GTAVercetti 0 #126 November 2, 2005 Quote That mud pit must be getting kind of crowded, with mikkey, kallend, and now crozby, all squeezed in there at once. You better jump in, cause you just slang it. And that is all I got to say in this thread. I said my piece (and the government's piece) on crime stats so I am out. Time to go home soon!Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #127 November 2, 2005 Quote Yes. Pls kindly include me. That's a big fat mean conspiracy.... LMAO LMFAO What's the point of a big mud pit with a bunch of guys in it? Once you all bring in some females into the mud pit, then I'll join in. In the meantime, that's just wrong. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #128 November 2, 2005 QuoteQuote Yes. Pls kindly include me. That's a big fat mean conspiracy.... LMAO LMFAO What's the point of a big mud pit with a bunch of guys in it? Once you all bring in some females into the mud pit, then I'll join in. In the meantime, that's just wrong. is funny who you responded to. SHE wants in the pit.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #129 November 2, 2005 QuoteQuote Yes. Pls kindly include me. That's a big fat mean conspiracy.... LMAO LMFAO What's the point of a big mud pit with a bunch of guys in it? Once you all bring in some females into the mud pit, then I'll join in. In the meantime, that's just wrong. What a question! There's nothing wrong. Not for me, Rehmwa. The more guys, the better That's the way it has to be... Woah. Men in mud - that really makes me forget all violence in the world. If in Canada or elsewhere - dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #130 November 2, 2005 QuoteWhat a question! As much as I like Christel, the idea of mikkey, kallend, and now crozby plus JohnRich in a mudbath, I'm afraid there's still not enough estrogen in there yet to make it fun. It's too much like a hot tub at a boogie. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #131 November 2, 2005 Oh man! Ask for a crane. Let them be removed... and the mud is ours! Cya in the mud dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #132 November 3, 2005 QuoteOh man! Ask for a crane. Let them be removed... and the mud is ours! Cya in the mud If we are getting rid of them...count me in!Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #133 November 3, 2005 QuoteThe purpose of those excerpts was not to re-hash that debate all over again. The purpose was to show that there is in fact a perspective which supports what I said. In your zeal to bash me, however, you refuse to acknowledge that, and instead try to characterize me as a liar. Those headlines show that I'm not. And if I'm a liar, then I guess all those British media sources are liars too. Only mikkey knows the real truth! What perspective? The articles and stats mentioned actually show (if you can read) the opposite of what you have been claiming and do not support your "perspective" - they are actually saying what I and other been telling you. This is getting beyond a joke.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #134 November 3, 2005 QuoteBesides, the stories themselves were not written by a pro-gun website. They were written by British media sources. Are you calling the BBC and the London Telegraph "extremely un-objective pro-gun" news sources? You're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that you are reading this stuff on a pro-gun website that is publishing links to stories from sources like the Telegraph etc. Which site is it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #135 November 3, 2005 QuoteQuoteBesides, the stories themselves were not written by a pro-gun website. They were written by British media sources. Are you calling the BBC and the London Telegraph "extremely un-objective pro-gun" news sources? You're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that you are reading this stuff on a pro-gun website that is publishing links to stories from sources like the Telegraph etc. Which site is it? From JohnRichs' post: QuoteHere is the so-called "extremely un-objective pro-gun website" which I used to find those news stories: Try it for yourself! I do find it humorous that it automatically has to be a "biased, pro-gun website" if it has anything to say about gun control or crime statistics...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richards 0 #136 December 31, 2005 In Canada, when our politicians are faced with a problem that requires tough decisions and a willingness to recognize where our policies have failed, they usually take the easy way out and blame the United States. Remember, it is much easier to find a scapegoat than a solution. Richards. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #137 December 31, 2005 QuoteWhile I agree with your stance on gun control, we've threatened sanctions against Canada because of marijuana being smuggled in this way. What's good for the goose.... Um, is marijuana legal to grow and possess in Canada? Guns are legal to make, sell, possess and use in the United States of America. Hardly an apt analogy, there, ReBirth. While we are justified in saying, "Hey, Canada, why don't you come down on those marijuana growers there and enforce your laws?!" they are not justified in saying... well... anything regarding our guns. What are they going to do, implore us to stop people from making a legal product? QuoteThe proposals that were given to the Toronto Star seem strangely silent about the other 50 percent of the guns that presumably have Canadian origins. Oops – almost forgot the gun registry. The billion dollar boondoggle was supposed to stop all the violence that is currently taking place. I love it! Triple whammy! Nailed them on ignoring the other 50%... on the gun registry... and