edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Apr, 2010 05:19 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

engineer wrote:
Owning a gun not only provides you with the ability to defend yourself, it provides you with the ability to effortlessly harm others.

No, it does not, because you already have this ability anyway. As any trainer in hand-to-hand combat will tell you, it's ridiculously easy to kill humans without any weapons at all. You just hit them hard against their voice box with the edge of your hand. Granted, the physical effort of doing this is slightly higher than that of pulling a trigger. But it's still trivial.

But you can accomplish the one from a safe distance, the other not.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sat 10 Apr, 2010 05:26 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
But you can accomplish the one from a safe distance, the other not.

.. and by "safe" you mean "safe for the attackers" -- because their victims have no guns to shoot back with.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Apr, 2010 06:20 pm
@engineer,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
How do u feel about the constitutional requirement of "equal protection of the laws" ?
Do u believe that the author thereof meant:
equal protection of the law EXCEPT as to defending your life from violence ???

engineer wrote:
Clearly you defend yourself. Never said or implied otherwise.
Did u imply an exception against criminals? That when thay are attacked, like Paul Castellano,
that thay have no right to defend themselves and thay are duty bound to allow themselves to be slaughtered.
I thought that was your position. Yes ?



OmSigDAVID wrote:
engineer wrote:
but I also support common sense restrictions.
I think licenses with mandatory training in firearms use should be required.
Inasmuch as compulsory education has been accepted, without objection (except by me, when I was 6 years old),
I agree as to teaching effective and safe use of guns, along with arithmetic,
but I cannot see licensing people's right to self defense from predatory violence, an inalienable right.

engineer wrote:
Why not? Owning a gun not only provides you with the ability to defend yourself,
it provides you with the ability to effortlessly harm others.
People can clearly defend themselves in a variety of ways.[ ?? ]
Only guns are feasible.
U can t expect people to carry bows & arrows around,
nor pillows to smother robbers.

CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS
IS AMONG YOUR NATURAL RIGHTS
.


engineer wrote:

If you choose a way that also puts other people at risk,
then it makes sense to ensure that you take steps to mitigate the risk
while keeping the benefits, hence training and licensing.
I say: training, yes from grade 1 in school.
Licensing, (discrimination) NO. Its an inalienable, inviolable right.
Carrying concealed guns does not put others at risk,
and no duty is owed to them.







OmSigDAVID wrote:
engineer wrote:
I think concealed carry should be very restricted;
if someone in the room has the means to kill me and those around me very quickly,
I should be able to see the threat.
If he is going to commit MURDER, a capital offense,
then Y do u believe that he ll obay a gun control law ??
Have u asked of murderers, inquiring qua whether
obaying the law is important to them ?

engineer wrote:
But when they are found with a concealed weapon,
law enforcement can immediately assume they intend to break the law.
Let them ASSUME whatever thay wanna assume, as long as thay leave us alone.

Police carry concealed guns all the time; so WHAT???





engineer wrote:
I don't see why this would cause you any heartburn.
Open carry is OK only for blue collar type workers. Those of us who dress in suits and ties cannot do it,
especially during inclement weather, against rain & snow.
Do u think that we shoud wear Sam Browne belts over our jackets
and over our coats ?? That woud have the chilling effect of
negating the right completely, except for guys who DON 'T wear jackets, just shirtsleeves.

That 's like saying that u have the right to vote,
but u have to carry 80 pounds of iron on your back
on your way to the polls, or u have to pay a poll tax.

or like saying that u can go to Church,
but u have to run there backward:
no one woud DO that. Get the idea?
There is no reason for anyone NOT to carry concealed.
U imply that concealed carry is more dangerous than open carry;
that makes no sense. Explain the reason ??








engineer wrote:
If your hypothetical murderer walked into a room where honest citizens are carrying unconcealed,
they are not in any way disadvantaged to him in terms of self defense.
If anything, their weapons are more available. Nor is there any
Constitutional guarantee that you can carry concealed.
I deny that,
but I cannot say with certainty which position will be upheld
by the USSC.



engineer wrote:
Why doesn't my right to self defense including my right to understand
potential threats around me trump your right to carry concealed? Isn't my self defense right inalienable?
Your right of self defense does not include the right to poke around
in other citizens' personal affairs.





engineer wrote:
What possible benefit is there to allowing you to hide your weapon from me?
Its none of your BUSINESS, how I 've prepared myself for defense.
I might very well choose to carry openly and carry concealed back-up guns.

