LTE writer manages to use "Wild West" canard 6 times in one letter!! NEW RECORD!!!

[virginia mountainman]

ROFLMAO!!!

http://www.pennlive.com/letters/index.ssf/2010/06/do_we_want_to_return_pennsylva.html

Ok, who forgot to sweeten up that Brady/VPC brand koolaid? William Poland's drink, is WAY WAY to strong!

[depakid]

1. Interesting, because in many town in the "wild west" you had to check your guns

mainly because it was none too bright for drunken yahoo's to be pulling them out every time they "felt threatened" or wanted to start or end a fight.

[Travis Coates]

4. H8in

Seriously man, where does this absolute hatred for guns come from?

[county worker]

6. Not a hatred of guns, a hatred of people being shot. Why twist somebody's

words to fit your screed?

[Travis Coates]

31. I think you need to go back and read

some of his posts. But maybe you can answer, Why this hatred ? There is a gun on my hip right now, is your life worse because of it? Are you in danger because it's there?

[SteveM]

63. No, there is considerable hatred for guns and the people who have them.

Pleae read this individual's prior stuff, and for that matter the posts of some other gun-control/prohibitionists in this forum.

Prohibition has as its chief dynamic fostering a hatred for the thing or practice, then fostering a hatred for those who have the thing or engage in that practice. Alcohol, ganja, guns, gay lifestyle, abortion, etc. It's all the same.

[GreenStormCloud]

12. That was only in the towns at the end of cow trails.

Towns that weren't on the drive paths didn't have the problem of cowhands blowing off steam by shooting into the air.

Both the James gang and the Dalton gang were ended by citizens shooting up the outlaws when they tried to rob the bank.

[depakid]

21. errr.. Nope

Plenty of towns throughout the west had such laws- for damn good reason.

[Travis Coates]

32. You're more than welcome to provide cites

We'll wait

[Euromutt]

59. We may be in for the long haul

I'm still waiting for depakid to provide some evidence for the claim made in this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=320448&mesg_id=320452

I'm not holding my breath. It's hard to escape the feeling that depakid may be somewhat prone to fabrication.

[GreenStormCloud]

40. Nope. The so-called Wild West was actually quite tame.

With the exception of a few wild towns, the typical Western town had a low crime rate, and allowed citizens to carry guns. They saw no need to ban guns in town because shootings in town were extremely rare.

Here is a quote from a book written in those days: http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-LowJubi-t1-body1-d6.html

On 6th January, 1844, Mr. Tuckett, who came out with the original expedition, in the character of Chief Surveyor, resigned his office. He was a member of the Society of Friends, and wars and rumors of wars, and the almost universal carrying of arms, filled him with disgust. He saw ho near prospect of being able to complete the, surveys—on the contrary, the obstacles appeared to be increasing—and were, in his opinion, only likely to removed by a demonstration of superior armed force. In his agreement with the Directors he had been specially exempted from bearing arms, training men to the use of them, or taking part with them. This brought upon him, from some, an imputation of cowardice. In his letter of resignation he says: "We are now arrived at a state of affairs in which most men consider it expedient to go about armed."

That was in Pennsylvania, which was considered "civilized" at the time.

[Euromutt]

54. And even then, only in those parts of town that housed the "entertainment industry"

In Dodge City, you were required to check your weapons only on the south side of the railroad, which was where the saloons, dance halls and brothels were (hence the phrase "the wrong side of the tracks"). On the north side of the tracks, there were no such requirements.

The Earps implemented a similar policy in Tombstone, Arizona Territory when they moved there; restrictions on carrying applied to the "red light district" (if you will), but not the rest of the town.

[jeepnstein]

61. One could argue...

that the Earps had an interest in keeping a lid on the guns in their town, given their interests in the gambling biz. Wyatt Earp might be a legend, but I'm not convinced his motives were always altruistic.

[Euromutt]

66. I think the historical evidence indicates...

...that the Earps were by no means the altruistic preservers of public safety that Wyatt in particular made them (and himself) out to be. Certainly the indications are strong that the "Gunfight at the OK Corral" was more of a rumble between rival gangs, in which the winning side happened to be wearing badges, than a confrontation of white hats vs. black hats.

[old mark]

2. I want to find out where he lives and call him out at high noon.

A man's gotta do....etc :rofl:

Give me a good excuse to wear my old cowboy boots, too.


mark

[county worker]

7. Get a horse. It's a good idea to have long heels so your foot doesn't slip through the stirrups.

[old mark]

14. I have a great pair of cowboy riding boots made in Mexico and very fancy...

I have had them almost 18 years, rebuilt once- just great boots.

