CornishChris 5 #51 September 23, 2004 Man, it is refrershing to see another gun thread. Its been about 2 weeks since the last one was locked. I look forward to seeing this one progress into both sides agreeing to disagree. CJP Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #52 September 23, 2004 Quote Do not take it too serious, guy. You are not a fool. You surely know where to draw a line and when words just "sound" ridiculous. And yes, I know when disputes are starting to become hot. It's always mutual. Look forward to present thread! I better get under the table for cover. QuoteNight. Night Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites christelsabine 1 #53 September 23, 2004 QuoteMan, it is refrershing to see another gun thread. Its been about 2 weeks since the last one was locked. I look forward to seeing this one progress into both sides agreeing to disagree Oh dear, how I love to laugh .... JohnRich, it's up to you now! I will give my very best to not reply on such a rare gun thread! dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #54 September 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteYou know, with great power comes great responsability, and there is many people out there who i don´t think are responsible enough to own a firearm. And a lot of 16 year olds aren't responsible enough to own cars, but we don't raise the driving age to 18 or 21 or 25 because of a few bad apples. Because of the historically high death rates, many states have raised or changed the equation for minors. In California, you initially have a restricted license - daytime only, and no other teens in the car. This was started sometime in the 90s. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites christelsabine 1 #55 September 23, 2004 Quote I better get under the table for cover. That's where you will find me, Senor! dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #56 September 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteIf the gun wasn't within arm's reach, then NO, having one would not have saved her life. LOL ... that's twice this week where I proclaim that ... Kelly wins ... How many gun owners have their gun on them 24/7 ready to defend themselves in the very instant that it may be needed? Someone worried about her EX/SO would. But a homeowner at night, probably not. I think the chances these peoplpe could have saved her is low, though at least non zero. They would have had to assess the situation, made a quick decision, get armed, get out there in a prudent yet theatening manner to the killer, and still hope he doesn't shoot the woman right before running off into the night. (Bill, it's unlikely he'd opt for a shootout) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kaerock 1 #57 September 24, 2004 As for the second amendment I never suggested changing anything about it. I suggested on focusing resources to a more effective solution. I do not consider more police a solution, nor safer in any regard, to the contrary actually. I am a firm supporter of the second amendment solely for that reason. I also am a firm believer in nurture over nature and I think there is no need for genetic modification in order to socialize people I think it can be done in the environment. I understand that often times mental illness is physical...hence the need for more health care and mental health care working on solutions rather than alleviating symptoms. Everything else can be boiled down to being considerate of others and raising children to be better people. This can be done starting with more education, jobs, social programs, social awareness and compassion. This is a complicated problem and can't really be summarized in a few paragraphs by a layman. -R Quote>Precious energy spent on touting your right to bear arms could be better > spent fixing the problems in this society that would give people a reason > to need to protect themselves. As we have the second amendment here that says we have that right, your choice is to spend energy and time getting it changed, or leave it alone and spend that extra energy making people safer in other ways (increased police presence etc.) >Someone locking themselves up in their house with their cache of > firepower makes them a nut job, part of the problem, they probably > could've benefited from that lobbying for more mental health care. Well, no, they're no more of a problem than someone who locks themselves up with their model rockets or their street rods. If you want to come and _make_ them into a problem, that's one thing - but then it's you causing the problem, not them. >Eliminate the things that cause crime, then you can live life not in fear of crime. You can definitely eliminate some of those things, but then again, some people are just nuts and/or evil. And unless you plan to genetically engineer a superior race of people, they will always be with us. You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,119 #58 September 24, 2004 >I do not consider more police a solution, nor safer in any regard, to >the contrary actually. Adding police causes crime? Hmm. Would you advocate removing police from crime-ridden areas as a cure? >I also am a firm believer in nurture over nature and I think there is > no need for genetic modification in order to socialize people I think > it can be done in the environment. I think a lot can be done in that direction, but as has been shown many times, you can't solve all society's problems that way. >I understand that often times mental illness is physical...hence the > need for more health care and mental health care working on > solutions rather than alleviating symptoms. I agree there, but you can't always solve the problem; sometimes enforecement of laws is needed to prevent crime rather than "repairing" or preventing criminals to begin with. To make a comparison to cancer - we should keep working on a cure, but in the meantime surgery and chemotherapy, as imperfect and dangerous as they are, are important. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #59 September 24, 2004 QuoteHow is it to always be scared of the people? Don´t you get tired of thinking that maybe you will be the next one murdered? Why do you skydive? aren´t you afraid to be the next one with a double mal? Do you have so many enemies? I don't have enemies. But there are people out there in the world's population who would take an opportunity to take from me what is mine, up to and including my life. When I am able to be armed, the total set of people I do need to "fear" is smaller than the set of people I need to fear when I am disarmed. That much is truth. -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 #60 September 24, 2004 QuoteDunno, maybe, maybe not, it depends on the time frame between the lass knocking on the door, and her ultimate demise. "They probably stood there, frozen, until he stormed away leaving his dead girlfriend on the ground in her own blood." Maybe someone should sue this couple for not owning a gun that might have resulted in the prevention of this killing? Well, you have Kennesaw, Georgia, where households are required by town ordinance to have at least one gun. See, if you have a gun, and it can be useful, you have the option of using it or not, depending on circumstances. If you don't have a gun, you don't have the option of using it if it would be useful or not using it if it would serve no purpose. All you have the option of doing is not using the gun that you don't have. It seems silly to deliberately limit one's options. -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 #61 September 24, 2004 QuoteQuote QuoteDon't you get tired of not being prepared and then becoming the next victum? Actually no, because although i have been robbed several times, there has not been any situation that a gun would have helped me more than my legs. I see. So you have no problem escaping and leaving the person who robbed you emboldened and able to rob the next person like you? QuoteQuoteDo you realize that you have a lot of enemies and they don't even know you, they're complete strangers that want to do harm to you just to get what you own? No, they want to get what i own, the harm part is a supposition of yours. Given the option beetwen losing my wallet, my watch, and my shoes or having to pull out a gun, and kill someone, i prefer to loose just money. If someone attempt to rob me, and i cannot beat the crap out of him for whatever reason, i will give him my personal belongings and call the police. Don't you realize that you have to count on the "better nature" of a person who just robbed you to even LET you leave with your safety, sans your money and jewelry? That's more than I'm willing to count on, given that the person showed just how civil and righteous he is by just having robbed me... QuoteI now that you are pro-gun, do you carry a loaded weapon close to you 24/7 just in case? Do you carry it everywhere risking to loose it? because if not, what good would it make a gun if you leave it at home and you get robbed in the street? Yes, I do keep it near me just about 24/7. Strange things can happen. Someone you were completely unaware of was even casing your house ("casing" means keeping an eye on it for the purpose of determining if it's worth attempting a crime there) might one day come busting your door in. If you have nothing