10
   

It's hard not to think of guns these days . . .

 
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 10:37 am
I have never supported gun ownership. I find the majority of people who do telling. And, yes, I recognize that there are liberals who support gun ownership.

Why does one carry a gun? Allegedly to defend against criminals.

My daughter-in-law . . . five feet tall and 90 pounds . . . said what if someone breaks in while you are asleep or in your basement doing laundry? What do you say? Excuse me while I get my gun?

In fact, women are discouraged from arming themselves with guns or knives as most men are stronger than most women, meaning a woman could easily be disarmed and her weapon turned against her.

During the age of nonviolent theorizing, an elderly friend was followed one evening. Aware that someone was behind her, she began lifting the lids of trash cans and talking to the contents. She yelled out a couple of things to the stars and the power lines. Then she turned to face her follower, put her chin against his chest and asked how he was this fine evening? He ran away and she was declared a hero. Everyone marveled at her bravery and was happy that she was still with us.

But, is the reason for carrying a weapon . . . concealed or otherwise (why is the charge always carrying a concealed weapon? Is a concealed weapon any more or less dangerous than an openly exposed one? The concealed weapon is less accessible. ) . . . defense or offense?

Is the intent of carrying a weapon the intent to kill? Is there potential for every gun toter to be charged with intent to kill?
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 02:14 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
I have never supported gun ownership.
I have never supported discriminatory graduated income taxation.






plainoldme wrote:
I find the majority of people who do telling.
I tell many things; I used to get fairly well paid for telling and for asking.







plainoldme wrote:
And, yes, I recognize that there are liberals who support gun ownership.
Yes; e.g., liberal Democrat Congressman John Dingell from Michigan,
Dean of the US House of Representatives and former Board Member of the NRA.








plainoldme wrote:
Why does one carry a gun?
For defense of life and property from the predatory violence of man or beast.








plainoldme wrote:
Allegedly to defend against criminals.
Yeah.






plainoldme wrote:
My daughter-in-law . . . five feet tall and 90 pounds . . .
said what if someone breaks in while you are asleep or in your
basement doing laundry? What do you say?
"Get down on your knees or I 'll put 3 rounds thru your large intestine";
either that or say nothing and blast away, if he is too close.
Hollowpointed slugs are recommended for better stopping power.
In some cases, firing several warning shots into his thorax has been dissuasive, if of sufficient caliber.







plainoldme wrote:
Excuse me while I get my gun?
Emergency equipment is best kept close at hand.








plainoldme wrote:
In fact, women are discouraged from arming themselves with guns or knives [ ?? ]
as most men are stronger than most women, meaning a woman could easily be disarmed
and her weapon turned against her.
Knives are not suitable defenses. Those are tools of desperation; impracticable. Guns are a lot better,
because the wise victim will disable the predator by gunfire before he is close enuf to disarm him or her.
A few rounds of hollowpointed .44 in the large intestine will tend to slow him down and to demoralize him.








plainoldme wrote:
During the age of nonviolent theorizing, an elderly friend was followed one evening. Aware that someone was behind her, she began lifting the lids of trash cans and talking to the contents. She yelled out a couple of things to the stars and the power lines. Then she turned to face her follower, put her chin against his chest and asked how he was this fine evening? He ran away and she was declared a hero. Everyone marveled at her bravery and was happy that she was still with us.
U can depend on an insanity defense if u wanna.
As Groucho Marx used to say: "step right up and play you bet your life."







plainoldme wrote:
But, is the reason for carrying a weapon . . . concealed or otherwise
(why is the charge always carrying a concealed weapon?
Different laws apply, depending on which jurisdiction.
Traditionally, carrying guns exposed to vu
is perfectly legal in many jurisdictions in America.
That 's Y there are gunracks at the back windows of pickup trucks.







plainoldme wrote:
Is a concealed weapon any more or less dangerous than an openly exposed one?
No, but some people act as if it were. Its crazy.







plainoldme wrote:
The concealed weapon is less accessible. )
Its not, if the wearer is not stupid.






plainoldme wrote:
. . . defense or offense?
The best defense is a good attack; u may need to disable the predator.
Killing him will ofen have that effect, and he is less likely to sue u in tort.
Most ofen, thay flee at the mere sight of a defensive gun.







plainoldme wrote:
Is the intent of carrying a weapon the intent to kill?
That is unforeseeable; the circumstances: unpredictable, but if an emergency arises, it is best (for the victim)
if the victim can CONTROL the situation by bringing dominant power to bear.
A predatory conflict is a contest of power.





plainoldme wrote:
Is there potential for every gun toter to be charged with intent to kill?
That question is unintelligible.