No horse, though - and my six shooter is an old S&W .357 magnum, so I'm not authentic.


mark

[Travis Coates]

3. First comment posted on this article

31 States already have some form of a Castle Doctrine and have not had Wild West shoot outs, or blood in the streets as predicted. This law has nothing to do with allowing more violence. It is about protecting the people that are put in the horrible position of fearing for their life, safety, or a loved one and having to act. There have been several cases of criminals getting hurt while doing bad things and suing the victims. If you act in self defense and are cleared of wrong doing this law protects you from some scum bag or their family from trying to take you to civil court. If you shoot or kill someone and it is not self defense you will still be prosecuted. It also take away the need to retreat which most any law abiding citizen will still try to deescalate a situation and most of the time just showing a firearm does that. But if someone is trying to kick your door down at two in the morning you should not have to go hide in you bedroom and wait for the police.

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment

Sounds like the good folk of PA get it

[county worker]

8. My bet is those gun people can't wait for someone to kick their door down.

I wonder what the usual time frame is between when you buy a gun and someone kicks your door down?

[cowman]

10. Are you fuckin nuts

Who the hell wants someone to kick in their door just so they can shoot them?
In the immortal words of Sgt. Hulka
"Lighten up Francis"
I challenge you to show me where anyone on this forum said or even implied that they are waiting for someone to kick down their door so they can shoot. No one has, ergo that makes you a LIAR

[county worker]

15. No I'm not crazy. If you live in a wold as I do where the chance of someone kicking your door down

is likely a never gone to happen probability, and you carry a gun just in case that rare event does happen, you are crazy!

[cowman]

20. Still waiting

for you to show me where someone on this forum said that they are waiting for someone to kick their door down so they could shoot them.
Otherwise you are a liar

[GreenStormCloud]

13. Usually, it never happens.

I don't expect to have a fire in my house, but I have two fire extinguishers in the house and one in each car.

The reason for being prepared is that if the event does happen, the consequences of not being prepared are extreme.

[county worker]

16. There is no comparison between fire an an intruder. A fire has a greater probability of happening

than you having an intruder. You can get a security system for the intruder like you probably have a smoke alarm. I just can't accept the idea that more and more people in this country are ready with a loaded gun because the chance of an innocent person being shot grows at the same rate.

We just don't need to be carrying loaded weapons around.

[cowman]

18. I'll check with the Dept. of Needs and get back to you

Oh, wait, there is no Dept of Needs. Your wants and needs are meaningless to me, I have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and the great state of NV says I have a right to carry said weapon concealed which I do when not on duty and I don't live in fear like you label CCW holders. I've been carryiny for years and have never had to pull it yet and I hope to hell that I never do but if I have to than at least I will have a fighting chance, How do you like them apples?

[X_Digger]

24. Here are the chances..

In the US there are 350,000 residential fires every year, and there are ~105,000,000 homes. Odds of a home fire? 1 in 300.

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Fire-Prevention/fires-factsheet.html

According to the DOJ, the rate of being the victim of a violent crime is 20 / 1,000 overall (as high as 27 / 1,000 for some groups like african americans.) That comes out to 1 in 50.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1743

[Callisto32]

60. I was busy writing this up, and then saw you already did it.

Many thanks.

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. Two errors in one paragraph. You need to work on accuracy.

X_Digger has explained how your second sentence is incorrect (post #24).

I just can't accept the idea that more and more people in this country are ready with a loaded gun because the chance of an innocent person being shot grows at the same rate.

Since the violent crime rate in this country has declined while the number of guns has soared, you'll
pretty much have to accept it, no?

[spin]

33. Your imagination lacks reality ...

but you might be able to produce some pulp fiction.

As you suggest, someone attempting to break into your home is a rare event. I've owned firearms for 40 plus years and only once was one used to stop a home break in. My daughter stopped an intruder who was forcing the sliding glass door of our kitchen open. She pointed a large caliber revolver at him and he ran.

Still, had my daughter not had access to a handgun and the training and ability to use it the situation might have easily turned tragic. There was a burglar alarm sounding and also a 60 pound black lab in the house. Neither deterred the intruder.

Firearms for self protection are a lot like fire extinguishers. I've also owned fire extinguishers for 40 years and I have only had to use one once. The pool filter suffered an electrical fire which I promptly put out.

