davjohns

Old addage among close quarters guys..."If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck." I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Tippman flatline barrel placed a backspin on the ball and gave it considerably more range. Even enabled me to shoot around corners. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Not sure how this figures in, but my sidearm has extended my life more than once! :) Admittedly, it hasn't done the same for some others. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Fine. Swap the argument to cigarettes. I really don't care. I just find pursuing one thing while ignoring another kind of odd. Like states where seatbelts are mandatory and motorcycle helmets are not. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I agree, but it sparks a thought in my mind. Firearms are a tool with both good and bad applications. Some things, like cigarettes, have no good applications. Seems to me that before we get too hot about firearms, we should eliminate deadly things with absolutely no beneficial properties whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, I really don't care what you put in your body (until I am responsible for paying your health care costs). But it seems we get backwards on some things. Since the guns vs beer argument has come up, there is no utilitarian purpose for adult beverages. They contribute to lots of societal problems. Before we try to restrict or ban guns, why don't we fix that little problem? Again, I tend toward the libertarian and don't care to ban either. I just find it an interesting argument. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

You got my point with the last line. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I don't think I was complaining at all. I think I said I don't think anyone knows what the document says or what the effects will be. Hard to complain about something when you don't know anything about it and doubt anyone else does, either. As for a better system? Seems the veterinarians have it figured out without any legislation at all. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Not trying to argue over Obamacare. I really don't think anyone knows what all it requires or what the impact will be. I would just think that 2,000 pages of legislation would actually attempt to fix something fundamental. Everyone already had access at the county hospital and county health clinics. So, what did 2,000 pages and an unknown number of dollars fix? Make sure everyone has equally bad healthcare? As another anecdote, we took my wife to the doctor's office that has "Urgent Care" in their name. It took three hours to get to see the doctor so the doctor could sign a form for the Army. There was nothing actually wrong with my wife; I had already filled out the form; there was only one other patient in the place; we paid a co-pay and insurance paid another $200. My wife took her son to the Health Department to get his shots updated for school yesterday. It took about an hour and cost nothing. I'm not sure where the disconnect is, but there certainly is one. And I don't think it is in availability, insurance, or who pays. I think its in excessive legislation and rules. Just my guess on the matter. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I've been mulling over an email I received the other day. Generally, it described two patients. One went to the doctor, didn't wait long, got X-rays, the doctor looked at the X-rays, doctor treated and gave a prescription. Competent and friendly treatment. Everyone knew the patient's name on sight. Pay on the way out a reasonable fee for services and go on with life. Second patient made an appointment with the doctor, waited in the waiting area, waited in the treatment room, talked briefly to the doctor, got x-rays, x-rays went to a specialist to read them, patient waited a couple of hours for this to run its course, doctor sent the patient home with a referral. Patient waited a couple of weeks for the specialist, went through the waiting routine again, more x-rays and waiting, the specialist finally saw the patient and gave a prescription. Patient paid a second co-pay on the way out. Insurance messed up. Patient had to pay more and fight with the insurance company to get it to do its part. Many of the people throughout the process seemed competent, but not terribly friendly. Nobody knew the patient's name. I find both of these scenarios true to personal experience. The first patient was my golden doodle (dog). The second was my wife. I find it interesting that vets can treat a patient in house with little problem, but MDs seem to always need a specialist or a second opinion, take very long, aren't as friendly, and get paid loads more for being less friendly and less competent. But I'm sure Obamacare will fix that. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Wow. I was just trying to provide some entertainment. You guys should really try to relax a bit. Just because someone enjoys guns doesn't mean they have deep emotional problems. It's a hobby. Just because they like knowing they can protect their family if two or more people invade the house does not mean they run around in fear. It means they recognize limitations. I no longer tell people that I feel relaxed when I jump out of plane and enter freefall. Too many of them tell me I have control issues. Just like you two, they jump to exrreme conclusions based on a single data point...and prove their opinions aren't worth my time. I'm truly not trying to be insulting. You just bent things around to make a political statement of something that was meant to lighten things up. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Seems a guy makes a rolling stop at a stop sign, and gets pulled over by a local policeman. Guy hands the cop his driver's license, insurance verification, plus his concealed carry permit. "Okay, Mr. Smith," the cop says, "I see your CCW permit. Are you carrying today?" "Yes, I am." "Well then, better tell me what you got." Smith says, "Well, I got a .357 revolver in my inside coat pocket. There's a 9mm semi-auto in the glove box. And, I've got a .22 magnum derringer in my right boot." "Okay," the cop says. "Anything else?" "Yeah, back in the trunk, there's an AR15 and a shotgun. That's about it, not counting my guns at home." "Mr.... Smith, are you on your way to or from a gun range...?" "Nope." "Well then, what are you afraid of...?" "Not a damned thing..." I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'm curious about the rest of the story. Why did the boy do this? Was the girlfriend abusing him? Did he just want his father all to himself? Was his mother jealous and placing ideas in his head? What was going on? I think it would make a big difference in my opinion of how salvageable the boy is. Seems the judge didn't think much could be done with him. Most states don't allow you to consider charging a minor as an adult until 14. I'm guessing the court wanted to charge this kid as an adult. But just guessing. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Just to brighten your day... A biker is visiting the zoo when he sees a little girl leaning into the bars of the lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her parents. The biker without hesitation runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch. Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of the girl, and the biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly. A Newspaper reporter watched the whole event. The reporter addressing the biker says, 'Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I've seen a man do in my whole life.' The rider replies, 'Why, it was nothing, really, the lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger and acted as I felt right.' The reporter says, 'Well, I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a journalist, you know, and tomorrow's paper will have this story on the front page... So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you have?' The biker replies, 'I'm a soldier and Republican voter' The journalist leaves. The following morning the biker buys the paper to see if it indeed brings news of his actions, and reads, on the front page: " SOLDIER ASSAULTS DETAINEE AND STEALS HIS LUNCH " I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

