Stopping Nuts With Guns - Myths and Reality

[ddeclue]

Earlier this week 33 people including the shooter were killed in a spectacular shooting spree on the campus of Virginia Tech which drew national and international media attention and still holds it this evening.

Meanwhile murder and gun crime is more anonymously but still dramatically up all over the country including right here in Central Florida where we hit an all time record of 113 murders last year in Orange County of which 49 were in the City of Orlando and we had a dramatic increase in the rate of murders on a population basis as well.

The majority of these murders are gun crimes.

The right wing blogosphere in response to the Virginia Tech shooting is busy spewing the usual right wing mythology trying to contain the damage from their ideological support for unlimited gun rights.

You know what I mean:

"Guns don't kill people, people do"

"We have an unalienable right to bear arms"

"If we make guns illegal only criminals will have guns"

"If everyone else had a gun too, this wouldn't have happened", etc.


Let's address these top four right wing myths one by one:


Myth #1) "Guns don't kill people, people do"

Yeah but PEOPLE don't THROW bullets at other people do they?

Guns are machines that have been expressly engineered to make killing so easy and automatic that "even a caveman" can do it. If gun access was more restrictive there would be less of this nonsense and when it did happen there wouldn't be 15 dead or 30 dead but rather 2 or 3.


Myth #2 - "We have an unalienable right to bear arms"

The notion that gun owner "rights" are enshrined in the 2nd amendment and that there ought to be no limits on your right to "bear arms" is ridiculous on its face.

What if Bill Gates wanted to own a nuclear missile submarine or B52 bomber? He can afford to buy one after all. The Constitution doesn't say what kind of arms either does it? Would you support Bill Gates right to own a nuclear missile sub or a B52?

Furthermore there are plenty of rights which we all have which are NOT literally mentioned in the Bill of Rights, yet we have them under the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution which reserve "unenumerated" rights to the people or states.

We regulate driving, and car ownership and flying and aircraft ownership and any number of potentially dangerous activities in spite of these 9th and 10th Amendment protections.

We are the only industrialized western nation in the world with our outrageous level of gun violence and death. We are far more violent than any other G8 country.

Several times as many die from gun violence in country EVERY year as died in 9/11 one time.

The Bush administration has taken all sorts of drastic steps to curtail our civil liberties since then to "protect" us from future 9/11 attacks yet when it comes to guns, nobody is willing to do anything.

The Second Amendment alone is to be treated as sacred while the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th get thrown out the window in the name of protecting us from "tha' terrists".

Personally I'm far more afraid of the homegrown nuts with guns yelling "YEEEEE HAW" than far away ones overseas yelling "JEE HAAD" . We have plenty of homegrown nuts that are more dangerous as a statistical fact than Osama bin Laden ever was.


Myth#3 - "If we make guns illegal, only criminals will have guns"

Alternatively this is the theory that if a gun buyer can't find a legal source to buy he will seek an illegal source. By this argument we should totally discontinue enforcement of all laws because criminals will just break them anyways.

Making something illegal DOES discourage most people from doing it. Illegal drug use is far less prevalent than legal drug use of prescription pills, alchohol, and tobacco simply because it IS illegal.

We shouldn't as a society just throw our hands up and say we are going to go back to the days of the Chicago gangs and everybody having a Thompson submachine gun simply because some people will find a way to break the laws no matter what.

Reasonable gun laws actively enforced along with gun dealers being held to a higher standard against negligent practices would go a long way to solving much of our gun crime problems.

I am, personally, incredulous when I hear the gun dealer who sold the Virginia Tech shooter say he followed the applicable laws and that the sale was "unremarkable". If this is true then we have good cause to worry about current gun sales.

We have since heard numerous news reports of stalking, violent fantasies being written as English class assignments, students and faculty physically afraid of the shooter, visits by the police and mental health professionals - yet the shooter, Cho-Sueng Hui, was somehow "unremarkable" to the gun dealer.

Did the dealer bother to ask for more than Cho-Sueng Hui's driver's license, a perfunctory criminal check and basic paper work?

Did he try to spend more than 1 or 2 minutes with the customer to evaluate Cho-Sueng Hui's behavior?

Did he make any effort at all to gauge Cho-Sueng Hui's state of mind?

Did he ask any of these questions:

Who are you really? - not what is your name but what do you think of yourself as?

How are you doing/How do you feel?

Who are your friends?

Who is your family?

Can I talk to them about you?

Why do you want this gun?

Have you ever thought about suicide or killing someone?

Have you ever owned a gun before?

Who would vouch for you acting responsibly with a loaded gun?

Do you take drugs, have you taken drugs or do you drink excessively?

Would you willing to wait a month or two for this gun?

Asking a few simple questions like these might have stopped the gun dealer from selling the gun to Cho-Sueng Hui - but then the profit motive is all too often too important. The dealer is afraid the would be buyer might find an easier more willing to sell dealer instead.

I for one believe that these dealers and manufacturers ought to fear losing those precious profits by being sued out of existence and being prosecuted for negligent homicide when they fail to balance the public's right to avoid the next nut with a gun situation with their own profits.


Myth#4 - "If everyone else had a gun too, this wouldn't have happened"

This is my favorite myth to bust.

Letting everybody have a gun as the right wing proposes will only makes the problem vastly worse not better.