David
Gargamel
 
  3  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 08:48 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
A few rounds of hollowpointed .44 in the large intestine will tend to slow him down and to demoralize him.


What the **** are you talking about? Aren't you 90 years-old? I would knock the shitty Saturday Night Special out of your shaky little hands.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 08:59 am
@Gargamel,
I just love your wit!
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 09:27 am
Here we go again.

No, you don't say to the intruder "excuse me while I get my gun"

If you wake up and he's already on top of you, you wait for the opportunity to grab your weapon, which obviously should be near by, and use it.

Acting like a "crazy person" and talking to garbage cans in the presence of danger is the stupidest thing I can imagine. Putting your head on his chest would frighten him and make him "run away"? What bullshit.

I don't carry a concealed weapon, but if I was in danger while outside my home I'll take my chances with letting the possible attacker know I see him, am watching his moves, and waiting for him to make his. Trying to be clever by acting crazy, stupid, the "hey! look over there!" ploy, is just wasting your mental energy that should be focused on your attacker. I would be a warrior.

In my home, the same thing, plus using any opportunity to wound him to the point where I could escape. If it happened to hit an artery, and he bled out, well, he shouldn't have been breaking into my home. I would feel no guilt whatsoever. It might be nice if the attacker is only wounded, but I'm not going to go out of my way to aim at a non vital part. Whatever is closest gets shot.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 09:34 am
@chai2,
During the 1960s, there were many classes taught in non-violent self-defense and acting as though one was crazy was one of the techniques employed by the movement.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 09:36 am
Well, some of us believe in the Bill of Rights. Once you accept the idea that people have the right to freedom, I cannot see any basis for denying people the right to defend their existence. Once you offer people the right to defend their existence, you cannot deny people the right to the means to defend their existence. There are many scenarios in which a person in danger can defend himself or his home with a gun. Should the government be able to tell people that they must be rendered helpless and that only the government, which might or might not arrive in time, can be allowed to defend them?
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 09:37 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

During the 1960s, there were many classes taught in non-violent self-defense and acting as though one was crazy was one of the techniques employed by the movement.

A gun is more likely to help you than being utterly helpless and trying to psych the attacker(s). Trying to psych out the attacker(s) could have wildly variable results. Why should the criminals have an exclusive on weapons?
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 09:59 am
@Brandon9000,
I have been thinking about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was originally written as a compromise.

I feel the Second Amendment is in error and that it is a cultural artifact, a left over from a time when people had a different attitude toward weapons, in part because it was the mark of the aristocracy to carry swords and some of that eclat transferred itself to guns; in part because the European settlers on this continent were invaders and had to protect themselves against the righteous anger of the people who were here, and, in part, because much of this continent was raw wilderness.

There is, however, nothing we can do about this clause. We are stuck with it even if some of us may feel it is antiquated and that guns do more harm than good. To ban guns now would be to repeat Prohibition.

I find your logic faulty. In fact, your second sentence is logically inconsistent. First, no one is denying the right to freedom but the manner in which you state this is vague and freedom here means nothing. Then you switch to your inability to see a denial of the right of people "to defend their existence." Existence is not freedom. What?! You then go on to say, "once you offer people the right to defend their existence . ." Wait! You were defending freedom and not existence and who is this "you" offering freedom which you say people have a right to? If you believe that there is a right like that, no one can offer it.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 10:02 am
@Brandon9000,
There are several theories of human existence that support the continual growth and improvement of humanity. This is intellectual and spiritual growth. Under these theories, people become non violent. Some of those theories blossomed during the 1960s.

Let's get real. How many attacks occur? How many of the more than 300 million Americans are regularly threatened? You must have a pretty dim view of humanity to think we need so much protection.
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 10:29 am
@plainoldme,
There is always hunting - but I assume you mean a hand gun, not rifle. Although I do know people who carry a hand gun for shark hunting. It isn't to shoot the shark, but once you catch it, it is dangerous on board so just in case you need a hand gun.
chai2
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 10:55 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

During the 1960s, there were many classes taught in non-violent self-defense and acting as though one was crazy was one of the techniques employed by the movement.


Well, if it hasn't been taught since the 1960's apparantley it didn't work very well.

First off, why would someone not, let's say, rape you because you're acting strange, talking to garbage cans, etc.
"whoa, I was about to throw this woman don't and violently penetrate her, punching her around and robbing her for good measure. I might even kill her....yeah, that was the idea....I....I....I just can't now because she's acting all werid." I think it's likely the attacker will think "I can do whatever I want here, no one's going to believe her"
Second, it's not that easy to act crazy. Even if you can, you're spliting your brain, trying to act differently than you normally do, while looking for an excape route, your chance to get away. You need to be clear headed and focused.
If you can get away without violence, fine. I don't consider getting your attacker on the ground so you have a few extra seconds violence. If he stays on the ground a little longer because you managed to cause some pain, so much the better.