Open carry is NOT feasible for guys who wear suits.






OmSigDAVID wrote:
engineer wrote:
I support tracking gun sales so that weapons used in crimes
can be tracked back to their points of origin and so conduits
of weapons going to criminals can be identified.
Prohibitions do not work. Prohibitions are to be LAFFED at. There is no reason to identify them.
Neither marijuana nor guns, nor knives will be kept out of criminal hands.
I think that 's obvious.

engineer wrote:
I didn't propose prohibitions, I proposed tracking of gun sales.
Tracking for what PURPOSE?? It is to enforce the futile prohibitions.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Apr, 2010 08:29 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
Most people aren't accurate beyond a few feet with a handgun.
That statement has bullshit for logic. Most people killed by handguns are within that range. You cant outrun a bullet though I would like to see you try.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Apr, 2010 08:37 pm
@engineer,
ENGINEER:
( or anyone else)
Point of information, if I may,
since u 've shown so intense an intense an interest against
concealed carry. In contemplation of the fact that
bearing arms defensively is so difficult, awkward,
for those of us who customarily wear suits,
and also coats during inclement weather:

How do u feel about concealed carrying
while wearing a badge declarative of concealed guns,
as distinct from an overt display of the weapon itself ?

Will that satisfy u ?





David
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Apr, 2010 09:02 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Yes, that would satisfy me.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Apr, 2010 09:18 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
Yes, that would satisfy me.
Thank u for that information.

I find that concept intriguing.
Now I wonder whether those who are aversive
to concealed carry woud join in that opinion.

Did u read my response to u, Engineer
(hereinabove set forth)? I hope that u will,
because it took me a while to write all that out.





David
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Apr, 2010 09:32 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Did u imply an exception against criminals? That when thay are attacked, like Paul Castellano, that thay have no right to defend themselves and thay are duty bound to allow themselves to be slaughtered.
I thought that was your position. Yes ?

I don't understand your question. When criminals are attacked can they defend themselves? Are you asking if criminals attack and they are counter attacked, can they then defend themselves?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

engineer wrote:
Why not? Owning a gun not only provides you with the ability to defend yourself, it provides you with the ability to effortlessly harm others. People can clearly defend themselves in a variety of ways.[ ?? ]
Only guns are feasible. U can t expect people to carry bows & arrows around, nor i]pillows[/i] to smother robbers.

CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS
IS AMONG YOUR NATURAL RIGHTS
.

Now it is a "right" not just to carry but to carry concealed?
OmSigDAVID wrote:

engineer wrote:

If you choose a way that also puts other people at risk, then it makes sense to ensure that you take steps to mitigate the risk while keeping the benefits, hence training and licensing.
I say: training, yes from grade 1 in school.Licensing, (discrimination) NO. Its an inalienable, inviolable right. Carrying concealed guns does not put others at risk, and no duty is owed to them.

Licensing is no more discrimination than asking people to register to vote. The state has a vesting interest in ensuring that people vote per the rules. It also has a vested interest in seeing guns used safely. As for carrying concealed not putting people at risk, there are two types of people who want to carry concealed. Good, law abiding citizens such as yourself and those who intend violence. If you come into someone's yard carrying concealed and they notice it below your clothing, they would be a fool to trust to your good intentions. If you are all about self defense, this should make sense. However your suggesting that those carrying concealed wear some other signifier of a weapon meets that need.

OmSigDAVID wrote:
engineer wrote:
I think concealed carry should be very restricted;
if someone in the room has the means to kill me and those around me very quickly,
I should be able to see the threat.
If he is going to commit MURDER, a capital offense,
then Y do u believe that he ll obay a gun control law ??

If they are not going to commit murder, they shouldn't have an issue advertising that they have a weapon. You don't conceal things without a reason.

OmSigDAVID wrote:
engineer wrote:
I support tracking gun sales so that weapons used in crimes can be tracked back to their points of origin and so conduits of weapons going to criminals can be identified.
Prohibitions do not work. Prohibitions are to be LAFFED at. There is no reason to identify them. Neither marijuana nor guns, nor knives will be kept out of criminal hands. I think that 's obvious.
engineer wrote:
I didn't propose prohibitions, I proposed tracking of gun sales.
Tracking for what PURPOSE?? It is to enforce the futile prohibitions.