The nutjobs who do these kinds of attacks have the initiative and the element of surprise in their favor.

Owning or possessing a gun will do you no good. You will get shot anyways and then he (almost all such shooters are young men) will take your gun and then use it to shoot someone else.

Furthermore, when everyone has a gun, it makes it much harder to decide whether you need to be afraid that someone might be going mental today.

Normally if you see someone with a drawn gun who is not clearly a cop, common sense says "run Forrest run"!

It won't be so obvious to do this when everyone has guns.

In 1981, President Reagan was shot along with two other people by another nut with a gun (John Hinckley) in about 2-3 seconds in spite of being professionally protected the best trained and best equipped personal bodyguard force (the Secret Service) in the history of the world and in spite of the fact that they were looking for a shooter and are trained to do so constantly, and are some of the best shots in the world, and in spite of the fact that they outnumbered Mr. Hinckley by 12 to 1 or better.

It is laughable, then, to think that some average Joe with his own gun would be able to "take out the shooter".. especially with a concealed handgun as opposed to a prepositioned sniper rifle. He would be much more likely shoot some innocent bystander or himself by accident than to hit the shooter.

It also would create a great deal of confusion if everyone had guns for someone trying to stop the shooter.

Suppose you DID have a gun and a bunch of other people did too and then someone shot someone.

If you weren't looking directly at the event as it happened, how would you know just who to shoot back at when everybody draws their guns in response?

Let's be realistic here: Odds are you won't be looking at the shooter when he shoots.

Even trained, experienced cops screw up in these shooting situations.

No matter how much you don't want them to - fear, adrenaline and your preconceived notions and subconscious prejudices will manifest themselves unintentionally in a bad split-second decision made by your mid-brain.

You will not make a conscious carefully reasoned thought using your front-brain.

That's what actually happens in reality in these situations as opposed to what you mistakenly believe will happen from what you see in the movies.

I just read a very interesting analysis of the Amadou Diallo shooting in the book "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell which goes into how split-second decision making actually works and how while sometimes it's a good thing - many times it isn't -such as in gun situations like Mr. Diallo's death.

Do you remember the immigrant black man who got shot 41 times in about 2 seconds flat by 4 undercover cops in NYC with semi-automatic 9mm service pistols after they chased him down a dark alley.

Mr. Diallo thought he was being mugged and reached for his wallet and the cops thought he was reaching for a gun and shot him full of holes before they had any idea that he was reaching for that wallet.

These were trained, exerienced cops but they were still frightened for their lives and highly adrenaline loaded and placed in an unfamiliar situation.

In spite of their training, they misinterpreted what they saw in a split-second mistake because their mid-brains were unconsciously were working off the assumption that Mr. Diallo must be a criminal to be out on the street in that neighborhood at that time of night and then to be running from the police.

Now imagine a situation where someone is the rogue shooter in a classroom and everyone else is armed. Someone shoots when most people are paying attention to the instructor or their notebook.

Are they going to shoot the right guy? In all likelihood:

NO.

Where the one rogue shooter may kill a few, the responding armed citizens will likely kill everyone else including themselves - by mistake.

Worse yet, what if they only THINK someone is going to shoot, like the cops thought Mr. Diallo was going to shoot - and they shoot someone who was not going to shoot in the first place?

Now imagine what happens when the cops show up on the scene. When everybody is packing, how do they know the good guys from the bad guys either?

Answer: THEY DON'T.

Cops hate the "everybody should be carrying" mentality even worse than I do. They would much rather that NO ONE was carrying and that guns were hard to get access to. They have to go into a hostile situation and sort out the good guys from the bad guys on a frequent basis and try not get anymore good guys killed which is hard enough as it is.

This attitude would make the situation a thousand times harder for them.

We already can see what happens in the "everybody carries" situation right now.

The ultimate everybody carries situation already exists in Iraq.

Every house is allowed to keep an AK47 and handguns and the place is truly Wild West.

Is it preventing the violence?

NO.

Is it making the situation worse?

OF COURSE.

Can our soldiers tell the good guys from the bad guys?

NO.

Can they tell a wedding celebration from a firefight?

NOT USUALLY.

WHY?

Because everybody over there is armed.

We don't allow everyone to carry guns everywhere for good reason. We as American citizens put an end to gun-toting of the Wild West at the end of the 19th century BECAUSE of just these types of situations.


Conclusion:

I don't advocate banning gun ownership. I just advocate requiring that gun owners and gun dealers must be as responsible for their actions with guns as I must be as a pilot in operating an aircraft.

Right now the real gun problems are gangs with guns and loner nuts with guns.

Right now the gun laws don't work to stop lone nutjobs like Cho-Sueng Hui or John Hinckley or whoever.

Criminal penalties such as the death penalty are of no consequence to these shooters because they are quite prepared to die and take others with them - they often even WANT to die in some imagined hail of gunfire glory.

The psychological profilers keep saying on TV that they can't draw any conclusions about how to identify a likely nutjob shooter in advance and at some level they are right but I still think it this statement is a cop-out to the problem.

These nuts with guns tend to be generally speaking, white(Cho-Sueng Hui and Malveaux notwithstanding), younger males under 40 who have no criminal record yet but who are loners and borderline or sociopathic personalities.