If it's between me and someone else getting hurt, it ain't gonna be me if I can help it.

Being taught to act crazy back in the 60's sounds like hippy dippy **** to me.
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 10:58 am
@chai2,
It wouldn't be too much of a stretch for me. I talk to myself all the time.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 11:04 am
I agree with Chai in principle except I don't like guns so I'd prefer a trained German Shepherd or two. I wish we could put up electric wire or top our fences with broken glass - that might help keep the buggers out. We really should be able to defend our family and property. One of the homes I owned was burglarized 5 times. I got kind of tired of it. If I'd had a dog, the perp would have paid for it. One time a neighbour saw legs sticking out of our cat door and called the cops. I don't know how but the cop and dog got in that way, too, and chased the little **** into the attic. There the dog got a hold of him and the **** required 4 hours of stitching. Smile
Ceili
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 11:08 am
@chai2,
I know it sounds bizarre but it actually does work. I've heard of people doing this before, with rapists mostly. People are terrified of crazy people. They think it will rub off on them or something. However, I'm not sure the guy holding a gun wouldn't shoot first anyway.

Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 11:20 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

I have been thinking about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was originally written as a compromise.

I feel the Second Amendment is in error and that it is a cultural artifact, a left over from a time when people had a different attitude toward weapons, in part because it was the mark of the aristocracy to carry swords and some of that eclat transferred itself to guns; in part because the European settlers on this continent were invaders and had to protect themselves against the righteous anger of the people who were here, and, in part, because much of this continent was raw wilderness.

There is, however, nothing we can do about this clause. We are stuck with it even if some of us may feel it is antiquated and that guns do more harm than good. To ban guns now would be to repeat Prohibition.

I find your logic faulty. In fact, your second sentence is logically inconsistent. First, no one is denying the right to freedom but the manner in which you state this is vague and freedom here means nothing. Then you switch to your inability to see a denial of the right of people "to defend their existence." Existence is not freedom. What?! You then go on to say, "once you offer people the right to defend their existence . ." Wait! You were defending freedom and not existence and who is this "you" offering freedom which you say people have a right to? If you believe that there is a right like that, no one can offer it.

I'm sure that everyone who has a problem with various amendments in the Bill of Rights will have some rationalization.

It's fairly obvious that I meant that one of the basic freedoms is the freedom to exist and to defend one's existence. Do you disagree that people have the right to self-defense?
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 11:21 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

There are several theories of human existence that support the continual growth and improvement of humanity. This is intellectual and spiritual growth. Under these theories, people become non violent. Some of those theories blossomed during the 1960s.

Let's get real. How many attacks occur? How many of the more than 300 million Americans are regularly threatened? You must have a pretty dim view of humanity to think we need so much protection.

Most of the time, one doesn't need freedom against physical attack, but when one needs it, one really needs it. The spiritual progress of humanity doesn't mean forfeiting the right to self defense.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 11:24 am
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:

I know it sounds bizarre but it actually does work. I've heard of people doing this before, with rapists mostly. People are terrified of crazy people. They think it will rub off on them or something. However, I'm not sure the guy holding a gun wouldn't shoot first anyway.

Acting crazy could be expected to produce variable results, and is certainly not a reliable means of defending one's life and physical integrity. It strikes me as a very foolish thing to try.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 11:29 am
@Gargamel,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
A few rounds of hollowpointed .44 in the large intestine will tend to slow him down and to demoralize him.
Gargamel wrote:
What the **** are you talking about? Aren't you 90 years-old?
I would knock the shitty Saturday Night Special out of your shaky little hands.
What a stupid thing to say! If I let u get that close without putting 5 rounds into your groin,
I 'd DESERVE to get killed.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 11:33 am
@Brandon9000,
plainoldme wrote:

During the 1960s, there were many classes taught in non-violent self-defense and acting as though one was crazy was one of the techniques employed by the movement.
Brandon9000 wrote:
A gun is more likely to help you than being utterly helpless and trying to psych the attacker(s).
Trying to psych out the attacker(s) could have wildly variable results.



Why should the criminals have an exclusive on weapons?
Because it makes leftists feel better emotionally.
U shoud be willing to sacrifice your life for that; politically correct.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » It's hard not to think of guns these days . . .
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/18/2019 at 01:17:42