wasn't there quite a few of expressway shootings in LA for a while? I never said that there were not the various hopeless cases in society. People who would shoot anyone just because "they pissed me off" should be removed from society in one way or another. Care to explain why I should not be able to carry a gun to defend myself against such people, who may decide that I "pissed them off"? And if you want to try to stay with me, here, when did California pass "shall-issue concealed carry permit laws" which would make what happens in L.A. relevant to our discussion? If there were freeway shootings happening in L.A. in recent memory, it sure as hell was not being committed by people with permits to carry their guns! I continue to believe that you do not involve a lot of factual information in the way you draw your conclusions and form your opinions and position on guns and gun ownership. Blue skies, -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #44 September 14, 2004 QuoteYou are repeating your arguments and I said I had heard this one. I believe there are other ways to solve these issues. But you would not like my way of doing things and I have no say in the matter anyhow - so who cares? Who cares? The people who are trying to keep a right that people who feel the way you feel about it are constantly trying to take away from us forever. What "other way to solve these issues" is going to stop a woman tomorrow from getting raped and strangled in an empty parking lot, or her one-bedroom apartment? Social programs, education funding, blah blah blah do not help anyone in the here and now, nor can they be expected to eliminate 100% of the rapists and murderers from the population, so there will always be people who might come down to the nitty-gritty of needing a gun or other weapon to defend themselves and save their own lives. You know, saying "I've read this before" does not actually refute anything I've said. Just waving your hand and saying, "Yeah yeah" and dismissing a valid argument is not equivalent of stating cogent arguments that contradict mine. -Jeffrey --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #45 September 14, 2004 Quote Like I said, I've heard all the arguments before. I don't see the need for conceal and carry or the need for assault rifles. All I need is some cowboy to start shooting cars on the tollway because the line for the manual booth is taking too long. CCWs don't change the risk of this sort of public shooting one bit. The difference is that someone would shoot back. BTW, shooting cars in *front* of you in a queue doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense, does it? You made a reference to CA shootings. Sad to tell you, that was a media event in search of news, just as the wave of reportings of pit bull attacks comes and goes. That summer was a light one for such shootings, in spite of the fact that we are not allowed to carry loaded weapons in our cars. But let's go back to the main topic, the AWB sunset. Any objective viewing of it proves it to be merely a symbolic act. Few weapons were covered, and restricting new, legal magazines to 10 rounds does not to stop mass shootings. One can reload a semi automatic pistol in a second or two. The law changed nothing about the criminals' ability to kill [each] others and the actual crime statistics show that. Generously rounding up you might get to 10%. The law's only potential value was as a stepping stone to a larger ban. BTW, anyone know how the sunset provision got added? Ingenious - we'll have before, during, and after statistics. Though the timing of the ban during a nice business cycle should have HCI number crunchers getting their lies ready. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