One day, however, they just snap because of some perceived injustice or because they've been bullied or their girlfriend left them or they got fired or their dog told them to do it or they had a bad stock market loss or whatever.

Instead of being able to deal with their anger and their problems in a more careful constructive way they resort to an easy short cut - an automatic killing machine which makes it easy for them to get even with those who they perceive to have caused these injustices.


My suggested solution to "nuts with guns":

Making people actually have to demonstrate to a gun dealer that they have multiple friends who would trust them with a loaded gun would make it harder for the nuts to get hold of the guns.

In my opinion, there ought to be a requirement that three of your long time friends must personally come and vouch for you with the gun dealer and sign a written statement with civil and criminal penalties that says:

"I know Bob, he's a friend of mine, he's not a nutjob and he won't go wacko and kill anybody"

If Bob then kills someone and then himself, those persons who vouched for Bob and the gun dealer who sold nutty Bob the gun could be charged with negligent homicide and should also be subject to civil lawsuits.

That's the only way I know of to separate the nuts from the guns - from what I can see they tend not to have three close long time friends who would be willing to vouch for them having a loaded gun.

Do you have a better idea?

Let's hear it.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[fishnfla]

1. #4: Blame the victims

Its their fault they were not armed to defend themselves

[ddeclue]

2. I cover that myth and why it's a bad idea for everyone to "pack heat"

as if anyone can't figure out why that's such a horrible idea...

Doug D.

[alarimer]

3. That's the most sensible thing I have read yet on this topic

Because I certainly have no idea what to do about guys like this.

[moondust]

4. "Loners"

Some people become "loners" and "dropouts" by choice because the culture is so violent/agressive, the country is floating in these easily accessible little handheld death machines, and a lot of people out there are just plain nuts and/or out of control. I know people who minimize their contact with other Americans and the culture because they feel it cannot be trusted in its current state.

Remember, half the country voted for Bush.

Not that these "loners" would ever want to join in the mayhem they choose to avoid but...you seem to suggest discriminating against them.

[ddeclue]

9. No...I'm suggesting a common sense approach...

Voting for or against Bush is not relevant to whether someone is going to be a loner nutjob like Hinckley.

Do you have 3 long time friends that would trust you with a loaded gun?

That's a simple question.

If you can't answer "YES" by producing them, that speaks volumes about whether I would personally trust you with a gun either.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[moondust]

16. Timothy McVeigh, for one, would have easily passed your test. n/t

[ddeclue]

17. No he wouldn't have...

He had ONE friend and coconspirator and anyone who spent any time talking to them would have realized that they were BOTH wack jobs.

It's about using COMMON SENSE and human judgement instead of merely relying on a computer alone.

Doug D.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. There are loners and there are loners

There are the ones who make you think, "That person is shy and quiet."

There are the ones who make you think, "That person gives me the creeps somehow."

[ddeclue]

28. Yeah, you're right...but it would be good to spend a few minutes

deciding which one you were before someone sold you a gun don't you think?

Doug D.

[Jim__]

5. About Amadou Diallo ...

He didn't run down a dark alley. He was standing on his front stoop smoking a cigarette. When the plainclothes cops came at him late at night, he got scared and turned to go back into the vestibule of his apartment building. The whole thing happened on his front stoop. Gladwell goes into a lot of detail about the situation, the narrowness of the street, the fact that this was a strange neighborhood to these cops, all the cops were young and inexperienced. But, you're right the cops were trained professionals who out-numbered Diallo 4 to 1; yet the stress of the situation caused them to panic and shoot (41 times) and kill an innocent, unarmed man. We really don't need more people walking around carrying guns.

[ddeclue]

14. My apologies about the alley...actually kind of makes Gladwell's point...

that people remember and perceive things differently than they actuallly happened.

I didn't remember that part of the story correectly.

Otherwise it sounds like we agree...

Doug D.

[karlrschneider]

6. Enjoy your crusade. You ain't getting MY guns, bubba.

Where was your activism when Timothy McVeigh was building bombs?

[ddeclue]

11. Karl:

I'm not after your guns unless you are a wacko.

Do you really believe that just having a driver's license and no criminal background is enough?

Why is it OK to have realistic requirements for a pilot's license or a driver's license or any number of other activities which the government regulates but NOT for guns?

To fly anything larger than a King Air (12,500 lb MWTO) , I'd have to have an FBI background investigation and they look at them all to some degreee or another.

Yet all it takes is two forms of ID and an instant check and hey you are set to go kill 33 people.

Let's get REAL.

Doug D.

[karlrschneider]

23. Well, I never said I was against realistic controls (good background checks.)

But the gun grabbers don't want to hear about reasonable, they just want to prevent everybody from having them. Sort of. They get a little confused when you ask about police, sheriffs, security guards, etc. There have even been some DUers who say NOBODY except the "government" should be allowed to have a gun. Boy, there's a wonderful scenario...only Bushco can be armed? I don't trust them to repair hurricane damage, let alone protect my Constitutional rights. I'm about as real as anybody you're likely to run into around here...I think you know that. Let me repeat my suggestions again: I DO support comprehensive background checks for gun buyers...even though they can't possibly plug every 'hole' such as private sales. The guns are here. They can't be uninvented. They can't be 'rounded up' and the cliche' that the anti-gun people repeat as if it's idiotic isn't idiotic, it's absolutely true: Outlaw them and only the outlaws will have them. You surely realize that's true with drugs, don't you?
Why would this be any different?