No, tracking for the purpose of tracking weapons used in crimes back to the points of origin. Once again, for someone who wants to get criminals off the streets and into another country, why would you resist steps to allow that to happen?
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Apr, 2010 09:43 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Most people aren't accurate beyond a few feet with a handgun.
That statement has bullshit for logic. Most people killed by handguns are within that range.

Umm... Yeah. That was my point. Thanks for making it for me.

Ionus wrote:
You cant outrun a bullet though I would like to see you try.

If someone's holding a gun pointed at you, then you can't draw your weapon in time to save yourself, either.

If you're more than a few feet away, then running is a viable option, and probably safer than drawing a weapon and trying to shoot it out. In one case, you are rapidly becoming a smaller target, while in the other it's just a gamble.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 01:08 am
@DrewDad,
Quote:
That was my point.
Try to keep up. That wasnt your point. Your point was to run. If you are down the end of the street from someone than that is an option. How is that an option if they are within accuracy range ? Having shot you there is a good chance you will die.

Quote:
If someone's holding a gun pointed at you, then you can't draw your weapon in time to save yourself, either.
Now THAT was my point. Which is why Dave's argument that knifes are just as bad is silly. There are many situations where his idea of everyone having a gun will not work and if they have other weapons than it is not as dnagerous.

Quote:
In one case, you are rapidly becoming a smaller target, while in the other it's just a gamble.
Both cases are a gamble. Turning your back on someone is going to make it easier from the lack of human identity and a hunting instinct point of view to shoot.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 06:43 am
@engineer,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Did u imply an exception against criminals?
That when thay are attacked, like Paul Castellano, that thay have
no right to defend themselves and thay are duty bound to allow
themselves to be slaughtered. I thought that was your position. Yes ?
engineer wrote:
I don't understand your question.
When criminals are attacked can they defend themselves?
Yes, that is the question, and it is one that we need not reach IF the criminal has been removed
behind 1000s of miles of water. If he is still here, strolling innocently thru his naborhood and some pit bulls attack him,
he has as much natural right of self defense as anyone else.


engineer wrote:
Are you asking if criminals attack and they are counter attacked, can they then defend themselves?
Yes; when Gotti 's fellows shot Paul Castellano, Paul had as much natural right to shoot back as anyone does.



OmSigDAVID wrote:
engineer wrote:
Why not? Owning a gun not only provides you with the ability to defend yourself,
it provides you with the ability to effortlessly harm others.
People can clearly defend themselves in a variety of ways.[ ?? ]
Only guns are feasible. U can t expect people to carry bows & arrows around,
nor pillows to smother robbers.

CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS
IS AMONG YOUR NATURAL RIGHTS
.

engineer wrote:
Now it is a "right" not just to carry but to carry concealed?
YES. Now and always.






OmSigDAVID wrote:
engineer wrote:
If you choose a way that also puts other people at risk,
then it makes sense to ensure that you take steps to mitigate the
risk while keeping the benefits, hence training and licensing.
I say: training, yes from grade 1 in school.Licensing, (discrimination) NO. Its an inalienable,
inviolable right. Carrying concealed guns does not put others at risk, and no duty is owed to them.

engineer wrote:
Licensing is no more discrimination than asking people to register to vote.
Engineer, the purpose of licensing has always been to discriminate between
those who HAVE the license and those who do not.
As to a license for THIS purpose, it is government permission to defend your life
when attacked by man or beast.




engineer wrote:
The state has a vesting interest in ensuring that people vote per the rules.
It also has a vested interest in seeing guns used safely.
As a condition of the EXISTENCE of government,
it was denied jurisdiction to interfere in any citizen's possession of guns.




engineer wrote:

As for carrying concealed not putting people at risk, there are two types of people who want to carry concealed. Good, law abiding citizens such as yourself and those who intend violence. If you come into someone's yard carrying concealed and they notice it below your clothing, they would be a fool to trust to your good intentions.
That makes no sense, unless the landowner believes that this fellow is very mad at him,
or intends to rob him of something. Simply carrying your defensive weapons with u wherever u go
is not a threat. Paranoia; unreasoning fear.







engineer wrote:
If you are all about self defense, this should make sense.
Self defense means a lot to me, including in ways that bear no relation to weapons.




engineer wrote:
However your suggesting that those carrying concealed wear some other signifier of a weapon meets that need.
On that point, shall we now require undercover police (our employees) to display that signifier?
So that we be safer from them ?








