When You Should Shoot Back!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Otep wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
jawara wrote:

Just another reason why we should never let our 2nd Amendment go away.

Did you read the wikipedia article? The attackers came in with assualt rifles and grenades. You see this as a reason we need less gun control in the world?

I’ll grant you they were scared away by a man with a .38 pistol, but this would seem to support proponents of gun control, wouldn’t it? That small arms are a deterrent, and large arms are… well… used for domestic terrorism?

Yes but gun control only limits those going through legal channels to obtain weapons, so in essence gun control is like telling the citizens to defend yourself from assault weapons with a bb gun.[/quote]

He will argue a bb gun can be quite effective. Just aim well.

42

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Exactly.

Another good reason, closer to home (Ft Worth) and more recent (10/17/08):

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa081017_wz_ambush.11fbdae6e.html

Good point. Only in the US can you buy your tools in a shop when your job is to rob people at gunpoint.

[/quote]

If you actually got your facts straight you would know that the guns that are involved in crime are almost always purchased illegally.

43

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Well, to my knowledge, it is still weird around here and I live in Texas. That church was attacked like a military advance meaning the only people who would be prepared for something like that are possible non active duty soldiers in this country. They had grenades. No matter what, someone was going to get hurt.

I am split on gun control because I know most of the same people bragging about their gun ownership are NOT trained like soldiers and mostly only have experience on a gun range if that.

I agree that the criminals are not restricted by gun laws, however, just as that church was possibly saved by one man with a gun, there is also the potential of people not as well trained doing a hell of alot more harm than good.

I am not the type who believes most people on the planet are competent.

I guess my solution would be mandatory gun training on a pre-determined satisfactory level.

I would tend to agree with this position. I am also not the type to believe most people are competent at all, and agree training is necessary. I’m not so split on gun control though, I am not a fan of the G-men telling me what I can and can’t a) do b) put into my body (unless it presents a clear and present societal danger) c) say that’s non-PC. List goes on.

The thing is, it’s precisely BECAUSE I don’t believe people are competent that I want guns easily available to me–I know I’M competent, so I’d rather rely on myself most times.

I never used to be small “l” libertarian, but I’m leaning more that way every day because the bureaucracy is pissing me off with it’s ineptitude. I have less trust in the gov’t bureaucrats doing anything well than I do in other people doing anything well, which is saying something. Well, most things–some it’s very good at.[/quote]

I can’t agree with making guns easily available to every half-wit who can simply afford them just so you can have one, especially in the society we live in now. Since when did every metro-sexual, Starbucks mocha-latte drinking, pink polo and skinny jean wearing, “I don’t want to gain any muscle” guy on the street suddenly look like a good prospect to ARM?

This is the same society that will sue randomly for matters that don’t warrant it and is growing increasingly LESS masculine…and we want ALL of these people to have easy access to fire arms?

44

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Since when did every metro-sexual, Starbucks mocha-latte drinking, pink polo and skinny jean wearing, “I don’t want to gain any muscle” guy on the street suddenly look like a good prospect to ARM?

[/quote]
I dont think the above mentioned want to own guns anyway. I have a superlib sister that lives in D.C. and she has said “I could NEVER pick up a gun”. I said what if you are about to be attacked? She said “peace man peace”.

45

[quote]jawara wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Since when did every metro-sexual, Starbucks mocha-latte drinking, pink polo and skinny jean wearing, “I don’t want to gain any muscle” guy on the street suddenly look like a good prospect to ARM?

I dont think the above mentioned want to own guns anyway. I have a superlib sister that lives in D.C. and she has said “I could NEVER pick up a gun”. I said what if you are about to be attacked? She said “peace man peace”.
[/quote]

Look at this website alone. All of these guys who are afraid to weigh over 150lbs could very easily fall into the mindset that they NEED a gun and would also be most likely to use it unwisely because they would be the weaker person in most confrontations.

I am not sure you all are ready for “emo gun blazing” as every guy wearing mascara starts shooting off randomly every time they get threatened.