[ddeclue]

25. Tired tired cliches....

"Outlaw them and only the outlaws will have them. You surely realize that's true with drugs, don't you?" -

That IS idiotic and a worn out cliche and you know it so stop already....


If that's correct then why not legalize crack?

Answer: If we legalize crack cocaine then everyone will be doing it...

The simple fact that illegal drugs are..well..illegal keeps a lot of people from doing them.

Prior to their being outlawed cocaine and morphine were sold over the counter like aspirin and there was a substantial population of addicts and serious negative consequences.

And yes we actually CAN round up all the guns and make it very hard to get bullets as well whether you think so or not - but I'm recommending that.

A computerized background check tells you practically nothing about someone's fitness to be trusted with a loaded gun - I think you know that too. It's a start but hardly "comprehensive".

I'm just saying that you should have to have friends who will vouch for you in person before the gun dealer so that he can make a reasonable decision about just how crazy you are or are not before he sells you a gun.


Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[karlrschneider]

35. OMG, I hardly know where to start, Doug!

K: "Outlaw them and only the outlaws will have them. You surely realize that's true with drugs, don't you?" -

D: That IS idiotic and a worn out cliche and you know it so stop already....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say it's idiotic and -immediately- follow with:

D: If that's correct then why not legalize crack?

D: Answer: If we legalize crack cocaine then everyone will be doing it...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why, of course! If crack were legal, both you and I would be smoking it 24/7! Right? I mean you did just say
"everyone".........:eyes:



D: The simple fact that illegal drugs are..well..illegal keeps a lot of people from doing them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which obviously explains the marvelous success of Prohibition. I see. :eyes:


D: Prior to their being outlawed cocaine and morphine were sold over the counter like aspirin and there was a substantial population of addicts and serious negative consequences.

There is NOW a seriously substantial population of addicts! Good grief.


D: And yes we actually CAN round up all the guns and make it very hard to get bullets as well whether you think so or not - but I'm recommending that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you can try. But I guarantee you that 99% of gun owners (and about half of DUers) aren't going to let that
happen. Believe it or not, there are still a lot of people who aren't ready to relinquish their rights and freedom
for a little temporary "safety".


D: A computerized background check tells you practically nothing about someone's fitness to be trusted with a loaded gun - I think you know that too. It's a start but hardly "comprehensive".

D: I'm just saying that you should have to have friends who will vouch for you in person before the gun dealer so that he can make a reasonable decision about just how crazy you are or are not before he sells you a gun.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, we all know that no psychopath could ever round up a couple of references.

[ddeclue]

30% of the country smokes..it used to be 50%... 70% drinks...

far fewer use illegal drugs. Drug addiction is nothing like it was when they were putting cocaine into coca cola and snake oil medicine men were selling opium elixirs...

K: "Outlaw them and only the outlaws will have them. You surely realize that's true with drugs, don't you?" -

D: That IS idiotic and a worn out cliche and you know it so stop already....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say it's idiotic and -immediately- follow with:

D: If that's correct then why not legalize crack?

D: Answer: If we legalize crack cocaine then everyone will be doing it...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why, of course! If crack were legal, both you and I would be smoking it 24/7! Right? I mean you did just say
"everyone".........

HOW MANY PEOPLE SMOKE? HOW MANY DRINK? IT IS OBVIOUS THAT MAKING SOMETHING LEGAL MEANS MORE PEOPLE WILL DO IT...



D: The simple fact that illegal drugs are..well..illegal keeps a lot of people from doing them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which obviously explains the marvelous success of Prohibition. I see.

AND NEITHER IT NOR THE CURRENT DRUG WAR IS GOING WELL BUT THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT FEWER PEOPLE DRANK AND FEWER PEOPLE DO DRUGS NOW BECAUSE OF LAWS MAKING IT ILLEGAL.

D: Prior to their being outlawed cocaine and morphine were sold over the counter like aspirin and there was a substantial population of addicts and serious negative consequences.

There is NOW a seriously substantial population of addicts! Good grief.

NOTHING LIKE IT WAS THEN. READ THE HISTORY.

D: And yes we actually CAN round up all the guns and make it very hard to get bullets as well whether you think so or not - but I'm recommending that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you can try. But I guarantee you that 99% of gun owners (and about half of DUers) aren't going to let that
happen. Believe it or not, there are still a lot of people who aren't ready to relinquish their rights and freedom
for a little temporary "safety".

OK - YOU AND YOUR SHOTGUN VS. ME AND MY APACHE HELICOPTER.. DID YOU JUST ENTIRELY MISS THE 1990's? THE GOVERNMENT HAS MORE GUNS AND MEN. IF THEY WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS, THEY WILL. THEY'LL JUST PRY THEM OUT OF YOUR COLD DEAD HANDS- THATS ALL.

I'M NOT ARGUING THAT THEY SHOULD - JUST THAT THEY CAN AND YOU REALLY CAN'T OR WON'T STOP THEM IF THEY WANT TO DO IT.

D: A computerized background check tells you practically nothing about someone's fitness to be trusted with a loaded gun - I think you know that too. It's a start but hardly "comprehensive".