OmSigDAVID wrote:
engineer wrote:
I think concealed carry should be very restricted;
if someone in the room has the means to kill me and those around me very quickly,
I should be able to see the threat.
If he is going to commit MURDER, a capital offense,
then Y do u believe that he ll obay a gun control law ??
engineer wrote:
If they are not going to commit murder,
they shouldn't have an issue advertising that they have a weapon.
There is NO REASON for him to advertize ANY of his property. If he IS going to commit murder,
do u expect him to CO-OPERATE ????



engineer wrote:
You don't conceal things without a reason.
I respectfully DISPUTE that. I think every guy has something that he conceals,
which (like guns) is his own private business!


(His wallet.)

Almost all of my property that I carry with me daily
is concealed, including a concealed pocket
that I have my tailors sew inside all of my vests,
for spare keys n emergency cash.





OmSigDAVID wrote:
engineer wrote:
I support tracking gun sales so that weapons used in crimes can be tracked back
to their points of origin and so conduits of weapons going to criminals can be identified.
Prohibitions do not work. Prohibitions are to be LAFFED at.
There is no reason to identify them.
Neither marijuana nor guns, nor knives will be kept out of criminal hands. I think that 's obvious.
engineer wrote:
I didn't propose prohibitions, I proposed tracking of gun sales.
Tracking for what PURPOSE?? It is to enforce the futile prohibitions.

Quote:
No, tracking for the purpose of tracking weapons used in crimes back to the points of origin.
Y do u wish to do THAT ?



engineer wrote:
Once again, for someone who wants to get criminals off the streets
and into another country, why would you resist steps to allow that to happen?
What I want to happen is that people who have been recidivistically, criminally violent,
be removed from contact with the decent people, after conviction in court.
That has nothing to do with concealed carry of guns.
It has to do with using them feloniously, e.g., in robbery n murder.

DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2010 11:04 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
That was my point.
Try to keep up. That wasnt your point.

I'm pretty sure about what my point was. You continue to see things that aren't there, which hardly adds to your credibility.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 08:15 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Did u imply an exception against criminals?
.... I thought that was your position. Yes ?

I see the confusion. That was someone else's position. Mine is here.

OmSigDAVID wrote:
engineer wrote:
Licensing is no more discrimination than asking people to register to vote.
Engineer, the purpose of licensing has always been to discriminate between those who HAVE the license and those who do not. As to a license for THIS purpose, it is government permission to defend your life when attacked by man or beast.

But having a gun and not knowing how to use it doesn't allow you to defend yourself effectively. Licensing ensures there is some basic level of knowledge about how to use a weapon. Registering to vote is not a form of discrimination and neither is licensing. If an undue burden is placed on potential gun owners, that could be addressed by the courts just as undue burdens on voter registration have been.

OmSigDAVID wrote:
engineer wrote:
The state has a vesting interest in ensuring that people vote per the rules. It also has a vested interest in seeing guns used safely.
As a condition of the EXISTENCE of government,
it was denied jurisdiction to interfere in any citizen's possession of guns.

Same with voting. The parallel still holds.

OmSigDAVID wrote:
engineer wrote:

As for carrying concealed not putting people at risk, there are two types of people who want to carry concealed. Good, law abiding citizens such as yourself and those who intend violence. If you come into someone's yard carrying concealed and they notice it below your clothing, they would be a fool to trust to your good intentions.
That makes no sense, unless the landowner believes that this fellow is very mad at him,
or intends to rob him of something. Simply carrying your defensive weapons with u wherever u go is not a threat. Paranoia; unreasoning fear.

And that brings us back to the articles I posted. The average armed guy is not going to suddenly get mad and start shooting, but it is clear that some people can. In each of those articles, those people were simply carrying their defensive weapons. As someone pointed out, if they fly into a rage and decide to attack me without a gun, they could still do me serious harm, but at least I can see them coming if they want to attack me with their hands, a knife or a shovel. If they draw a gun I don't have much of a chance. If I'm carrying a gun and they decide to draw first, I still don't have much of a chance. If they in agitation draw their gun, even if they don't point it, I would have to take immediate action to defend myself, likely by trying to kill them. If I have a gun, we are in a gun fight. If I don't, then it's either attack or flee, but someone is going to get seriously hurt and the presence of a gun is driving the escalation.

If I see the weapon on someone's person, I have a much better understanding of where the situation may go. I doubt I would discuss politics or religion with someone who is carrying. Too much of a chance for them to go postal on me. I believe there is more of a chance of encountering an otherwise normal person drawing their weapon in anger than a murderer that I can fend off with a gun. That's what I tried to show in posting those articles.