Men are not like they used to be when it seems to concern most of these guys under the age of 25 today.

46

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Good point. Only in the US can you buy your tools in a shop when your job is to rob people at gunpoint.
[/quote]
The option of not being able to buy these “tools” means being prepared to be terrorized by your own government.

Look at places like Sudan where the average Sudanese cannot own or even hope to purchase their own firearms. There is no mercy for those people and the UN cannot help them either.

There are many of your European brethren circa 1939 in Poland that only owe their lives to the fact that they were able to keep firearms. Better to go down fighting for your own life than being interred and exterminated in some dreadful camp. History is full of examples of the tyranny of the minority over the majority that was only possible by banning firearm 0wnership.

There are many more good people than evil people and evil people will still find a way to obtain them. When 99% of your country’s population is armed your government will feel threatened enough to leave you the hell alone.

47

[quote]Professor X wrote:
jawara wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Since when did every metro-sexual, Starbucks mocha-latte drinking, pink polo and skinny jean wearing, “I don’t want to gain any muscle” guy on the street suddenly look like a good prospect to ARM?

I dont think the above mentioned want to own guns anyway. I have a superlib sister that lives in D.C. and she has said “I could NEVER pick up a gun”. I said what if you are about to be attacked? She said “peace man peace”.

Look at this website alone. All of these guys who are afraid to weigh over 150lbs could very easily fall into the mindset that they NEED a gun and would also be most likely to use it unwisely because they would be the weaker person in most confrontations.

I am not sure you all are ready for “emo gun blazing” as every guy wearing mascara starts shooting off randomly every time they get threatened.

Men are not like they used to be when it seems to concern most of these guys under the age of 25 today.
[/quote]

Most guys who talk a lot don’t do. Getting a gun is a big responsibility. Training and using it safer is a bigger responsibility. and not jsut safety wise. Money wise.

I have spent thousands of dollars over the years for guns, training, ammo, accessories such as scopes and holsters. Many people just don’t do it when they see the price tag of carrying for instance.

In my living room I have a 2000$ hunting rifles. this included the scope, gunsmith work, along with the rifle. I do this because I’m into it.

Your wanna be Rambo type just don’t have the drive to get it done. They talk about guns because it’s cool, butt hey often don’t follow through because of the time. effort, and money involved. Just as they don’t with their training and get stuck at 150 pounds.

Right now I’m wearing a Kel Tec 380 with Winchester silvertips in an ankle holster. The gun was inexpensive, about 245$, butt he holster was another 40 and the box of bullets was about 32 $.

Now a 380 isn’t my primary defense gun, it’s merely a gun I can carry on me while working in the office. I would be unable to carry one of my Glocks are a custom carry 1911, or my Springfield XD. They’re just to big for how I dress.

Guys who are into put a lot of thought into it. Guys who don’t just don’t do it. Law abiding people don’t want to risk a problem, so they’ll leave it at home instead of carrying in most cases if they’re a wanna be.

To a non gun guy it might seem strange when you hear all the gun talk, but to a gun guy it’s pretty self regulating.

48

[quote]Professor X wrote:
jawara wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Since when did every metro-sexual, Starbucks mocha-latte drinking, pink polo and skinny jean wearing, “I don’t want to gain any muscle” guy on the street suddenly look like a good prospect to ARM?

I dont think the above mentioned want to own guns anyway. I have a superlib sister that lives in D.C. and she has said “I could NEVER pick up a gun”. I said what if you are about to be attacked? She said “peace man peace”.

Look at this website alone. All of these guys who are afraid to weigh over 150lbs could very easily fall into the mindset that they NEED a gun and would also be most likely to use it unwisely because they would be the weaker person in most confrontations.

I am not sure you all are ready for “emo gun blazing” as every guy wearing mascara starts shooting off randomly every time they get threatened.

Men are not like they used to be when it seems to concern most of these guys under the age of 25 today.