D: I'm just saying that you should have to have friends who will vouch for you in person before the gun dealer so that he can make a reasonable decision about just how crazy you are or are not before he sells you a gun.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, we all know that no psychopath could ever round up a couple of references.

AND IF THE GUN DEALER HAS TO LISTEN TO A FEW PEOPLE AND HAVE A REAL CONVERSATION ABOUT THE GUN AND THE BUYER IT WON'T HOLD UP IF THE SELLER IS HONEST WITH HIMSELF. CAN YOU NOT READ PEOPLE AT ALL? MOST PEOPLE CAN TELL WHEN SOMEONE IS LYING OR HIDING SOMETHING.

DOUG D.

[karlrschneider]

60. You're funny.

"OK - YOU AND YOUR SHOTGUN VS. ME AND MY APACHE HELICOPTER.. DID YOU JUST ENTIRELY MISS THE 1990's? THE GOVERNMENT HAS MORE GUNS AND MEN. IF THEY WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS, THEY WILL. THEY'LL JUST PRY THEM OUT OF YOUR COLD DEAD HANDS- THATS ALL."

Now I recall you. You're the kid who couldn't figure out how to hook up a 12 volt power supply to a disco light.

Apache helicopter? Which one, the one on your game disk? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Bite me.

[ddeclue]

65. You don't understand a hypothetical???

I don't literally mean I have an attack helicopter parked in the back yard - I'm referring to the military gunship helicopter that the ATF and FBI will order up when they come over to take your guns.

You're the funny one...get a clue... did you just not see the tank and the helicopter that was used at Waco?


Get a clue..

Doug D.

[Redstone]

54. ddclue, don't bother arguing with someone who uses terms like "gun grabbers."

You won't get anything approaching a rational discussion.

Just some friendly advice.

Redstone

[ddeclue]

58. karl isn't a nut job..."gun grabbers" to the contrary...

I've had enough encounters here to believe that he is a relatively reasonable airline pilot type from what I recall about him. We just happen to disagree on this...

Doug D.

[karlrschneider]

72. Well, shit. Hey Doug, I apologize. This subject makes us all a little nuts I guess.

Maybe there's no middle ground. That would be a shame because there should be. I'm sorry I insulted you, I guess you can see why nobody ever asked me to be the ambassador to Luxemborg. :D Peace?

[TnDem]

87. Bullshit and "feelgood"...

Getting people to vouch for you sounds nice and pretty and warm and fuzzy but would do nothing to stop a "nut" from getting a couple of his "nut" friends to vouch for him. All you have done is attempt to tailor this particular cure to this particular incident because you can say this guy HAD no friends and was a complete loner so it would have worked, thus assuming that he would have had no friends to vouch for him.

As to the instant check not being comprehensive, I again say Bullshit..You obviously are not a gun person, but I remember when the first "waiting periods" were in effect. The whole idea for the waiting period was for the dealer to make sure that a check was done by state and Federal Bureas of Investigation. Once it was complete, the dealer would call you to come down and get your weapon. The NICS, (National Instant Check System), was applauded by both Brady and Gunowners as a good middle ground. It is as comprehensive a check as ever going to be able to be done without a face to face questioning and subjective things like shifty eyes, shuffling feet,etc...I mean, the NICS taps the database for any and all felonies nationwide as well as any domestic assault convictions. You cannot get any better than that. I mean a person only has their prior record to go on...Anything else is subjective.

ROunding up guns and bullets? Hahaha....That brings me to the next issue...

Now, (and most importantly), I am not sure how important that winning the next presidential election is to you, but it's pretty important to me. I can assure you that if ANY....I mean a SINGLE word is breathed by us about increasing "cooling off/waiting periods", registrations, bans, we will lose the next election. I am not being over the top, but the rural southern and midwest voter will abandon the Democratic party like a whirlwind if that stuff is proposed. As you know, it cost us in 1994 both the house and the senate. Youcannot continually lose the south and midwest and win presidential elections.

Also..I live in the south and I watched Gore lose the 2000 election because of guns...He lost Tennessee, (his home state), and West Virginia, (the first time a Democrat EVER lost that state), to chimp...It was all because Gore could NOT keep his damn mouth shut about how bad the NRA was and how much he wanted the so-called "gun show loophole" closed...It cost him the election, because if he never MENTIONED guns....made them a non-issue, he would have won his home state. It is WILDLY unpopular here.I watched him implode right here..

Best thing to do is drop the issue...Let it go COMPLETELY and embrace someone that can win this election. Don't mention guns, don't breathe a WORD about guns, don't think about guns...forget it..If you people keep running your mouths and some meaningful legislation somehow starts a fight in Congress over it, we are DONE...We lose 30+ states right out of the gate. The pugs are laughing to themselves and are just silently begging for us to shoot ourselves in the foot one more time..

I can tell you this, we can't handle losing one more Supreme court justice...That would seal our doom. John Paul Stevens will be around 90 years old in 2010. He can't last much longer...Remember that when you have these lofty goals of "round up guns and bullets" which will not happen in any shape or form. It shows how absolutely clueless you people are about the mindset of the rural voter.

[ddeclue]

91. Dude, I live in the south and I understand and have shot guns...

This is not a "feel good" approach.. It's a realistic one. How many of these guys ever are NOT loners? Really, be honest now.