I would add that the "50% figure," according to something I read, was admitted to have been just pulled out of a hat in the first place. -Jeffrey -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 #138 December 31, 2005 QuoteNot only that, but a few years ago American tobacco companies were actively smuggling cigarettes into Ontario and Quebec, so that they could be sold tax-free. This was an arms-length activity organized and managed by the tobacco companies. It's entirely possible that the same is happening with guns. Given the huge recent increase in gun violence in Canada recently, I really wouldn't be surprised if there was some type of organization behind it. [I'll add the disclaimer that even with the huge increase in Canada, it's still nowhere close to the level seen in the US.] We all have a pretty high tollerance of small-time smuggling by individuals, but it's a whole different thing when otherwise legitimate companies start doing it wholesale. It's certainly happened in the past, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen in the future. It could be happening now. _Am Yeah, it's a plot by the American gun makers to send their guns up to Canada so they can be sold on the street for a fraction of their real market value. Also, the gun companies LOVE to court people suing them for the criminal actions others commit with their products. They love arming criminals. The people who run these companies don't have loved ones who can fall victim to violent crime. Where on earth do you get these theories? And where is the evidence or proof -- or convictions -- for the companies that are doing this smuggling? Is this just some concoction of Michael Moore or something? Amazing how you know it as fact but we've never heard of 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 #139 December 31, 2005 QuoteOh I forgot you wanted to talk about guns and couldn't care about how you guys shit on the rest of the world whenever you don't get you way. You could do the mature thing and just start a thread on those other issues. So sorry that this one said GUNS specifically, right there in the subject. -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 #140 December 31, 2005 QuoteQuoteShow me a law which proscribes a ban on something, which has actually succeeded in the elimination of that something. Give me just one example. Such an assinine statement..... First one would have to wonder if total elimination is the only measure of success... Second, no law is 100% effective, hence do you propose there should be no laws? The measure of success would be to show that it was working AT ALL. And bans pretty much don't do that. The people who really want to break the law will break it. You've got to understand that a ban against guns (or drugs, alcohol, whatever) is an attempt to BLOCK people from getting those things. A law against driving drunk is NOT an attempt to BLOCK people from driving drunk! You'd have to either keep people under detention, or somehow get rid of their access to cars and/or alcohol to effect that kind of block. (And then you would see that block, that BAN, being skirted and you would still see people driving drunk.) You cannot possibly equate an attempt to ban an item with a law that makes a certain behavior illegal. It's an invalid comparison for the reason I just demonstrated. -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 #141 December 31, 2005 QuoteIn my country we draw the line at a different place than you. We think guns are weapons of mass destruction, and we have the crime statistics to prove it. You can *ahem* prove that a single gun has been used to kill, say, ten thousand people? If not, then your considering guns to be WMD is utterly asinine, peurile, and histrionic. -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 #142 December 31, 2005 QuoteQuoteNo law has ever stopped the smuggling of anything. Maybe not 100%, but severe enough punishments can reduce smuggling to a trickle. For example, not many people bother smuggling heroin into Singapore these days because they kill people they catch doing so. And the tradeoff is only that you have to live in a POLICE STATE like SINGAPORE. Forgive me, but I don't think that I want to live in a country where a teenager is THRASHED BLOODY WITH A CANE for a simple act of vandalism/property damage. Do you? Because before such a regime became effective in its ban on smuggling, it would have to achieve a level of FEAR of the government that we will simply not tolerate. QuoteIf the punishment for illegal possession of a gun was harsh enough it would reduce the number of illegal guns in circulation. Or don't you think so? You mean like the DEATH PENALTY applied to murderers? How is it that you can keep a straight face and tell us that illegal gun possession would cease if the penalty was harsh enough, when the penalty of DEATH for MURDER is not enough to stop people from committing murder in places that have capital punishment?! Are you even listening to your own theories?? -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 #143 December 31, 2005 QuoteYou're right, but I still think it would be worthwhile to conduct a study into the various scenarios to come up with an educated guess and an idea of how to strike a balance, though, accurate measurements notwithstanding. Didn't the Centers for Disease Control do a study of something like 52 different gun control studies and find that NO CORRELATION CAN BE VALIDLY DRAWN between the institution of gun control laws and any decrease in crime that may follow? In other words, even though they've looked, and looked hard, it is not possible for them to even hint that gun control stops gun crime. Not even BANS do it. Not even outright BANS. -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 #144 December 31, 2005 QuoteQuoteWe already know that waiting periods have killed a 'handful' of women with ineffective restraining orders against their ex'es. I'm not buying that argument without better evidence. Simply having a handgun is unlikely to save your life without proper training. I don't see a short waiting period to have much of an impact on reducing murder due to an ineffective restraining order. I suppose then that you would feel bold enough to advance on a woman who was holding a .38 revolver aimed at you, because you just don't think she can be effective with it at 10 feet... It is verifiable fact (I have read the names in various articles) that some women obtained restraining orders on abusive spouses, and sought to obtain a firearm; while waiting for the end of the waiting period, they were murdered by spouses angered by, among other things, the imposition of the restraining order itself. You can challenge the notion all you want, but if you're going to say that if gun control is worth doing "if it saves even just one life," then we can argue that it is worth not doing if doing it is going to COST even just one life. QuoteHaving a gun is not the end all be all of self defense. If police officers can have their guns taken away from them by criminals, what makes you think the same could not happen to an untrained civilian who just bought her very first handgun? Police officers are obvious targets, their guns are worn openly... There are probably lots more reasons why they sometimes have their guns taken from them. Maybe you could provide, since it's your assertion that it's so easy to take a gun from an armed person, some statistics on how many arrests are conducted in the U.S. each year, and how many times an officer's gun is successfully taken from him by a suspect. I'd bet the second number is vanishingly small as a percentage. But then, it's your assertion: YOU prove that it's not. If it's so easy to take a gun from a determined armed person, I suppose that if a criminal took my gun away from me, well, by golly, I'd just take it right BACK! QuoteAnd, no, I'm not arguing for gun control, or even waiting periods. I just don't think waiting periods are killing women off like you claim. Since the benefits of waiting periods are dubious from the start, ONE is too many. -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 justinb138 0 #145 December 31, 2005 Hey, if an attacker wants my gun, he can have it. Bullets first. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #146 December 31, 2005 QuoteQuoteIt's as simple as point and click I hope you give your kids and grandkids better firearms training than that. I certainly have had enough to know its not that simple. I'm pretty sure you have too. Handling a gun day-in and day-out may not be "that simple," of course, because it involves loading, unloading, firing, cleaning, etc. But a gun in a nightstand drawer, ready to be used for defense in the home, certainly is, in my view, as simple as point and click. Why bring training of children into this unless your goal is obfuscation. We were talking about whether a person who has a basic understanding of the functioning of his or her own handgun could effectively use it against an attacker. All signs point to yes. QuoteIs the gun loaded? Is the safety on? Is there a round in the chamber? Does it need to be cocked? How do I aim? All of that would have been handled by the gun owner in advance of the actual stress-filled altercation. I know that I personally don't have any cause to wonder if my personal defense gun is loaded (it always is); safety on (it's a GLOCK -- no manual safety); round chambered (always); need to be cocked (once again, GLOCK) You are needlessly complicating this. You are acting like you want to tell people who went out and bought their gun that they must surely not be adept at actually using it, despite knowing nothing about each individual's level of expertise, instruction, and practice. -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 AndyMan 7 #147 December 31, 2005 QuoteWhere on earth do you get these theories? I thought I explained that. I got my theories from the tobacco companies, who did this exact thing, and were prosecuted, and convicted. Tobacco companies loved to send their product up to Canada so it could be sold on the street for a fraction of their real market value. Tobacco companies LOVED to court people suing them for the criminal actions others commited with their product. Tobacco companies LOVED supplying criminals. The people who ran tobacco companies did have loved ones who fell victim to smoking related illness, they just didn't care. QuoteAnd where is the evidence or proof -- or convictions -- for the companies that are doing this smuggling? You mean the tobacco companies? That's well documented. Start here: http://www.google.com/search?q=tobacco+convicted+smuggling+canada+lawsuit&btnG=Search If you mean the gun companies? It's called a theory. I came up with it myself. Time will tell. Quote? Is this just some concoction of Michael Moore or something? Usually your attempts at a straw man are slightly more original. I am not impressed.__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #148 December 31, 2005 When/why did you get caught up in the belief that I cared about impressing you? -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 AndyMan 7 #149 December 31, 2005 From the straw man, to the ad hominem. Got it. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #150 January 2, 2006 QuoteFrom the straw man, to the ad hominem. Got it. _Am Dude, that's not an ad hominem. Sorry. -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 Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 6 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 #141 December 31, 2005 QuoteIn my country we draw the line at a different place than you. We think guns are weapons of mass destruction, and we have the crime statistics to prove it. You can *ahem* prove that a single gun has been used to kill, say, ten thousand people? If not, then your considering guns to be WMD is utterly asinine, peurile, and histrionic. -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 #142 December 31, 2005 QuoteQuoteNo law has ever stopped the smuggling of anything. Maybe not 100%, but severe enough punishments can reduce smuggling to a trickle. For example, not many people bother smuggling heroin into Singapore these days because they kill people they catch doing so. And the tradeoff is only that you have to live in a POLICE STATE like SINGAPORE. Forgive me, but I don't think that I want to live in a country where a teenager is THRASHED BLOODY WITH A CANE for a simple act of vandalism/property damage. Do you? Because before such a regime became effective in its ban on smuggling, it would have to achieve a level of FEAR of the government that we will simply not tolerate. QuoteIf the punishment for illegal possession of a gun was harsh enough it would reduce the number of illegal guns in circulation. Or don't you think so? You mean like the DEATH PENALTY applied to murderers? How is it that you can keep a straight face and tell us that illegal gun possession would cease if the penalty was harsh enough, when the penalty of DEATH for MURDER is not enough to stop people from committing murder in places that have capital punishment?! Are you even listening to your own theories?? -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 #143 December 31, 2005 QuoteYou're right, but I still think it would be worthwhile to conduct a study into the various scenarios to come up with an educated guess and an idea of how to strike a balance, though, accurate measurements notwithstanding. Didn't the Centers for Disease Control do a study of something like 52 different gun control studies and find that NO CORRELATION CAN BE VALIDLY DRAWN between the institution of gun control laws and any decrease in crime that may follow? In other words, even though they've looked, and looked hard, it is not possible for them to even hint that gun control stops gun crime. Not even BANS do it. Not even outright BANS. -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 #144 December 31, 2005 QuoteQuoteWe already know that waiting periods have killed a 'handful' of women with ineffective restraining orders against their ex'es. I'm not buying that argument without better evidence. Simply having a handgun is unlikely to save your life without proper training. I don't see a short waiting period to have much of an impact on reducing murder due to an ineffective restraining order. I suppose then that you would feel bold enough to advance on a woman who was holding a .38 revolver aimed at you, because you just don't think she can be effective with it at 10 feet... It is verifiable fact (I have read the names in various articles) that some women obtained restraining orders on abusive spouses, and sought to obtain a firearm; while waiting for the end of the waiting period, they were murdered by spouses angered by, among other things, the imposition of the restraining order itself. You can challenge the notion all you want, but if you're going to say that if gun control is worth doing "if it saves even just one life," then we can argue that it is worth not doing if doing it is going to COST even just one life. QuoteHaving a gun is not the end all be all of self defense. If police officers can have their guns taken away from them by criminals, what makes you think the same could not happen to an untrained civilian who just bought her very first handgun? Police officers are obvious targets, their guns are worn openly... There are probably lots more reasons why they sometimes have their guns taken from them. Maybe you could provide, since it's your assertion that it's so easy to take a gun from an armed person, some statistics on how many arrests are conducted in the U.S. each year, and how many times an officer's gun is successfully taken from him by a suspect. I'd bet the second number is vanishingly small as a percentage. But then, it's your assertion: YOU prove that it's not. If it's so easy to take a gun from a determined armed person, I suppose that if a criminal took my gun away from me, well, by golly, I'd just take it right BACK! QuoteAnd, no, I'm not arguing for gun control, or even waiting periods. I just don't think waiting periods are killing women off like you claim. Since the benefits of waiting periods are dubious from the start, ONE is too many. -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 justinb138 0 #145 December 31, 2005 Hey, if an attacker wants my gun, he can have it. Bullets first. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #146 December 31, 2005 QuoteQuoteIt's as simple as point and click I hope you give your kids and grandkids better firearms training than that. I certainly have had enough to know its not that simple. I'm pretty sure you have too. Handling a gun day-in and day-out may not be "that simple," of course, because it involves loading, unloading, firing, cleaning, etc. But a gun in a nightstand drawer, ready to be used for defense in the home, certainly is, in my view, as simple as point and click. Why bring training of children into this unless your goal is obfuscation. We were talking about whether a person who has a basic understanding of the functioning of his or her own handgun could effectively use it against an attacker. All signs point to yes. QuoteIs the gun loaded? Is the safety on? Is there a round in the chamber? Does it need to be cocked? How do I aim? All of that would have been handled by the gun owner in advance of the actual stress-filled altercation. I know that I personally don't have any cause to wonder if my personal defense gun is loaded (it always is); safety on (it's a GLOCK -- no manual safety); round chambered (always); need to be cocked (once again, GLOCK) You are needlessly complicating this. You are acting like you want to tell people who went out and bought their gun that they must surely not be adept at actually using it, despite knowing nothing about each individual's level of expertise, instruction, and practice. -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 AndyMan 7 #147 December 31, 2005 QuoteWhere on earth do you get these theories? I thought I explained that. I got my theories from the tobacco companies, who did this exact thing, and were prosecuted, and convicted. Tobacco companies loved to send their product up to Canada so it could be sold on the street for a fraction of their real market value. Tobacco companies LOVED to court people suing them for the criminal actions others commited with their product. Tobacco companies LOVED supplying criminals. The people who ran tobacco companies did have loved ones who fell victim to smoking related illness, they just didn't care. QuoteAnd where is the evidence or proof -- or convictions -- for the companies that are doing this smuggling? You mean the tobacco companies? That's well documented. Start here: http://www.google.com/search?q=tobacco+convicted+smuggling+canada+lawsuit&btnG=Search If you mean the gun companies? It's called a theory. I came up with it myself. Time will tell. Quote? Is this just some concoction of Michael Moore or something? Usually your attempts at a straw man are slightly more original. I am not impressed.__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #148 December 31, 2005 When/why did you get caught up in the belief that I cared about impressing you? -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 AndyMan 7 #149 December 31, 2005 From the straw man, to the ad hominem. Got it. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #150 January 2, 2006 QuoteFrom the straw man, to the ad hominem. Got it. _Am Dude, that's not an ad hominem. Sorry. -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 Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 6 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
justinb138 0 #145 December 31, 2005 Hey, if an attacker wants my gun, he can have it. Bullets first. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #146 December 31, 2005 QuoteQuoteIt's as simple as point and click I hope you give your kids and grandkids better firearms training than that. I certainly have had enough to know its not that simple. I'm pretty sure you have too. Handling a gun day-in and day-out may not be "that simple," of course, because it involves loading, unloading, firing, cleaning, etc. But a gun in a nightstand drawer, ready to be used for defense in the home, certainly is, in my view, as simple as point and click. Why bring training of children into this unless your goal is obfuscation. We were talking about whether a person who has a basic understanding of the functioning of his or her own handgun could effectively use it against an attacker. All signs point to yes. QuoteIs the gun loaded? Is the safety on? Is there a round in the chamber? Does it need to be cocked? How do I aim? All of that would have been handled by the gun owner in advance of the actual stress-filled altercation. I know that I personally don't have any cause to wonder if my personal defense gun is loaded (it always is); safety on (it's a GLOCK -- no manual safety); round chambered (always); need to be cocked (once again, GLOCK) You are needlessly complicating this. You are acting like you want to tell people who went out and bought their gun that they must surely not be adept at actually using it, despite knowing nothing about each individual's level of expertise, instruction, and practice. -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
AndyMan 7 #147 December 31, 2005 QuoteWhere on earth do you get these theories? I thought I explained that. I got my theories from the tobacco companies, who did this exact thing, and were prosecuted, and convicted. Tobacco companies loved to send their product up to Canada so it could be sold on the street for a fraction of their real market value. Tobacco companies LOVED to court people suing them for the criminal actions others commited with their product. Tobacco companies LOVED supplying criminals. The people who ran tobacco companies did have loved ones who fell victim to smoking related illness, they just didn't care. QuoteAnd where is the evidence or proof -- or convictions -- for the companies that are doing this smuggling? You mean the tobacco companies? That's well documented. Start here: http://www.google.com/search?q=tobacco+convicted+smuggling+canada+lawsuit&btnG=Search If you mean the gun companies? It's called a theory. I came up with it myself. Time will tell. Quote? Is this just some concoction of Michael Moore or something? Usually your attempts at a straw man are slightly more original. I am not impressed.__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #148 December 31, 2005 When/why did you get caught up in the belief that I cared about impressing you? -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
AndyMan 7 #149 December 31, 2005 From the straw man, to the ad hominem. Got it. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #150 January 2, 2006 QuoteFrom the straw man, to the ad hominem. Got it. _Am Dude, that's not an ad hominem. Sorry. -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