[/quote]

Also, the mascara crowd isn’t the gun crowd, for what it’s worth.

49

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

I want to make clear the distinction between trained to use a gun and fitness. Those who lack even a minimal level of fitness whether through age, frailty or even sedentary habits, can still be very capable with a gun.

I was referring to both. Ask a lot of gun owners how many tactical pistol/shotgun/rifle classes they’ve taken. crickets[/quote]

Umm… shouldn’t you be more concerned about maybe a firearms safety course before tactical courses? Additionally, ask anyone who runs a course (that accepts civilians obviously), I bet the numbers would surprise you. The last tactical course I took, nearly a third were civilians.

I’ve seen tactically trained guys at the range release the slide with the gun pointed at the person on the line next to them. I’ve been hunting with a few that have crossed a fence over their gun (stuff that 3 mo. in basic doesn’t instill into you quite as well as two decades from the time you were 10).

I don’t mean to say that a team of civilians would beat a military unit any day of the week or that basic training is crap, but the vibe I’m getting is that if you aren’t tactically trained to kill with a gun, you aren’t competent, and I know that’s not even close to true.

50

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
jawara wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Since when did every metro-sexual, Starbucks mocha-latte drinking, pink polo and skinny jean wearing, “I don’t want to gain any muscle” guy on the street suddenly look like a good prospect to ARM?

I dont think the above mentioned want to own guns anyway. I have a superlib sister that lives in D.C. and she has said “I could NEVER pick up a gun”. I said what if you are about to be attacked? She said “peace man peace”.

Look at this website alone. All of these guys who are afraid to weigh over 150lbs could very easily fall into the mindset that they NEED a gun and would also be most likely to use it unwisely because they would be the weaker person in most confrontations.

I am not sure you all are ready for “emo gun blazing” as every guy wearing mascara starts shooting off randomly every time they get threatened.

Men are not like they used to be when it seems to concern most of these guys under the age of 25 today.

Also, the mascara crowd isn’t the gun crowd, for what it’s worth.

[/quote]

If you guys are speaking of making guns more easily accessible, it very well could be in the future.

51

[quote]Professor X wrote:
How many people go to church with a gun in their pocket even if they own several guns?[/quote]

Can’t really have handguns here, but I do carry a knife at all times. I just don’t leave the house without it. I would get an uncomfortable feeling like I forgot my wallet.

52

X–

yeah I hear ya. To be honest, I’m not entirely worried about that, because as tom63 said it’s fairly self-regulating. Besides that, however, I’m unsure of exactly where my “acceptable limit” lies with regard to purchase/regs.

However, I do know how much i distrust big gov’t, and I do know that my instincts lean me farther to the “no regs” side than anything–not that I’m in support of no regulations whatsoever, that isn’t the case.

I haven’t been able to codify specifically where I lie just yet, but hey it’s a work in progress. I don’t like the idea of much of the proposed legislation floating around now with Obama, but I do like the idea of training requirements for safety, and I do kinda like the idea that people should be tested by an independent body for competent use.

53

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
X–

yeah I hear ya. To be honest, I’m not entirely worried about that, because as tom63 said it’s fairly self-regulating. Besides that, however, I’m unsure of exactly where my “acceptable limit” lies with regard to purchase/regs.

However, I do know how much i distrust big gov’t, and I do know that my instincts lean me farther to the “no regs” side than anything–not that I’m in support of no regulations whatsoever, that isn’t the case.

I haven’t been able to codify specifically where I lie just yet, but hey it’s a work in progress. I don’t like the idea of much of the proposed legislation floating around now with Obama, but I do like the idea of training requirements for safety, and I do kinda like the idea that people should be tested by an independent body for competent use.[/quote]

Who is supposed to pay for the safety training, testing, and licensure? Why should a gun owner have to pay to exercise their rights?