I've got this one right.

And no we didn't lose the South over guns. We lost the South because we didn't even try. I work on campaigns and even consult on them and we didn't even try in either Gore's or Kerry's races.


Doug D.

[TnDem]

100. You have lost your mind?....

Are you working for the Republican party, because you sure don't understand the rural voter?.. Tennessee and West Virginia were most DEFINITELY lost because of guns..."shooting" a gun means nothing...UNDERSTANDING the culture is what I am talking about..And anyone that understands the south and knows our spotty track record with supporting every silly assed ban that comes down the pike, (like your assinine "plan"), knows that this will only continue the same tradition.

Senator Jim Webb, (D. VA) disagrees with you...In his book "Born Fighting" he details this. In this commentary about the southern voter, he states:

"...They are deeply patriotic, having consistently supported every war America has fought, and intensely opposed to gun control -- an issue that probably cost Mr. Gore both his home state of Tennessee and traditionally Democratic West Virginia in 2000..."

http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/wallstjrnl/scotsirishvote.htm

Bill clinton agreed in an interview the same, as well as agreeing that he lost the House and Senate in 1994 because of guns, (Bill Clinton, "My Life").

So I take it that you know more than two of the most astute southern politicians that have survived and thrived in the south during an era of pugs sweeps here?

You might consider relocating your campaign consulting ideas to somewhere more urban or eclectic like...Berkeley or Greenwich Village, because it doesn't fly down here.

Remember...when it happens in 2008, you were warned...

By the way...Orlando Florida ain't the south honey....

[ddeclue]

106. NO - HAVE YOU????

I've lived 20 years of my life in Georgia - (12 in Atlanta 8 in suburban Augusta), another 7 here in Florida and yes Orlando is a lot more "Southern" than you think it is, 3 years in RURAL Tennesee and 3 months in Alabama.

I lived in the country in Tennessee on a farm 6 miles from the nearest town - Shelbyville Tennessee population 12,000 - SALUTE!!

So much for what you THINK you know "honey"...

Gore and Kerry lost because they didn't even try for the South. Kerry took his money out of Florida and shipped it to Ohio and Pennsylvania and it has been the Bob Shrums of the world telling them they don't need to win the South to win the White House that have gotten it wrong and screwed us - not guns or gun control

Doug D.
A Grassroots Edwards Organizer for Orlando, FL

[TnDem]

110. So I guess....

That James Webb and Bill Clinton don't know what in the fuck they are talking about?

HmmKay....

It is so depressing on this forum that some people feel that their agenda should overrule what political reality is.

Why do you think that the Democratic party is not reviving gun control as an issue right now? BECAUSE THE SMART ONES ARE SCARED TO.

You keep touting this bullshit grand plan as some sort of a winner in the south and you WILL lose the south and midwest.

And without the south and midwest, then say bye-bye to the presidency in 2008...

[ddeclue]

116. Well I GUESS THE HELL NOT...they don't know what they are talking about.

You apparently don't have the first damned clue what you are talking about.

The majority of Southerners or MidWesterners (where all my relatives are from) don't feel the way you mistakenly claim.

I am right now canvassing for a Democratic candidate in the Florida House 49 race and havespent much of last year working on the Rod Smith for Governor race, the Florida House 36 race, the Congressional 8 race and quite a number of other local, state, and national races. The number one issue is MURDER and GUN CRIME and it was LAST YEAR TOO.

It's the biggest issue all over the country because gun crime is skyrocketing. We had 113 murders in our fairly small city of Orlando last year - an all time record.

People are sick and tired of the killing. EVERYWHERE. Not just in Berkley (a place I've never been).

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

formerly of:
Huntsville, AL
Phoenix, AZ
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Melbourne, FL
Detroit, MI
Shelbyville, TN
Atlanta, GA
Augusta, GA

[TnDem]

145. OK then....

If Clinton and Webb are fools and know nothing about southern strategy, then I've learned something. :sarcasm:

James Webb is the ONLY succesful Democratic Senator in a Republican south...Why is that?

As far as Orlando Florida being worried about "gun crime" I don't doubt that a bit...To a lesser degree, the same would hold true for Memphis, Nashville, Chattanooga, Atlanta...Urban crime is a problem nationwide.

News Flash...That's not the south..That's the scattered URBAN south. The vast majority of the south are tens of thousands of smaller towns and villages...What I am talking about is that south as a whole.

For a so-called "grass roots organizer", you are rather myopic.

It's not just "your relatives" in the midwest or Orlando's problems...There are tens of thousands of swing voters that cannot be counted and are a non-entity, until election time. Many of them in the south are gun owners. Why do you think the Democratic party is shying away from gun control now? BECAUSE THEY HAVE LOST NATIONALLY EVERY TIME THEY ATTEMPT TO PASS IT. Don't believe me? Look around and ask....and I don't mean on this forum which leans notoriously left of even the Democratic party much less the public at large.

What you fail to realize is the same thing that most gun control people cannot seem to grasp....Namely, gun owners are THE MOST driven single issue voters on the planet. They have the passion to vote, because when you propose limits or bans or registrations,etc...Then you are essentially attempting to reach right into their gun cabinets and mess with their stuff. Now that doesn't fly in the rural south. People despise that sort of thing. You might think you have all the answers and can solve everything with your "plan" but that plan will not be popular with hundreds of thousands of rural voters.