OK. Good. You had me worried. The problem that I see is we don't have enough data to come to really good conclusions...and we disagree on what the data means anyhow. People wave around isolated incidents to advocate what they 'feel'. This incident indicates CCW was good. The Colorado incident indicates firearms need to be kept from some people. Broad ranging conclusions from individual events are rarely sound reasoning examples. I think we are agreed on that. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

There should be a joke in here about 'smoking' people, but I can't find the right phrase...and it would be tasteless...perfect for DZ humor. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

You kind of lost me, Andy. I think you are arguing in favor of gun control because the same guy could have done more damage with a firearm. Then, you add the issue of long range in there to change the scenario. That changes things completely. When I was a cop, we reviewed tests and studies on edged weapons. A cop needs at least 21 feet of standoff to be able to recognize an attack by an edged weapon and bring his firearm to bear. Edged weapons are very serious. In this case, maybe more so than a firearm. At 21 feet, you are more likely to miss me with a firearm than you are to miss me with a knife at two feet. In this case, we don't have a man with a firearm creating mayhem. We have a man with an edged weapon. And a man with a firearm stopped him. It is what it is. Twisting the scenario to support an agenda isn't terribly useful. A good man with a gun did a good thing. If the bad guy had a gun, what would have happened? We don't know. He might have expended a magazine without hitting anyone. He might have killed a dozen people. We just don't know. All we know is that on this day, a good man with a gun did good. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

His tweet to a finite audience "..had the potential to cause real concern..." And this was worth prosecuting? Tax money hard at work. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Made me laugh again. My point is that handguns are very useful for self defense. For mass attacks, there are plenty of other options. Taking away handguns hinders the good guy more than the bad guy. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Given other heated debates on this forum, I think this is a gracious response. (Thanks, Skydekker) I would ask that people who advocate CCW not make more of this one incident than is warranted. It is another data point. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

While I can relate to this position, I would maintain that there shouldn't be any regulation of beer. I don't even like beer. I just prefer less government intervention in individual decisions. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I wondered if anyone was ever going to catch that. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Of course it will, but we just jumped from designing a framework to the little details. I do. I am convinced more people would get killed if there was no law and penalty against it. I thought about it and I'll give you that last part. Laws do dissuade people. I was thinking more about the individual actor than the masses. On the macro level, you are right. I was thinking about the individual actor like in the theater shooting. Laws would not have stopped him from doing evil unless they were so oppressive that the laws themselves would have incited the populace. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

You are speaking in absolutes. I have not advocating removing guns completely. That is just your knee-jerk thoughtless "shout" when it comes to this argument. But, with the same logic, I could ask you why you are so upset if that tool would be removed, since upthread you claim it can so easily be replaced? And you are welcome to it. I'm not sure anyone said it is easily replaced. I think the value of a gun as a tool to the good guy and bad is how effective it is. However, a bad guy can easily plan for another tool to use in his schemes. It is hard for the law abiding citizen to carry something that is so handy for defense and still allows the citizen to go about daily life. Explosives are easily put together for mass destruction. They aren't nearly as useful for self defense in a theater. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

That argument can be used to repeal almost any law on the books. When people are willing to use the logic on every law, I am willing to listen. When you only want to use it very selectively, it is simply hypocritical. For the US, I agree. The occasional massacre is simply the price for you to carry a gun around. This is so hard to keep straight online.... Nobody said that every incident of violence would be recreated elsewise without guns. That's an extreme that has little value in a legitimate debate. Some mass violence would still happen (World Trade Center). Some would be lessened (six kids dead on a playground vice 12 people in a theater). Some would increase (countless incidents where people defend themselves and others with a gun). Criminal laws are reactionary by nature. No laws can prevent crime. They only punish afterwards and hope to influence the masses. In the extreme, you can use that argument to abolish laws. But again, extremes are not terribly useful for this discussion. Sorry. Didn't notice that you are Canadian. I don't think you guys have many rights to firearms anymore. That makes it hard to communicate. I've never acknowledged a sovereign and likely never will. I wonder if it creates a basic difference in perspective. Not meaning to be insulting. I just recognize that there might be a subtle difference in attitude from early age that might be playing into this discussion. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

So, you want us to train people in the use of firearms and know what's in their heads? Don't ask much, do you? not at all but you pointed out that it works well for the Swiss, I'm just observing that even in a limited vetted scenario it doesn't historically work well for the USA. Sigh. I pointed out that the Swiss have mandatory service and it results in a citizenry that is proficient with firearms. If you want the citizenry proficient with firearms, this is a route. I'm sorry I brought up the Swiss at all. It seems some people hereon just want to find something to argue with. It doesn't matter how far off point their vignette might go. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.