For example:
Kansas passed a concealed carry act a couple years back. The requirements (not an exhaustive list):

  1. 8 hour safety class
    Cost: $135

  2. Register with county Sheriff
    Cost: $40

  3. Register with Attorney General
    Cost: $110

  4. Provide a 2x2 portrait and fingerprints.

That’s nearly $300 simply to take advantage of my 2nd ammendment rights granted to me 200+ years ago.

Now I don’t think the class is a bad thing, but making it mandatory and charging for it is. The registration is hogwash. One-hundred and fifty bucks so the government can track you the rest of your life and throw your fingertips into the same database as criminals? Does that sound right?

54

[quote]tedro wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
X–

yeah I hear ya. To be honest, I’m not entirely worried about that, because as tom63 said it’s fairly self-regulating. Besides that, however, I’m unsure of exactly where my “acceptable limit” lies with regard to purchase/regs.

However, I do know how much i distrust big gov’t, and I do know that my instincts lean me farther to the “no regs” side than anything–not that I’m in support of no regulations whatsoever, that isn’t the case.

I haven’t been able to codify specifically where I lie just yet, but hey it’s a work in progress. I don’t like the idea of much of the proposed legislation floating around now with Obama, but I do like the idea of training requirements for safety, and I do kinda like the idea that people should be tested by an independent body for competent use.

Who is supposed to pay for the safety training, testing, and licensure? Why should a gun owner have to pay to exercise their rights?

For example:
Kansas passed a concealed carry act a couple years back. The requirements (not an exhaustive list):

  1. 8 hour safety class
    Cost: $135

  2. Register with county Sheriff
    Cost: $40

  3. Register with Attorney General
    Cost: $110

  4. Provide a 2x2 portrait and fingerprints.

That’s nearly $300 simply to take advantage of my 2nd ammendment rights granted to me 200+ years ago.

Now I don’t think the class is a bad thing, but making it mandatory and charging for it is. The registration is hogwash. One-hundred and fifty bucks so the government can track you the rest of your life and throw your fingertips into the same database as criminals? Does that sound right?
[/quote]

In Los Angeles county, you’re not getting a CCW no matter what. People who need to carry do so illegally. You’ve just got to decide if the pros outweigh the cons in that particular case.

Tom63,

My gun safety is just fine, and definitely better than that of the LAPD: several tens of hours in classes, no accidental discharges, no injuries to myself or others, and I can now hit what I shoot at.

55

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
tedro wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
X–

yeah I hear ya. To be honest, I’m not entirely worried about that, because as tom63 said it’s fairly self-regulating. Besides that, however, I’m unsure of exactly where my “acceptable limit” lies with regard to purchase/regs.

However, I do know how much i distrust big gov’t, and I do know that my instincts lean me farther to the “no regs” side than anything–not that I’m in support of no regulations whatsoever, that isn’t the case.

I haven’t been able to codify specifically where I lie just yet, but hey it’s a work in progress. I don’t like the idea of much of the proposed legislation floating around now with Obama, but I do like the idea of training requirements for safety, and I do kinda like the idea that people should be tested by an independent body for competent use.

Who is supposed to pay for the safety training, testing, and licensure? Why should a gun owner have to pay to exercise their rights?

For example:
Kansas passed a concealed carry act a couple years back. The requirements (not an exhaustive list):

  1. 8 hour safety class
    Cost: $135

  2. Register with county Sheriff
    Cost: $40

  3. Register with Attorney General
    Cost: $110

  4. Provide a 2x2 portrait and fingerprints.

That’s nearly $300 simply to take advantage of my 2nd ammendment rights granted to me 200+ years ago.

Now I don’t think the class is a bad thing, but making it mandatory and charging for it is. The registration is hogwash. One-hundred and fifty bucks so the government can track you the rest of your life and throw your fingertips into the same database as criminals? Does that sound right?

In Los Angeles county, you’re not getting a CCW no matter what. People who need to carry do so illegally. You’ve just got to decide if the pros outweigh the cons in that particular case.

Tom63,

My gun safety is just fine, and definitely better than that of the LAPD: several tens of hours in classes, no accidental discharges, no injuries to myself or others, and I can now hit what I shoot at.
[/quote]

Thats sad. I’ve actually worked in Compton before and I wished I was armed.