A gun owner or collector that hears a particular candidate is proposing a ban or registration will crawl on bloody knees to vote against him/her. No other issue in this country has this much voter intensity...and the intensity is with the pro-gun people, not the other side. It is priority one with many gun owners.

But then again, you let me know your political shrewdness and skill level when you said that James Webb and Bill Clinton don't know what in the fuck they are talking about.

That's tells me everything I need to know...

[ddeclue]

148. Well except for Senator BILL NELSON of FLORIDA..

You really don't kknow what you are talking about..


Exactly what race are YOU working on right now?

No gun owners are not the most driven single issue voters. Pick one - Social Security recipients are worse. Abortion people are worse - pro choice and pro-life. You can believe what you want but you are simply wrong and apparently a political internet voyeur not an actual participant in politics.

Doug D.

[jgraz]

149. Ignore the Berkeley comments -- it's a private obsession with TnDem

Seriously, tn, you can probably find a lot of places closer to home where all the people are smarter than you. Try Gatlinburg, maybe.

[ddeclue]

154. Yeah and I WAS a Tennessee Democrat myself...

How ironic is that...

Doug D.

[jgraz]

157. Damn, I love Tennessee

If it weren't for all those damn Tennesseeans...

[jgraz]

120. and don't forget: Gore and Kerry didn't actually lose

[ddeclue]

123. Thanks for your support but I don't agree...

Gore and Kerry both lost.

Kerry lost the popular vote too.

We need to stop making excuses about vote theft and start working year round on these elections if we expect to win.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[jgraz]

133. Different debate for another time

But you should at least read up on the 2004 election fraud so you know just how hard you're going to have to work next year.

[ddeclue]

140. I've been through it all...where was the fraud in 2006?

Why not fix the Virginia Senate race and keep control of the Senate?

Doesn't wash for me...

[jgraz]

144. Like I said, we should talk some other time

There was massive fraud in 2006, signaled by yet another rightward swing off of the exit poll data. Recall the mindless confidence of Rove and chimpy, knowing the fix was in. The only problem was, they set the machines for pre-Foley numbers.

2006 was a fuckin landslide for Dems. We just never saw it.

[Swamp Rat]

135. Wake up!

[ddeclue]

138. Damn..that'll do it... I'll have a nightmare tonight now..

[Swamp Rat]

141. The nightmare is reality...

but we can fix it. ;)

e pluribus unum

[Swamp Rat]

137. Exactly!!

[Gelliebeans]

187. (((Swamp)))

Makes me want to grab a box of tissues. ewwww

[Swamp Rat]

188. Gelliebeans!!

:hug:

[ddeclue]

92. Dude, I live in the south and I understand and have shot guns...

This is not a "feel good" approach.. It's a realistic one. How many of these guys ever are NOT loners? Really, be honest now.

I've got this one right.

And no we didn't lose the South over guns. We lost the South because we didn't even try. I work on campaigns and even consult on them and we didn't even try in either Gore's or Kerry's races.


Doug D.

[ddeclue]

93. Sorry for the double posts... what's up with DU tonight..why so slow...n/t

[orleans]

175. ahem...

"NICS taps the database for any and all felonies nationwide as well as any domestic assault convictions. You cannot get any better than that"

what about the mental status of the person buying a gun? why the hell aren't we running them through a database that can show if this person has been hospitalized or institutionalized for mental problems? why didn't it matter that he had been called out for stalking two times?

apparently cho was hospitalized with mental problems. and a court found him to be an imminent danger to himself.

how the hell was he allowed to buy a freakin gun? why the hell is there no law & database in place to prevent crazies from buying a weapon?

[ddeclue]

177. That's important too but I still want to talk to his friends, family, and coworkers

to find out what the real story is. There are so many undiagnosed and misdiagnosed people without any criminal or mental health history that slip through the cracks.

Doug D.

[orleans]

179. there is no guarantee that the gun store owner's judgment would

be flawless. matter of fact, when you think about it, what in the world would ever qualify them to be any judge on character? they aren't mind readers.

you'd have to get something more "substantial" but what i don't know.

btw--i recommended this thread. i think you did a great job thinking these typical arguments through, writing them up, and rationalizing.

i like the idea of having a couple people sign off on a third party buying a gun, and the idea that they could be sued or held criminally responsible.

(with that in mind, who would ever do it for someone? i think the rate of gun purchases would drop substantially)

[ddeclue]

181. There IS no magic bullet - not even MY idea is a magic bullet.

Pardon the bad pun.

It's just another safety/sanity check that is being entirely overlooked in most cases today. There's no guarantees that it would catch every "shooter" but I'm pretty sure it would have stopped the Va Tech guy and the DC sniper and the day trader shooter and the Amish school shooter and almost all of the ones I can think of where the gun was not acquired illegally.

I think gun purchases might fall off somewhat but not as substantially as you might think. There are still plenty of people who should be allowed to own guns, the vast majority of gun owners never do anything illegal or crazy with them - it's just the nutjobs I'm after and I'm just trying to clear up people's beliefs that their own gun will stop the nutjob in public scenarios like the Va Tech shooting or the DC sniper case (even worse, none of the victims ever had a clue and they didn't even know what happened at first.)