to defend yourself with, what will you do but suffer whatever he wants to do to you? I don't worry about LOSING my gun because I'm not an IDIOT. I'm a responsible person who is fully capable of keeping tabs on my firearm. I've done so for 11 years. QuoteIMO to have a gun for self defence is a commitment and respnsability to great for just what ifs. I don't share your feelings about that, not even one iota. It's not such a great responsibility -- not such a tremendous burden -- that you don't get accustomed to it and learn to handle it very well. In contrast, the alternative -- not having a gun for defense when your life is on the line -- is the cost that truly is too great to bear. All it takes is one...serious... "what if." -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 #62 September 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteHow is it to always be scared of the people? Hmmm. You mean scared of them enough not to trust them with firearms? i am not so scared of armed people to also buy a gun to try to defend myself, if that is what you mean. That is not what he meant. You express that you think we gun owners are scared of the people in the world. He was expressing that you who don't like people owning guns are scared of letting good people own guns for fear of what they might do. The only thing you have to fear from someone like me who owns a gun is what I would do to you if you ever attempted to commit a crime against me. The solution for your safety is simple: don't be a criminal, and people like me won't hurt you in our own defense! We are harmless unless threatened. QuoteYou know, with great power comes great responsability, and there is many people out there who i don´t think are responsible enough to own a firearm. A DZ.commer threated me once to shoot me, go figure!!!! People send bombs in the mail, too. I guess we should forbid everyone from using the mail, because some are not up to the responsibility? A threat like that is a crime. If he came for you one day, and had a gun, do you think you are better served by NOT having one of your own? You'd prefer to limit yourself to fighting him and his gun by using a golf club, a cricket bat, a fireplace poker, what? -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 #63 September 24, 2004 QuoteDo you think it's a better use of time preparing to become the next victim than to actually try to fix the reason you might ever be a victim at all? Precious energy spent on touting your right to bear arms could be better spent fixing the problems in this society that would give people a reason to need to protect themselves. You make the mistake of thinking that having a gun for protection against those elements of society that "social outreach" has not yet fixed is somehow exclusive to working toward the fixes you mention. Even if we reached that point, where jobs and education are so wonderful, you believe that there could then never be the aberrant psychotic, or just greedy malcontent, who is looking for the even easier way to wealth? How does your pie-in-the-sky touchy-feely approach help us in the now? (even if it could help is in the later) -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 #64 September 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteI've seen too many punks pulling knives and shit on people to get what they want. I've even had a gun pulled on me before. I've had enough experience to know that in that situation, my life is worth more then theirs. Someone comes after me, my life is in danger as well as possibly my fiance's life, thus the perp's life is now in severe danger (it is if I'm armed or not). I'm 3 times older than you and I've worked on the south side of Chicago for longer than you've been alive, and this has not happened to me - ever. Maybe you need a change of lifestyle rather than a gun. Maybe -- just maybe it is arrogant and presumptuous for you to suggest that YOUR lifestyle -- the one that kept you from being robbed or otherwise victimized for so long -- is NOT THE ONE FOR EVERYONE ELSE. Are you really so arrogant to suggest that the way Dave has lived his life has been so wrong, and that if he had just... been... more... like... YOU... he would not have ever been threatened? You don't believe that random crime can happen to random people at random times? I could find you news articles from here in Palm Beach County where people have been robbed and killed in upscale gated communities where the homes go for $800k! But MAN, your post stinks of arrogance! -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 #65 September 24, 2004 QuoteDo you have a gun on your person at all times? If not, (like I wouldn't, if I owned one-- I'm not gonna carry it in my purse) I seriously doubt it would help. If the gun wasn't within arm's reach, then NO, having one would not have saved her life. It doesn't take long for someone to shoot someone else. I doubt he stood over her, fired one shot, waited five minutes and fired another, giving them time to run upstairs to get their gun (if they had one). Did you even read the article? They heard a woman approaching their house, screaming for help. Me, I would have gone downstairs, already on the cellular phone for the police, with a loaded gun in the other hand. If I had seen the guy approaching the girl with a gun in his hand, as she stood on my stoop, I'd have shot him. If I had seen the guy shoot her once in the back, and proceed to close the distance to her so that he could fire the additional shots, I'd have shot him. Your flawed assumption is that an armed homeowner would have come to the front door and opened it but left the firearm upstairs! What kind of sense does that make? My question pertained to, "What if the homeowner couple had been armed AT THE DOOR?" I think that should have been clear, but you seem to want to ignore it. -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 #66 September 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteIf the gun wasn't within arm's reach, then NO, having one would not have saved her life. LOL ... that's twice this week where I proclaim that ... Kelly wins ... How many gun owners have their gun on them 24/7 ready to defend themselves in the very instant that it may be needed? But I ask you, why do you assume that every circumstance of potential defensive gun use would involve a quick-draw competition? If I have my Glock in a shoulder bag on my passenger seat, and am accosted in a road rage incident, or bump-and-rob, where my car is boxed in and several perps approach my locked doors/closed windows, I would have opportunity to access my gun even if it's in the zipped bag. Likewise, if I were to hear pounding at my front door, and attempts made to batter it in, since my gun is within arm's reach at home, I can easily get to it and to my cellular phone, just in case the attempts to gain illicit entry are successful and I end up in a fight for my life against, say, a trio of thugs with bats, knives, and maybe even guns. (They tend to like to shoot inaccurately with their guns held in the "cool" sideways grip, so my years of practice might just pay off even IF the attackers have guns too.) -Jeffrey QuotePS: Please keep me out of the inevitable gun versus gun control flaming that I know some people would love to throw at me. I just wanted to respond to Kelly's ever so rational response. Kelly's response was not really that rational. It made illogical suppositions and left out a lot of stuff.-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 Jimbo 0 #67 September 24, 2004 QuoteIMO to have a gun for self defence is a commitment and respnsability to great for just what ifs. How do you feel about the police carrying firearms? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #68 September 24, 2004 QuoteQuote I'm 3 times older than you and I've worked on the south side of Chicago for longer than you've been alive, and this has not happened to me - ever. Quote For those that don't know - his job is pretty much in the middle of the projects, and is one of the highest crime areas of the city. I had a friend from HS that was shot to death in his car about two blocks from John's school. Sheeez, if the "Projects" are so darned safe, I think we should start saving the money we've been spending for all the COPS who work there to have guns! It's so obvious they don't need them! Just go in with a smile and pleasant attitude, and the criminals will treat you nice and never stop, rob, rape or kill you. It's worked for kallend, after all! -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 #69 September 24, 2004 Quote Sheeez, if the "Projects" are so darned safe, I think we should start saving the money we've been spending for all the COPS who work there to have guns! It's so obvious they don't need them! Just go in with a smile and pleasant attitude, and the criminals will treat you nice and never stop, rob, rape or kill you. It's worked for kallend, after all! -Jeffrey No, they are not safe. I just spent the last year working across the side street from Cabrini Green. In college I spent two summers living in the area of the projects doing inner city social volunteer work and avoided gunfire on a few occasions. We didn't have the option to stay at the building we were working at because it was robbed EVERY day and the cops suggested it was safer to