If you feel that a firearm is not necessary for your self defense, I see no problem with your view. Chances are that you are correct and will never have a need for a weapon.

I chose to own firearms for the enjoyment of target shooting and also for self defense. I understand and respect the responsibly of firearm ownership. I have absolutely no desire to ever to use one for self defense but I will if absolutely necessary to save my life or a member of my family from serious harm.

People often differ in their outlook on life. Some people tend to believe in statistics and chance, others believe in being prepared.

[Travis Coates]

34. Psychiatrists call that projection.

I carry a gun because I have been a victim of crime. I haved use my gun in self defense 3 times in 20 years and have yet to fire a shot. So where is my waiting for the opportunity to use my gun?

[PavePusher]

37. I'm sure you have evidence to support your assertion...

and will cite it any time now...

Right?

Or are you merely making baseless, unfactual, bigoted accusations?

[SteveM]

64. Sounds like your engaging in a little animosity yourself...

"My bet is those gun people can't wait for someone to kick their door down."

"Gun people" (a reasonable signifier of the dreaded "other"), according to you, are biting a the bit to do some of dat killin'. Pretty crappy attribution when no data or facts to support your "bet" are not presented.

You brought up some kind of "time frame" as well. Could you explain what you are driving at, identifying any causal relationships and actions? Thank you.

[Caliman73]

67. Your bet is wrong...

It's been about 11 years for me and no one has kicked in my door. I am hoping I go a good 60+ more without it ever happening. Same goes for other equipment I have bought hoping never to use like the fire extinguishers I purchase every few years, the emergency food and medical supplies I cycle through every 6 months to every few years. Etc...

This belief that gun owners are wishing to commit violence sounds like irrational fear or projection.

[depakid]

26. Guess that's been the mentality out there with the census workers, eh?

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. Yup, take us back to the good old days.

Wild West is so yesterday.

Why not wild everywhere?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[county worker]

17. I'm sure there is a good contingent of people who never want to hear from people who

don't support the idea of armed and dangerous citizens walking around in our midst.

[cowman]

19. Here I'll fix this for you

armed and law abiding citizens

[depakid]

22. Until they shoot their wives... or coworkers...or some random folks on the freeway

or at a restaurant or bar... or a school.

[cowman]

23. Don't you have problems

of your own in the land of Oz? The chance of a CHL holder doing that are very slim. Compare that to someone who is already banned from owning guns and the ratio is practically non existint, but you don't really give a damn about that do you because you would love to see Aussie style gun control laws adopted here in the U.S.

[depakid]

25. Your CHL holders do that all the time...

And you're right- America would be a far safer and saner society if it had responsible firearms regulations.

Enacted and enforced at the federal level.

[X_Digger]

27. "all the time", eh?

Care to back that up with something more than fecal flinging?

[depakid]

28. It's been detailed numerous times right here on this forum

And that's only when and where the records are available and come out.

There's a reason why the NRA fights so hard to keep them under wraps. And it ain't just paranoia.

[X_Digger]

30. You mean like this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=320583&mesg_id=320615

Please define 'all the time'.. and is that any more prevalent that the general public?

[proteus_lives]

43. He can't!

That's what makes him so :rofl:

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. Why, it took me nearly *three whole minutes* to find these. The coverup is obvious!

http://www.fbi.gov/publications.htm

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius

Crime in the United States
Crime in the United States (CIUS) is an annual publication in which the FBI compiles volume and rate of crime offenses for the nation, the states, and individual agencies. This report also includes arrest, clearance, and law enforcement employee data.

A few *more* minutes, and I (along with anybody else) can get the figures from the states of Florida and Texas, who
have years worth of data about CHL holders available free for the surfing.


You are correct about it not being paranoia, it's mendacity.

Thing is, the NRA aren't the ones being mendacious here....

[jazzhound]

56. Another terminal case of Factose Intolerance caused by prolonged exposure

to the Gun Control Reality Distortion Field.

http://wikiality.wikia.com/Factose_Intolerance

And that's only when and where the records are available and come out. There's a reason why the NRA fights so hard to keep them under wraps. And it ain't just paranoia.

In the case of this patient, terminal Factose Intolerance is indicated by the fact that he is completely oblivious to how completely deranged and pathetic he sounds. (well.......and then there's that little intolerance to facts detail)

[cowman]

29. He never does

he just throws shit hoping it will stick which it never does

[Travis Coates]

35. America would be a far safer and saner society if it had responsible firearms regulations.

Like Australia?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x314775


Oh, wait.....