OmSigDAVID wrote:
engineer wrote:
However your suggesting that those carrying concealed wear some other signifier of a weapon meets that need.
On that point, shall we now require undercover police (our employees) to display that signifier? So that we be safer from them ?


engineer wrote:
I think concealed carry should be very restricted;

As you quoted above, I advocated very limited concealed carry. Police would be candidates for that in certain roles.

OmSigDAVID wrote:
engineer wrote:
You don't conceal things without a reason.
I respectfully DISPUTE that. I think every guy has something that he conceals,
which (like guns) is his own private business! (His wallet.)

Almost all of my property that I carry with me daily
is concealed, including a concealed pocket
that I have my tailors sew inside all of my vests,
for spare keys n emergency cash.

So you have reasons for concealing that stuff. It might be appearance, it might be to make you a less likely target for crime, etc. You say you conceal your weapon for appearance, fine. Your idea of an external concealed carry badge is excellent. It grows on me more over time. You could make some general guidelines, then challenge the fashion industry to make tasteful items. For example, a one inch square purple object indicates you are carrying. You could have broaches for women, silk pocket squares for men, etc. Once again, personal safety for both you and those around you is higher if everyone knows you are carrying.

OmSigDAVID wrote:
engineer wrote:
I didn't propose prohibitions, I proposed tracking of gun sales.
Tracking for what PURPOSE?? It is to enforce the futile prohibitions.

OmSigDAVID wrote:
engineer wrote:
No, tracking for the purpose of tracking weapons used in crimes back to the points of origin.
Y do u wish to do THAT ?

Why would I wish to identify criminals when I recover their weapons or know where guns used in crimes are being sold? To arrest cirminals and solve crimes.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  4  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 07:39 pm
http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/129130078330247893.jpg
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 08:01 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/129130078330247893.jpg
That gun is much too safe, Drew (not from the cat' s perspective, of course).

I guess he can call 911 (the guy, not the cat).





David
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 08:12 pm
I'm late here, I think I have missed the whole thread. I picked it up now since I like the title.

I suppose it is possible I posted before, but I'd like to start again.

So, checking in.

just looking, it seems imbecilic as usual.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 08:15 pm
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:
I'm late here, I think I have missed the whole thread. I picked it up now since I like the title.

I suppose it is possible I posted before, but I'd like to start again.

So, checking in.
Welcome back; please say something controversial.





David
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 07:23 am
@DrewDad,
I am responding to your month old post, the second on this thread, in which you refer to the fact that a gun may create more danger.

I heartily agree.

My daughter-in-law is tiny: five feet tall and weighing in at 90 pounds. She says what happens if someone breaks into your house when you are sleeping or in the basement doing the laundry? Do you say, "Excuse me. I need to go get my gun."

She's right.

Guns are pointless.

Sane, well-balanced individuals do not fear the bogeyman.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 07:33 am
@Joe Nation,
This is in response to your early post on this thread in which you question the veracity of david's story of his window having been shot out. Was it a car window or an apartment window?

When one reads of a car window being shot out, one assumes it is the driver's side window which could possibly be lethal to the driver. Let's take away could . . . generally, I would assume that any bullet entering through the driver's side window would kill the seated driver. The same might be said for the windshield.

There are many posts that I question the veracity of . . . having been a mother makes a person a little better equipped to sniff out lies. A lie is most likely to be created in a response. The classic "fifth grade" well, I had that happen to me as well but it was exactly the opposite of the way you said it happened. The problem is that when a person doing a wrong . . . in this case, lying . . . is confronted, they generally will retreat into high dudgeon and denial.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 07:37 am
@Joe Nation,
Alright, same reference as above. Found the quote from David in the thread. It was the driver's side window. I agree with your assessment. If he hadn't been shot, he could have had glass fragments in his eye. The story is a fib. . .pure fabrication.
 

Related Topics

Drumsticks - Discussion by H2O MAN
nobody respects an oath breaker - Discussion by gungasnake
Marksmanship - Discussion by H2O MAN
Kids and Guns by the Numbers - Discussion by jcboy
CO gun-grabbers go down in flames in recall - Discussion by gungasnake
Personal Defense Weapons (PDW) - Discussion by H2O MAN
Self defense with a gun - Discussion by H2O MAN
It's a sellers market - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/16/2022 at 05:16:44