not spend the night there. I've got quite a few stories from working in and around those areas...and I have gone up into the "reds" .....and the place I stayes was only a short walk from the corner known as "buckets of blood".... Ever been in the projects? From what I witnessed, most crimes were instant - happened before you knew what was going on - you were ambushed or a car drove up and you got shot at. I don't think in any of those cases that having a gun would have scared them away from you or given you a chance at self defense._________________________________________ 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 #70 September 24, 2004 Quote>Precious energy spent on touting your right to bear arms could be better > spent fixing the problems in this society that would give people a reason > to need to protect themselves. As we have the second amendment here that says we have that right, your choice is to spend energy and time getting it changed, or leave it alone and spend that extra energy making people safer in other ways (increased police presence etc.) This is the big joke. "Increased police presence." This is going to save lives? Unless you increased police presence to that no single cop was ever so far from any other single cop that he could not make eye contact, just how would this stop crime? Do you propose to issue police officer protection on a one-to-one basis with the civlian population? We each get a cop bodyguard? Even if there were one cop on every corner of every block in New York City, plus one on every floor of every building, plus one on every car of every subway train, people who wish to commit crimes could still commit them. All the "increased police presence" would accomplish would be a quicker response to possibly apprehend the suspect, and possibly save the life of the victim. But "increased police presence" as a means to PREVENT crime is a joke, bill. A really bad joke -- worse because it makes people complacent in the belief that they don't need to be responsible for their own safety, and that ends up costing lives when the bitter truth reveals itself in the heat of a criminal act. Quote>Someone locking themselves up in their house with their cache of > firepower makes them a nut job, part of the problem, they probably > could've benefited from that lobbying for more mental health care. Well, no, they're no more of a problem than someone who locks themselves up with their model rockets or their street rods. If you want to come and _make_ them into a problem, that's one thing - but then it's you causing the problem, not them. Agreed. Quote>Eliminate the things that cause crime, then you can live life not in fear of crime. You can definitely eliminate some of those things, but then again, some people are just nuts and/or evil. And unless you plan to genetically engineer a superior race of people, they will always be with us. Very good point. I think that kaerock's proposals were a lot of mumbojumbo that look good on paper, and could work if sustained efforts were made for thousands of years to drum the evil intent out of certain elements of our society -- oh wait, we've been trying that... -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 vmsfreaky1 0 #71 September 24, 2004 Its called paranoia. They get it from the crystal meth in the water supply, the UN has been doing it for years, the sneaky sneaky UN. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #72 September 24, 2004 QuoteAlso not correct . . . in GA, the driving age is going up slowly, and the laws are getting much more strict. Because cars kill people. Note: just arguing the point. The jury's still out on how I feel about guns and gun control. I guess all it might take is to be accosted and threatened by someone with a gun in a place where they're supposed to be banned. Say... New York City, Chicago, Washington D.C., England, Australia, Jamaica, Mexico... It'd be easy to see the failure of the gun control that kept YOU from owning a gun. I hope it never happens to you; but realizing that it easily could might be a step toward protecting yourself from having it happen and finding yourself without the means of defense. Do you feel confident enough in your hand-to-hand self defense skills to handle three aggressive jerks who might plan to rape you in a parking lot? This seems like the classic scenario for a woman to contemplate the effectiveness of her rape whistle or her pepper spray. I personally think that they just don't cut it; that there easily could arise a circumstance where a gun is the only self defense device/option that is going to get you through intact. -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 #73 September 24, 2004 Quote>How effective is that? People without licenses never drive? There aren't any >unregistered vehicles on the road? I wasn't saying it was a good idea. I was saying that comparing guns to cars is a bad comparison, because cars involve licenses/registrations and guns (usually) don't. Kev's point seems to be that cars might as well not be licensed and registered, for all the good they do in keeping the wrong people from driving. Raising the idea of fighting gun crime through licensing and registration "because we license and register drivers and cars" is rather absurd. And gun-control people still do it. Imagine that. -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 #74 September 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteCould a homeowner's gun have saved this woman's life? When we become psychic we'll know. Otherwise it's pure speculation. Boy, the anti-gunners here sure seemed confident when they said they doubted it would have made a difference! I guess their psychic abilities are just more honed than ours are. Or is it just more reasonable to speculate in one direction of neutral than the other? P.S. Check the thread title: I was asking for speculation! -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 billvon 3,119 #75 September 24, 2004 >This is the big joke. "Increased police presence." This is going to save lives? It will decrease crime. It won't solve it. It's a partial deterrent, like a gun. >But "increased police presence" as a means to PREVENT crime is a > joke, bill. It does prevent crime. Police take an active role in stopping crime; that's sort of their job. Same thing with firemen, or EMT's, or dog catchers. Remove most of the firemen from a town and see if fires become more or less destructive. > A really bad joke -- worse because it makes people complacent in > the belief that they don't need to be responsible for their own > safety, and that ends up costing lives when the bitter truth reveals > itself in the heat of a criminal act. Interesting, since I often see people's belief that a gun absolves them from the responsibility of avoiding threats in the same light. If a gun is a backup to your common sense, great. If it makes the owner think they do not need to avoid bad areas, or that they should not flee danger, or that they are safer - it makes them more, rather than less, prone to being victims. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 3 of 7 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
christelsabine 1 #53 September 23, 2004 QuoteMan, it is refrershing to see another gun thread. Its been about 2 weeks since the last one was locked. I look forward to seeing this one progress into both sides agreeing to disagree Oh dear, how I love to laugh .... JohnRich, it's up to you now! I will give my very best to not reply on such a rare gun thread! dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #54 September 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteYou know, with great power comes great responsability, and there is many people out there who i don´t think are responsible enough to own a firearm. And a lot of 16 year olds aren't responsible enough to own cars, but we don't raise the driving age to 18 or 21 or 25 because of a few bad apples. Because of the historically high death rates, many states have raised or changed the equation for minors. In California, you initially have a restricted license - daytime only, and no other teens in the car. This was started sometime in the 90s. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #55 September 23, 2004 Quote I better get under the table for cover. That's where you will find me, Senor! dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #56 September 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteIf the gun wasn't within arm's reach, then NO, having one would not have saved her life. LOL ... that's twice this week where I proclaim that ... Kelly wins ... How many gun owners have their gun on them 24/7 ready to defend themselves in the very instant that it may be needed? Someone worried about her EX/SO would. But a homeowner at night, probably not. I think the chances these peoplpe could have saved her is low, though at least non zero. They would have had to assess the situation, made a quick decision, get armed, get out there in a prudent yet theatening manner to the killer, and still hope he doesn't shoot the woman right before running off into the night. (Bill, it's unlikely he'd opt for a shootout) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kaerock 1 #57 September 24, 2004 As for the second amendment I never suggested changing anything about it. I suggested on focusing resources to a more effective solution. I do not consider more police a solution, nor safer in any regard, to the contrary actually. I am a firm supporter of the second amendment solely for that reason. I also am a firm believer in nurture over nature and I think there is no need for genetic modification in order to socialize people I think it can be done in the environment. I understand that often times mental illness is physical...hence the need for more health care and mental health care working on solutions rather than alleviating symptoms. Everything else can be boiled down to being considerate of others and raising children to be better people. This can be done starting with more education, jobs, social programs, social awareness and compassion. This is a complicated problem and can't really be summarized in a few paragraphs by a layman. -R Quote>Precious energy spent on touting your right to bear arms could be better > spent fixing the problems in this society that would give people a reason > to need to protect themselves. As we have the second amendment here that says we have that right, your choice is to spend energy and time getting it changed, or leave it alone and spend that extra energy making people safer in other ways (increased police presence etc.) >Someone locking themselves up in their house with their cache of > firepower makes them a nut job, part of the problem, they probably > could've benefited from that lobbying for more mental health care. Well, no, they're no more of a problem than someone who locks themselves up with their model rockets or their street rods. If you want to come and _make_ them into a problem, that's one thing - but then it's you causing the problem, not them. >Eliminate the things that cause crime, then you can live life not in fear of crime. You can definitely eliminate some of those things, but then again, some people are just nuts and/or evil. And unless you plan to genetically engineer a superior race of people, they will always be with us. You be the king and I'll overthrow your government. --KRS-ONE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #58 September 24, 2004 >I do not consider more police a solution, nor safer in any regard, to >the contrary actually. Adding police causes crime? Hmm. Would you advocate removing police from crime-ridden areas as a cure? >I also am a firm believer in nurture over nature and I think there is > no need for genetic modification in order to socialize people I think > it can be done in the environment. I think a lot can be done in that direction, but as has been shown many times, you can't solve all society's problems that way. >I understand that often times mental illness is physical...hence the > need for more health care and mental health care working on > solutions rather than alleviating symptoms. I agree there, but you can't always solve the problem; sometimes enforecement of laws is needed to prevent crime rather than "repairing" or preventing criminals to begin with. To make a comparison to cancer - we should keep working on a cure, but in the meantime surgery and chemotherapy, as imperfect and dangerous as they are, are important. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #59 September 24, 2004 QuoteHow is it to always be scared of the people? Don´t you get tired of thinking that maybe you will be the next one murdered? Why do you skydive? aren´t you afraid to be the next one with a double mal? Do you have so many enemies? I don't have enemies. But there are people out there in the world's population who would take an opportunity to take from me what is mine, up to and including my life. When I am able to be armed, the total set of people I do need to "fear" is smaller than the set of people I need to fear when I am disarmed. That much is truth. -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 #60 September 24, 2004 QuoteDunno, maybe, maybe not, it depends on the time frame between the lass knocking on the door, and her ultimate demise. "They probably stood there, frozen, until he stormed away leaving his dead girlfriend on the ground in her own blood." Maybe someone should sue this couple for not owning a gun that might have resulted in the prevention of this killing? Well, you have Kennesaw, Georgia, where households are required by town ordinance to have at least one gun. See, if you have a gun, and it can be useful, you have the option of using it or not, depending on circumstances. If you don't have a gun, you don't have the option of using it if it would be useful or not using it if it would serve no purpose. All you have the option of doing is not using the gun that you don't have. It seems silly to deliberately limit one's options. -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 #61 September 24, 2004 QuoteQuote QuoteDon't you get tired of not being prepared and then becoming the next victum? Actually no, because although i have been robbed several times, there has not been any situation that a gun would have helped me more than my legs. I see. So you have no problem escaping and leaving the person who robbed you emboldened and able to rob the next person like you? QuoteQuoteDo you realize that you have a lot of enemies and they don't even know you, they're complete strangers that want to do harm to you just to get what you own? No, they want to get what i own, the harm part is a supposition of yours. Given the option beetwen losing my wallet, my watch, and my shoes or having to pull out a gun, and kill someone, i prefer to loose just money. If someone attempt to rob me, and i cannot beat the crap out of him for whatever reason, i will give him my personal belongings and call the police. Don't you realize that you have to count on the "better nature" of a person who just robbed you to even LET you leave with your safety, sans your money and jewelry? That's more than I'm willing to count on, given that the person showed just how civil and righteous he is by just having robbed me... QuoteI now that you are pro-gun, do you carry a loaded weapon close to you 24/7 just in case? Do you carry it everywhere risking to loose it? because if not, what good would it make a gun if you leave it at home and you get robbed in the street? Yes, I do keep it near me just about 24/7. Strange things can happen. Someone you were completely unaware of was even casing your house ("casing" means keeping an eye on it for the purpose of determining if it's worth attempting a crime there) might one day come busting your door in. If you have nothing to defend yourself with, what will you do but suffer whatever he wants to do to you? I don't worry about LOSING my gun because I'm not an IDIOT. I'm a responsible person who is fully capable of keeping tabs on my firearm. I've done so for 11 years. QuoteIMO to have a gun for self defence is a commitment and respnsability to great for just what ifs. I don't share your feelings about that, not even one iota. It's not such a great responsibility -- not such a tremendous burden -- that you don't get accustomed to it and learn to handle it very well. In contrast, the alternative -- not having a gun for defense when your life is on the line -- is the cost that truly is too great to bear. All it takes is one...serious... "what if." -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 #62 September 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteHow is it to always be scared of the people? Hmmm. You mean scared of them enough not to trust them with firearms? i am not so scared of armed people to also buy a gun to try to defend myself, if that is what you mean. That is not what he meant. You express that you think we gun owners are scared of the people in the world. He was expressing that you who don't like people owning guns are scared of letting good people own guns for fear of what they might do. The only thing you have to fear from someone like me who owns a gun is what I would do to you if you ever attempted to commit a crime against me. The solution for your safety is simple: don't be a criminal, and people like me won't hurt you in our own defense! We are harmless unless threatened. QuoteYou know, with great power comes great responsability, and there is many people out there who i don´t think are responsible enough to own a firearm. A DZ.commer threated me once to shoot me, go figure!!!! People send bombs in the mail, too. I guess we should forbid everyone from using the mail, because some are not up to the responsibility? A threat like that is a crime. If he came for you one day, and had a gun, do you think you are better served by NOT having one of your own? You'd prefer to limit yourself to fighting him and his gun by using a golf club, a cricket bat, a fireplace poker, what? -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 #63 September 24, 2004 QuoteDo you think it's a better use of time preparing to become the next victim than to actually try to fix the reason you might ever be a victim at all? Precious energy spent on touting your right to bear arms could be better spent fixing the problems in this society that would give people a reason to need to protect themselves. You make the mistake of thinking that having a gun for protection against those elements of society that "social outreach" has not yet fixed is somehow exclusive to working toward