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. He avoids *that* subject like the plague.

Don't expect an explanation of why cops in the "safer and saner" society somehow need 11,000 new large-caliber,
faster reloading semiautomatic American handguns.

Facts that don't promote the faith are ignored, dontcha know?

[Travis Coates]

55. I noticed that NT

[GreenStormCloud]

39. Your odds of being struck by lightning are far greater than of being ILLEGALLY shot by...

...a CCW holder.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

52. Irony impairment knows no bounds it seems

:crazy:

[jazzhound]

57. I imagine my eyes would be spinning too if I were suffering from the effects

of the Gun Control Reality Distortion Field.

Take two aspirins, two shots of tequila, and call us in the morning.

Or not.

[friendly_iconoclast]

51. I'll venture a guess right after you explain the subject of post #35 for us.

That work for ya?

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. "responsible firearms regulations" meaning ones you approve of, no doubt?

Like the ones in Jamaica or Mexico, for example?

[spin]

36. Since you are from Australia ...

you may hear a lot of propaganda about how terrible it is to allow honest citizens to carry firearms. That's understandable. Your country and its government has a long history of distrusting the common citizen as do many other nations in our world.

No Bill of Rights

Australia is one of literally a handful of states that does not have a legal instrument (either a constitutional or statutory bill of rights) asserting the range and scope of its citizens' freedoms, including freedom of speech. Other common law systems, including the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand, have a Bill or Rights included in their legal framework in some form. Some of these provisions restrict themselves to freedom of speech, expression or communications; others, such as the US First Amendment, specifically provide for freedom of the press.
http://www.safecom.org.au/press-freedom.htm

The United States has a different approach. We have a Bill of Rights and the first two amendments are:

First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Obviously many nations believe that the rights of the government are far more important that the rights of the citizen. We differ. Americans are distrustful of their government often with good reason.

But let's look at some facts on how dangerous concealed carry really is.

Every month the state of Florida publishes a report on concealed carry that can be viewed at:

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

This report covers a time span of 22 years from October 1, 1987 to May 31, 2010. In that period of time 1,787,628 concealed weapons permits were issued and 729,103 are currently valid. Only 167 license have been revoked for a crime committed where a firearm was utilized.

Obviously those who have concealed carry permits in the United States are not as dangerous as you fantasize.

[proteus_lives]

41. Safe drivers until......

[proteus_lives]

42. I'm armed.

What makes me dangerous?

[SteveM]

65. Guess what: I don't like "armed and dangerous citizens" walking around either...

Perhaps that is why there are quite a few armed and law-abiding citizens are are walking around as well.

I don't mind that at all.

[PavePusher]

38. Bigoted troll is bigoted.

Stay classy there...

[jazzhound]

48. Don't recall the names and perfect detail, but there was a story I heard

about a famous Western lawman who visited N.Y.C. Afterwards, he proclaimed that he'd rather stay for an extended time in (name your toughest Western town) than one night in N.Y.C.

[DissedByBush]

53. Wild West is a bad comparison for a reason he doesn't think

The Wild West was not all that violent. Murder rates were not that high.

Chicago is probably more violent than the Wild West.

[Euromutt]

58. That Kool-Aid is definitely undiluted

The proposed new law would allow a person — in his home or on a public sidewalk — to shoot first and ask “Who’s there?” or “What do you want?” later, when suspecting someone else might want to harm him or his property.

Congratulations, Mr. Poland, you have swallowed the Brady Campaign's propaganda hook, line and sinker. Yes, the Brady Campaign likes to refer to "Stand Your Ground" laws as "Shoot First" laws, and you have interpreted that phrase exactly the manner desired, namely to make the obvious--but no less incorrect--mental association with the expression "shoot first, ask questions later." The reality, however, is that the "Shoot First" characterization is based on the fact that the law relieves someone defending himself from a violent crime of the legal duty to attempt to retreat before resorting to lethal force, and that is all. The law does not actually allow you to "shoot first and ask questions later" as the Brady Campaign likes to insinuate, and the fact that you think it does means you don't actually know what you're talking about.

Thank you, fuck off, next contestant.

[spin]

62. Florida "Stand your Ground Law" explained ...

The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:

* It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.

* In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

* In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

* If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/florida-self-defense-law.htm