56

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Grossman has made this “taking your gun to church” a pretty well-known thing in his “On Combat.”

Here’s to the sheepdogs![/quote]

Great book. Sharpening the Warrior’s Edge by Siddle also.

57

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
tedro wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
X–

yeah I hear ya. To be honest, I’m not entirely worried about that, because as tom63 said it’s fairly self-regulating. Besides that, however, I’m unsure of exactly where my “acceptable limit” lies with regard to purchase/regs.

However, I do know how much i distrust big gov’t, and I do know that my instincts lean me farther to the “no regs” side than anything–not that I’m in support of no regulations whatsoever, that isn’t the case.

I haven’t been able to codify specifically where I lie just yet, but hey it’s a work in progress. I don’t like the idea of much of the proposed legislation floating around now with Obama, but I do like the idea of training requirements for safety, and I do kinda like the idea that people should be tested by an independent body for competent use.

Who is supposed to pay for the safety training, testing, and licensure? Why should a gun owner have to pay to exercise their rights?

For example:
Kansas passed a concealed carry act a couple years back. The requirements (not an exhaustive list):

  1. 8 hour safety class
    Cost: $135

  2. Register with county Sheriff
    Cost: $40

  3. Register with Attorney General
    Cost: $110

  4. Provide a 2x2 portrait and fingerprints.

That’s nearly $300 simply to take advantage of my 2nd ammendment rights granted to me 200+ years ago.

Now I don’t think the class is a bad thing, but making it mandatory and charging for it is. The registration is hogwash. One-hundred and fifty bucks so the government can track you the rest of your life and throw your fingertips into the same database as criminals? Does that sound right?

In Los Angeles county, you’re not getting a CCW no matter what. People who need to carry do so illegally. You’ve just got to decide if the pros outweigh the cons in that particular case.

Tom63,

My gun safety is just fine, and definitely better than that of the LAPD: several tens of hours in classes, no accidental discharges, no injuries to myself or others, and I can now hit what I shoot at.
[/quote]

I’m sure it is. Many of us private citizen guys actually have more training and better skills than many police officers. guys that like to shoot, shoot for fun. cops shoot because it is their job in many cases. Of course some are into it, but not all.

58

[quote]Professor X wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
jawara wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Since when did every metro-sexual, Starbucks mocha-latte drinking, pink polo and skinny jean wearing, “I don’t want to gain any muscle” guy on the street suddenly look like a good prospect to ARM?

I dont think the above mentioned want to own guns anyway. I have a superlib sister that lives in D.C. and she has said “I could NEVER pick up a gun”. I said what if you are about to be attacked? She said “peace man peace”.

Look at this website alone. All of these guys who are afraid to weigh over 150lbs could very easily fall into the mindset that they NEED a gun and would also be most likely to use it unwisely because they would be the weaker person in most confrontations.

I am not sure you all are ready for “emo gun blazing” as every guy wearing mascara starts shooting off randomly every time they get threatened.

Men are not like they used to be when it seems to concern most of these guys under the age of 25 today.

Also, the mascara crowd isn’t the gun crowd, for what it’s worth.

If you guys are speaking of making guns more easily accessible, it very well could be in the future.[/quote]

Guns are very accessible. I see plenty of mascara guys in Hicksville , Pa. where I live and believe me they aren’t into guns. I doubt they ever will be.

Many of our prejudices are that way , well, because they can often be true. I’m a weightlifting looking guy with a crew cut. No one is surprised when thy find out I hunt and shoot. Even without broadcasting “I have gun!!!” i would be one of the first guys I shot if I was a bad guy.

60

Another point, cops are not soldiers. They are private citizens just like the rest of use. I like the way Ronnie Barrett looks at it. If you don’t allow a private citizen to own a certain gun, he won’t sell it all in your state.

No police sales. They’re our peers, not above or better than us.