the fixes you mention. Even if we reached that point, where jobs and education are so wonderful, you believe that there could then never be the aberrant psychotic, or just greedy malcontent, who is looking for the even easier way to wealth? How does your pie-in-the-sky touchy-feely approach help us in the now? (even if it could help is in the later) -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 #64 September 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteI've seen too many punks pulling knives and shit on people to get what they want. I've even had a gun pulled on me before. I've had enough experience to know that in that situation, my life is worth more then theirs. Someone comes after me, my life is in danger as well as possibly my fiance's life, thus the perp's life is now in severe danger (it is if I'm armed or not). I'm 3 times older than you and I've worked on the south side of Chicago for longer than you've been alive, and this has not happened to me - ever. Maybe you need a change of lifestyle rather than a gun. Maybe -- just maybe it is arrogant and presumptuous for you to suggest that YOUR lifestyle -- the one that kept you from being robbed or otherwise victimized for so long -- is NOT THE ONE FOR EVERYONE ELSE. Are you really so arrogant to suggest that the way Dave has lived his life has been so wrong, and that if he had just... been... more... like... YOU... he would not have ever been threatened? You don't believe that random crime can happen to random people at random times? I could find you news articles from here in Palm Beach County where people have been robbed and killed in upscale gated communities where the homes go for $800k! But MAN, your post stinks of arrogance! -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 #65 September 24, 2004 QuoteDo you have a gun on your person at all times? If not, (like I wouldn't, if I owned one-- I'm not gonna carry it in my purse) I seriously doubt it would help. If the gun wasn't within arm's reach, then NO, having one would not have saved her life. It doesn't take long for someone to shoot someone else. I doubt he stood over her, fired one shot, waited five minutes and fired another, giving them time to run upstairs to get their gun (if they had one). Did you even read the article? They heard a woman approaching their house, screaming for help. Me, I would have gone downstairs, already on the cellular phone for the police, with a loaded gun in the other hand. If I had seen the guy approaching the girl with a gun in his hand, as she stood on my stoop, I'd have shot him. If I had seen the guy shoot her once in the back, and proceed to close the distance to her so that he could fire the additional shots, I'd have shot him. Your flawed assumption is that an armed homeowner would have come to the front door and opened it but left the firearm upstairs! What kind of sense does that make? My question pertained to, "What if the homeowner couple had been armed AT THE DOOR?" I think that should have been clear, but you seem to want to ignore it. -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 #66 September 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteIf the gun wasn't within arm's reach, then NO, having one would not have saved her life. LOL ... that's twice this week where I proclaim that ... Kelly wins ... How many gun owners have their gun on them 24/7 ready to defend themselves in the very instant that it may be needed? But I ask you, why do you assume that every circumstance of potential defensive gun use would involve a quick-draw competition? If I have my Glock in a shoulder bag on my passenger seat, and am accosted in a road rage incident, or bump-and-rob, where my car is boxed in and several perps approach my locked doors/closed windows, I would have opportunity to access my gun even if it's in the zipped bag. Likewise, if I were to hear pounding at my front door, and attempts made to batter it in, since my gun is within arm's reach at home, I can easily get to it and to my cellular phone, just in case the attempts to gain illicit entry are successful and I end up in a fight for my life against, say, a trio of thugs with bats, knives, and maybe even guns. (They tend to like to shoot inaccurately with their guns held in the "cool" sideways grip, so my years of practice might just pay off even IF the attackers have guns too.) -Jeffrey QuotePS: Please keep me out of the inevitable gun versus gun control flaming that I know some people would love to throw at me. I just wanted to respond to Kelly's ever so rational response. Kelly's response was not really that rational. It made illogical suppositions and left out a lot of stuff.-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 Jimbo 0 #67 September 24, 2004 QuoteIMO to have a gun for self defence is a commitment and respnsability to great for just what ifs. How do you feel about the police carrying firearms? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #68 September 24, 2004 QuoteQuote I'm 3 times older than you and I've worked on the south side of Chicago for longer than you've been alive, and this has not happened to me - ever. Quote For those that don't know - his job is pretty much in the middle of the projects, and is one of the highest crime areas of the city. I had a friend from HS that was shot to death in his car about two blocks from John's school. Sheeez, if the "Projects" are so darned safe, I think we should start saving the money we've been spending for all the COPS who work there to have guns! It's so obvious they don't need them! Just go in with a smile and pleasant attitude, and the criminals will treat you nice and never stop, rob, rape or kill you. It's worked for kallend, after all! -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 #69 September 24, 2004 Quote Sheeez, if the "Projects" are so darned safe, I think we should start saving the money we've been spending for all the COPS who work there to have guns! It's so obvious they don't need them! Just go in with a smile and pleasant attitude, and the criminals will treat you nice and never stop, rob, rape or kill you. It's worked for kallend, after all! -Jeffrey No, they are not safe. I just spent the last year working across the side street from Cabrini Green. In college I spent two summers living in the area of the projects doing inner city social volunteer work and avoided gunfire on a few occasions. We didn't have the option to stay at the building we were working at because it was robbed EVERY day and the cops suggested it was safer to not spend the night there. I've got quite a few stories from working in and around those areas...and I have gone up into the "reds" .....and the place I stayes was only a short walk from the corner known as "buckets of blood".... Ever been in the projects? From what I witnessed, most crimes were instant - happened before you knew what was going on - you were ambushed or a car drove up and you got shot at. I don't think in any of those cases that having a gun would have scared them away from you or given you a chance at self defense._________________________________________ 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 #70 September 24, 2004 Quote>Precious energy spent on touting your right to bear arms could be better > spent fixing the problems in this society that would give people a reason > to need to protect themselves. As we have the second amendment here that says we have that right, your choice is to spend energy and time getting it changed, or leave it alone and spend that extra energy making people safer in other ways (increased police presence etc.) This is the big joke. "Increased police presence." This is going to save lives? Unless you increased police presence to that no single cop was ever so far from any other single cop that he could not make eye contact, just how would this stop crime? Do you propose to issue police officer protection on a one-to-one basis with the civlian population? We each get a cop bodyguard? Even if there were one cop on every corner of every block in New York City, plus one on every floor of every building, plus one on every car of every subway train, people who wish to commit crimes could still commit them. All the "increased police presence" would accomplish would be a quicker response to possibly apprehend the suspect, and possibly save the life of the victim. But "increased police presence" as a means to PREVENT crime is a joke, bill. A really bad joke -- worse because it makes people complacent in the belief that they don't need to be responsible for their own safety, and that ends up costing lives when the bitter truth reveals itself in the heat of a criminal act. Quote>Someone locking themselves up in their house with their cache of > firepower makes them a nut job, part of the problem, they probably > could've benefited from that lobbying for more mental health care. Well, no, they're no more of a problem than someone who locks themselves up with their model rockets or their street rods. If you want to come and _make_ them into a problem, that's one thing - but then it's you causing the problem, not them. Agreed. Quote>Eliminate the things that cause crime, then you can live life not in fear of crime. You can definitely eliminate some of those things, but then again, some people are just nuts and/or evil. And unless you plan to genetically engineer a superior race of people, they will always be with us. Very good point. I think that kaerock's proposals were a lot of mumbojumbo that look good on paper, and could work if sustained efforts were made for thousands of years to drum the evil intent out of certain elements of our society -- oh wait, we've been trying that... -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 vmsfreaky1 0 #71 September 24, 2004 Its called paranoia. They get it from the crystal meth in the water supply, the UN has been doing it for years, the sneaky sneaky UN. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #72 September 24, 2004 QuoteAlso not correct . . . in GA, the driving age is going up slowly, and the laws are getting much more strict. Because cars kill people. Note: just arguing the point. The jury's still out on how I feel about guns and gun control. I guess all it might take is to be accosted and threatened by someone with a gun in a place where they're supposed to be banned. Say... New York City, Chicago, Washington D.C., England, Australia, Jamaica, Mexico... It'd be easy to see the failure of the gun control that kept YOU from owning a gun. I hope it never happens to you; but realizing that it easily could might be a step toward protecting yourself from having it happen and finding yourself without the means of defense. Do you feel confident enough in your hand-to-hand self defense skills to handle three aggressive jerks who might plan to rape you in a parking lot? This seems like the classic scenario for a woman to contemplate the effectiveness of her rape whistle or her pepper spray. I personally think that they just don't cut it; that there easily could arise a circumstance where a gun is the only self defense device/option that is going to get you through intact. -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 #73 September 24, 2004 Quote>How effective is that? People without licenses never drive? There aren't any >unregistered vehicles on the road? I wasn't saying it was a good idea. I was saying that comparing guns to cars is a bad comparison, because cars involve licenses/registrations and guns (usually) don't. Kev's point seems to be that cars might as well not be licensed and registered, for all the good they do in keeping the wrong people from driving. Raising the idea of fighting gun crime through licensing and registration "because we license and register drivers and cars" is rather absurd. And gun-control people still do it. Imagine that. -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 #74 September 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteCould a homeowner's gun have saved this woman's life? When we become psychic we'll know. Otherwise it's pure speculation. Boy, the anti-gunners here sure seemed confident when they said they doubted it would have made a difference! I guess their psychic abilities are just more honed than ours are. Or is it just more reasonable to speculate in one direction of neutral than the other? P.S. Check the thread title: I was asking for speculation! -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 billvon 3,119 #75 September 24, 2004 >This is the big joke. "Increased police presence." This is going to save lives? It will decrease crime. It won't solve it. It's a partial deterrent, like a gun. >But "increased police presence" as a means to PREVENT crime is a > joke, bill. It does prevent crime. Police take an active role in stopping crime; that's sort of their job. Same thing with firemen, or EMT's, or dog catchers. Remove most of the firemen from a town and see if fires become more or less destructive. > A really bad joke -- worse because it makes people complacent in > the belief that they don't need to be responsible for their own > safety, and that ends up costing lives when the bitter truth reveals > itself in the heat of a criminal act. Interesting, since I often see people's belief that a gun absolves them from the responsibility of avoiding threats in the same light. If a gun is a backup to your common sense, great. If it makes the owner think they do not need to avoid bad areas, or that they should not flee danger, or that they are safer - it makes them more, rather than less, prone to being victims. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 3 of 7 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
peacefuljeffrey 0 #62 September 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteHow is it to always be scared of the people? Hmmm. You mean scared of them enough not to trust them with firearms? i am not so scared of armed people to also buy a gun to try to defend myself, if that is what you mean. That is not what he meant. You express that you think we gun owners are scared of the people in the world. He was expressing that you who don't like people owning guns are scared of letting good people own guns for fear of what they might do. The only thing you have to fear from someone like me who owns a gun is what I would do to you if you ever attempted to commit a crime against me. The solution for your safety is simple: don't be a criminal, and people like me won't hurt you in our own defense! We are harmless unless threatened. QuoteYou know, with great power comes great responsability, and there is many people out there who i don´t think are responsible enough to own a firearm. A DZ.commer threated me once to shoot me, go figure!!!! People send bombs in the mail, too. I guess we should forbid everyone from using the mail, because some are not up to the responsibility? A threat like that is a crime. If he came for you one day, and had a gun, do you think you are better served by NOT having one of your own? You'd prefer to limit yourself to fighting him and his gun by using a golf club, a cricket bat, a fireplace poker, what? -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 #63 September 24, 2004 QuoteDo you think it's a better use of time preparing to become the next victim than to actually try to fix the reason you might ever be a victim at all? Precious energy spent on touting your right to bear arms could be better spent fixing the problems in this society that would give people a reason to need to protect themselves. You make the mistake of thinking that having a gun for protection against those elements of society that "social outreach" has not yet fixed is somehow exclusive to working toward the fixes you mention. Even if we reached that point, where jobs and education are so wonderful, you believe that there could then never be the aberrant psychotic, or just greedy malcontent, who is looking for the even easier way to wealth? How does your pie-in-the-sky touchy-feely approach help us in the now? (even if it could help is in the later) -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 #64 September 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteI've seen too many punks pulling knives and shit on people to get what they want. I've even had a gun pulled on me before. I've had enough experience to know that in that situation, my life is worth more then theirs. Someone comes after me, my life is in danger as well as possibly my fiance's life, thus the perp's life is now in severe danger (it is if I'm armed or not). I'm 3 times older than you and I've worked on the south side of Chicago for longer than you've been alive, and this has not happened to me - ever. Maybe you need a change of lifestyle rather than a gun. Maybe -- just maybe it is arrogant and presumptuous for you to suggest that YOUR lifestyle -- the one that kept you from being robbed or otherwise victimized for so long -- is NOT THE ONE FOR EVERYONE ELSE. Are you really so arrogant to suggest that the way Dave has lived his life has been so wrong, and that if he had just... been... more... like... YOU... he would not have ever been threatened? You don't believe that random crime can happen to random people at random times? I could find you news articles from here in Palm Beach County where people have been robbed and killed in upscale gated communities where the homes go for $800k! But MAN, your post stinks of arrogance! -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 #65 September 24, 2004 QuoteDo you have a gun on your person at all times? If not, (like I wouldn't, if I owned one-- I'm not gonna carry it in my purse) I seriously doubt it would help. If the gun wasn't within arm's reach, then NO, having one would not have saved her life. It doesn't take long for someone to shoot someone else. I doubt he stood over her, fired one shot, waited five minutes and fired another, giving them time to run upstairs to get their gun (if they had one). Did you even read the article? They heard a woman approaching their house, screaming for help. Me, I would have gone downstairs, already on the cellular phone for the police, with a loaded gun in the other hand. If I had seen the guy approaching the girl with a gun in his hand, as she stood on my stoop, I'd have shot him. If I had seen the guy shoot her once in the back, and proceed to close the distance to her so that he could fire the additional shots, I'd have shot him. Your flawed assumption is that an armed homeowner would have come to the front door and opened it but left the firearm upstairs! What kind of sense does that make? My question pertained to, "What if the homeowner couple had been armed AT THE DOOR?" I think that should have been clear, but you seem to want to ignore it. -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 #66 September 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteIf the gun wasn't within arm's reach, then NO, having one would not have saved her life. LOL ... that's twice this week where I proclaim that ... Kelly wins ... How many gun owners have their gun on them 24/7 ready to defend themselves in the very instant that it may be needed? But I ask you, why do you assume that every circumstance of potential defensive gun use would involve a quick-draw competition? If I have my Glock in a shoulder bag on my passenger seat, and am accosted in a road rage incident, or bump-and-rob, where my car is boxed in and several perps approach my locked doors/closed windows, I would have opportunity to access my gun even if it's in the zipped bag. Likewise, if I were to hear pounding at my front door, and attempts made to batter it in, since my gun is within arm's reach at home, I can easily get to it and to my cellular phone, just in case the attempts to gain illicit entry are successful and I end up in a fight for my life against, say, a trio of thugs with bats, knives, and maybe even guns. (They tend to like to shoot inaccurately with their guns held in the "cool" sideways grip, so my years of practice might just pay off even IF the attackers have guns too.) -Jeffrey QuotePS: Please keep me out of the inevitable gun versus gun control flaming that I know some people would love to throw at me. I just wanted to respond to Kelly's ever so rational response. Kelly's response was not really that rational. It made illogical suppositions and left out a lot of stuff.-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
Jimbo 0 #67 September 24, 2004 QuoteIMO to have a gun for self defence is a commitment and respnsability to great for just what ifs. How do you feel about the police carrying firearms? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #68 September 24, 2004 QuoteQuote I'm 3 times older than you and I've worked on the south side of Chicago for longer than you've been alive, and this has not happened to me - ever. Quote For those that don't know - his job is pretty much in the middle of the projects, and is one of the highest crime areas of the city. I had a friend from HS that was shot to death in his car about two blocks from John's school. Sheeez, if the "Projects" are so darned safe, I think we should start saving the money we've been spending for all the COPS who work there to have guns! It's so obvious they don't need them! Just go in with a smile and pleasant attitude, and the criminals will treat you nice and never stop, rob, rape or kill you. It's worked for kallend, after all! -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 #69 September 24, 2004 Quote Sheeez, if the "Projects" are so darned safe, I think we should start saving the money we've been spending for all the COPS who work there to have guns! It's so obvious they don't need them! Just go in with a smile and pleasant attitude, and the criminals will treat you nice and never stop, rob, rape or kill you. It's worked for kallend, after all! -Jeffrey No, they are not safe. I just spent the last year working across the side street from Cabrini Green. In college I spent two summers living in the area of the projects doing inner city social volunteer work and avoided gunfire on a few occasions. We didn't have the option to stay at the building we were working at because it was robbed EVERY day and the cops suggested it was safer to not spend the night there. I've got quite a few stories from working in and around those areas...and I have gone up into the "reds" .....and the place I stayes was only a short walk from the corner known as "buckets of blood".... Ever been in the projects? From what I witnessed, most crimes were instant - happened before you knew what was going on - you were ambushed or a car drove up and you got shot at. I don't think in any of those cases that having a gun would have scared them away from you or given you a chance at self defense._________________________________________ 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 #70 September 24, 2004 Quote>Precious energy spent on touting your right to bear arms could be better > spent fixing the problems in this society that would give people a reason > to need to protect themselves. As we have the second amendment here that says we have that right, your choice is to spend energy and time getting it changed, or leave it alone and spend that extra energy making people safer in other ways (increased police presence etc.) This is the big joke. "Increased police presence." This is going to save lives? Unless you increased police presence to that no single cop was ever so far from any other single cop that he could not make eye contact, just how would this stop crime? Do you propose to issue police officer protection on a one-to-one basis with the civlian population? We each get a cop bodyguard? Even if there were one cop on every corner of every block in New York City, plus one on every floor of every building, plus one on every car of every subway train, people who wish to commit crimes could still commit them. All the "increased police presence" would accomplish would be a quicker response to possibly apprehend the suspect, and possibly save the life of the victim. But "increased police presence" as a means to PREVENT crime is a joke, bill. A really bad joke -- worse because it makes people complacent in the belief that they don't need to be responsible for their own safety, and that ends up costing lives when the bitter truth reveals itself in the heat of a criminal act. Quote>Someone locking themselves up in their house with their cache of > firepower makes them a nut job, part of the problem, they probably > could've benefited from that lobbying for more mental health care. Well, no, they're no more of a problem than someone who locks themselves up with their model rockets or their street rods. If you want to come and _make_ them into a problem, that's one thing - but then it's you causing the problem, not them. Agreed. Quote>Eliminate the things that cause crime, then you can live life not in fear of crime. You can definitely eliminate some of those things, but then again, some people are just nuts and/or evil. And unless you plan to genetically engineer a superior race of people, they will always be with us. Very good point. I think that kaerock's proposals were a lot of mumbojumbo that look good on paper, and could work if sustained efforts were made for thousands of years to drum the evil intent out of certain elements of our society -- oh wait, we've been trying that... -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 vmsfreaky1 0 #71 September 24, 2004 Its called paranoia. They get it from the crystal meth in the water supply, the UN has been doing it for years, the sneaky sneaky UN. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #72 September 24, 2004 QuoteAlso not correct . . . in GA, the driving age is going up slowly, and the laws are getting much more strict. Because cars kill people. Note: just arguing the point. The jury's still out on how I feel about guns and gun control. I guess all it might take is to be accosted and threatened by someone with a gun in a place where they're supposed to be banned. Say... New York City, Chicago, Washington D.C., England, Australia, Jamaica, Mexico... It'd be easy to see the failure of the gun control that kept YOU from owning a gun. I hope it never happens to you; but realizing that it easily could might be a step toward protecting yourself from having it happen and finding yourself without the means of defense. Do you feel confident enough in your hand-to-hand self defense skills to handle three aggressive jerks who might plan to rape you in a parking lot? This seems like the classic scenario for a woman to contemplate the effectiveness of her rape whistle or her pepper spray. I personally think that they just don't cut it; that there easily could arise a circumstance where a gun is the only self defense device/option that is going to get you through intact. -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 #73 September 24, 2004 Quote>How effective is that? People without licenses never drive? There aren't any >unregistered vehicles on the road? I wasn't saying it was a good idea. I was saying that comparing guns to cars is a bad comparison, because cars involve licenses/registrations and guns (usually) don't. Kev's point seems to be that cars might as well not be licensed and registered, for all the good they do in keeping the wrong people from driving. Raising the idea of fighting gun crime through licensing and registration "because we license and register drivers and cars" is rather absurd. And gun-control people still do it. Imagine that. -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 #74 September 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteCould a homeowner's gun have saved this woman's life? When we become psychic we'll know. Otherwise it's pure speculation. Boy, the anti-gunners here sure seemed confident when they said they doubted it would have made a difference! I guess their psychic abilities are just more honed than ours are. Or is it just more reasonable to speculate in one direction of neutral than the other? P.S. Check the thread title: I was asking for speculation! -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 billvon 3,119 #75 September 24, 2004 >This is the big joke. "Increased police presence." This is going to save lives? It will decrease crime. It won't solve it. It's a partial deterrent, like a gun. >But "increased police presence" as a means to PREVENT crime is a > joke, bill. It does prevent crime. Police take an active role in stopping crime; that's sort of their job. Same thing with firemen, or EMT's, or dog catchers. Remove most of the firemen from a town and see if fires become more or less destructive. > A really bad joke -- worse because it makes people complacent in > the belief that they don't need to be responsible for their own > safety, and that ends up costing lives when the bitter truth reveals > itself in the heat of a criminal act. Interesting, since I often see people's belief that a gun absolves them from the responsibility of avoiding threats in the same light. If a gun is a backup to your common sense, great. If it makes the owner think they do not need to avoid bad areas, or that they should not flee danger, or that they are safer - it makes them more, rather than less, prone to being victims. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 3 of 7 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
ChasingBlueSky 0 #69 September 24, 2004 Quote Sheeez, if the "Projects" are so darned safe, I think we should start saving the money we've been spending for all the COPS who work there to have guns! It's so obvious they don't need them! Just go in with a smile and pleasant attitude, and the criminals will treat you nice and never stop, rob, rape or kill you. It's worked for kallend, after all! -Jeffrey No, they are not safe. I just spent the last year working across the side street from Cabrini Green. In college I spent two summers living in the area of the projects doing inner city social volunteer work and avoided gunfire on a few occasions. We didn't have the option to stay at the building we were working at because it was robbed EVERY day and the cops suggested it was safer to not spend the night there. I've got quite a few stories from working in and around those areas...and I have gone up into the "reds" .....and the place I stayes was only a short walk from the corner known as "buckets of blood".... Ever been in the projects? From what I witnessed, most crimes were instant - happened before you knew what was going on - you were ambushed or a car drove up and you got shot at. I don't think in any of those cases that having a gun would have scared them away from you or given you a chance at self defense._________________________________________ 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 #70 September 24, 2004 Quote>Precious energy spent on touting your right to bear arms could be better > spent fixing the problems in this society that would give people a reason > to need to protect themselves. As we have the second amendment here that says we have that right, your choice is to spend energy and time getting it changed, or leave it alone and spend that extra energy making people safer in other ways (increased police presence etc.) This is the big joke. "Increased police presence." This is going to save lives? Unless you increased police presence to that no single cop was ever so far from any other single cop that he could not make eye contact, just how would this stop crime? Do you propose to issue police officer protection on a one-to-one basis with the civlian population? We each get a cop bodyguard? Even if there were one cop on every corner of every block in New York City, plus one on every floor of every building, plus one on every car of every subway train, people who wish to commit crimes could still commit them. All the "increased police presence" would accomplish would be a quicker response to possibly apprehend the suspect, and possibly save the life of the victim. But "increased police presence" as a means to PREVENT crime is a joke, bill. A really bad joke -- worse because it makes people complacent in the belief that they don't need to be responsible for their own safety, and that ends up costing lives when the bitter truth reveals itself in the heat of a criminal act. Quote>Someone locking themselves up in their house with their cache of > firepower makes them a nut job, part of the problem, they probably > could've benefited from that lobbying for more mental health care. Well, no, they're no more of a problem than someone who locks themselves up with their model rockets or their street rods. If you want to come and _make_ them into a problem, that's one thing - but then it's you causing the problem, not them. Agreed. Quote>Eliminate the things that cause crime, then you can live life not in fear of crime. You can definitely eliminate some of those things, but then again, some people are just nuts and/or evil. And unless you plan to genetically engineer a superior race of people, they will always be with us. Very good point. I think that kaerock's proposals were a lot of mumbojumbo that look good on paper, and could work if sustained efforts were made for thousands of years to drum the evil intent out of certain elements of our society -- oh wait, we've been trying that... -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
vmsfreaky1 0 #71 September 24, 2004 Its called paranoia. They get it from the crystal meth in the water supply, the UN has been doing it for years, the sneaky sneaky UN. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #72 September 24, 2004 QuoteAlso not correct . . . in GA, the driving age is going up slowly, and the laws are getting much more strict. Because cars kill people. Note: just arguing the point. The jury's still out on how I feel about guns and gun control. I guess all it might take is to be accosted and threatened by someone with a gun in a place where they're supposed to be banned. Say... New York City, Chicago, Washington D.C., England, Australia, Jamaica, Mexico... It'd be easy to see the failure of the gun control that kept YOU from owning a gun. I hope it never happens to you; but realizing that it easily could might be a step toward protecting yourself from having it happen and finding yourself without the means of defense. Do you feel confident enough in your hand-to-hand self defense skills to handle three aggressive jerks who might plan to rape you in a parking lot? This seems like the classic scenario for a woman to contemplate the effectiveness of her rape whistle or her pepper spray. I personally think that they just don't cut it; that there easily could arise a circumstance where a gun is the only self defense device/option that is going to get you through intact. -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 #73 September 24, 2004 Quote>How effective is that? People without licenses never drive? There aren't any >unregistered vehicles on the road? I wasn't saying it was a good idea. I was saying that comparing guns to cars is a bad comparison, because cars involve licenses/registrations and guns (usually) don't. Kev's point seems to be that cars might as well not be licensed and registered, for all the good they do in keeping the wrong people from driving. Raising the idea of fighting gun crime through licensing and registration "because we license and register drivers and cars" is rather absurd. And gun-control people still do it. Imagine that. -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 #74 September 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteCould a homeowner's gun have saved this woman's life? When we become psychic we'll know. Otherwise it's pure speculation. Boy, the anti-gunners here sure seemed confident when they said they doubted it would have made a difference! I guess their psychic abilities are just more honed than ours are. Or is it just more reasonable to speculate in one direction of neutral than the other? P.S. Check the thread title: I was asking for speculation! -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
billvon 3,119 #75 September 24, 2004 >This is the big joke. "Increased police presence." This is going to save lives? It will decrease crime. It won't solve it. It's a partial deterrent, like a gun. >But "increased police presence" as a means to PREVENT crime is a > joke, bill. It does prevent crime. Police take an active role in stopping crime; that's sort of their job. Same thing with firemen, or EMT's, or dog catchers. Remove most of the firemen from a town and see if fires become more or less destructive. > A really bad joke -- worse because it makes people complacent in > the belief that they don't need to be responsible for their own > safety, and that ends up costing lives when the bitter truth reveals > itself in the heat of a criminal act. Interesting, since I often see people's belief that a gun absolves them from the responsibility of avoiding threats in the same light. If a gun is a backup to your common sense, great. If it makes the owner think they do not need to avoid bad areas, or that they should not flee danger, or that they are safer - it makes them more, rather than less, prone to being victims. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