Doug D.

[Thothmes]

192. Hospitilized

Cho was legally detained (for 72 hours) by a magistrate (not a judge) for a mental evaluation at a state mental hospital. The hospital shrinks determined that he could be treated on an outpatient basis. He was not "hospitiized with mental problems"

[orleans]

200. ok...then maybe anyone being treated with mental problems

should not be allowed to buy guns.

[The Doctor.]

174. Uhhhh.....

"And yes we actually CAN round up all the guns and make it very hard to get bullets as well whether you think so or not - but I'm recommending that."

How...?

Th logistics are not tenable.

[ddeclue]

178. Hey it's been done in many a country over the decades...

I'm not saying it SHOULD be done -just that it COULD be done and HAS been done in the past in other places.

And a little common sense is all I'm asking here. Talk to the family, friends, and coworkers of the gun buyer before selling to unknown buyers off the street who you know nothing about other than they've never been convicted of anything before. That automated database background check doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot - it is just a beginning - not the end of a REAl check on someone you are providing with a deadly weapon.

Doug D.

[Beausoir]

15. God, Karl. You are so....frightened. And paranoid.

Be afraid. Be afraid. Be afraid.

Meanwhile..the rest of the world manages to get along perfectly well without worshipping the almighty gun.

What happened to you in your childhood that makes you so terribly afraid?

I am serious about that question. What are you so afraid of? What happened? What do you think is going to happen to you?

[karlrschneider]

18. You sound like a right wingnut. Nothing happened to me. Why?

partly BECAUSE I'm willing to defend myself and make sure everybody knows it. Unlike some craven cowards on DU who would just sit in their own shit waiting for a mass killer to give them their turn. I've had guns for over 55 years, been a cop and in the military. The funny thing is I'd take action to defend YOU or your family even if you're too chickenshit to do it yourself.

[ddeclue]

20. Except that you really WOULDN'T be effective - you just think you would.

WHY: Because you wouldn't know what was happening until it was already over.

If the Secret Service couldn't protect Reagan, you aren't going to save my ass either....it's just a preposterous claim.


Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[karlrschneider]

24. That's just silly. I'm a former cop and a VERY good shot.

I wouldn't pull my weapon out unless I was certain I could plug the perp. You can take that to the bank. :D

[ddeclue]

27. It doesn't matter because that "perp" has the drop on you..

You were looking at the professor or your notebook.

Before you can draw your gun he can get off at least 3 rounds.

So bang bang bang! Your dead. Now the "perp" has YOUR gun too...never fired, dropped just once.

Unless YOU have the initiative and the element of surprise on YOUR side then you've ALREADY lost and you're dead.

This isn't "mutual assured destruction" or "deterrence" because:

1) It doesn't take the perp's bullet 45 minutes to reach you - it's all over in less than a second. If he has his gun out first there is nothing you can do unless you can change the laws of physics and go back in time somehow.

2) Perps like Hinckley or this Korean guy don't really care if they die do they and are willing to die killing you. These kind of nuts are the hardest ones to stop - they aren't afraid to die.

Finally, just because you are a "good shot" doesn't really mean jack in this situation.

I'd dare say that the Secret Service boys are a hell of a lot better than you ever were and they couldn't stop Hinckley in SPITE of having cleared the area ahead of time and having a dozen agents with automatic weapons and probably snipers on the rooves with prepositioned sniper rifles.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[karlrschneider]

29. I'll try to remember to reply tomorrow, I have an early flight and need some sleep.

Gotta make sure my .357 is in the flight bag. :-)

[ddeclue]

30. Oh dear God... I hope this is a private flight and not on the airlines...

and that you are stowing the gun in the baggage compartment unloaded...

Remember that lots of things on airplanes are highly allergic to bullets, not just the people...fuel tanks, hydraulic lines, engines, control linkages, avionics,etc.,etc.,etc.

:eyes:

[karlrschneider]

36. I'm DRIVING the airplane.

Jesus....
:eyes:

[ddeclue]

59. And still I don't think a gun in the cockpit is a good idea...stick to flying...

Doug D.

[ddeclue]

32. Pack a flashlight, a handheld aviation radio and a GPS...you're more likely to need them n/t.

[ManiacJoe]

119. Very true, but,

like the Boy Scouts say, "Be prepared". Better to have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it.

[ddeclue]

136. Nope..I was an Eagle Scout... better to not have the gun because

you just THINK you need it. It is just such an unlikely event that you are more likely to have an accident with it waiting for the event to happen and even when you think you need it you will make deadly mistakes with it.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[ManiacJoe]

162. You, too? Congrats!

I don't think I will need it. If I did think so, I would change the circumstances so that I was not there. I hope that I will never NEED it. I also hope that I will never need the fire extinguishers in my home, but I will keep them around, too, just in case.

Gun accidents are extremely low, less than 800 a year nationally. I am careful, trained, and have appropriate holsters to safely carry my guns in various ways. If my gun goes off and it is not intentional, it will most likely be by negligence not accident, as it is with almost all reports you see in the news.

[ddeclue]

166. It's not the pure gun accidents a la Cheney I'm talking about...

I'm really talking about the misidenfifications of friend vs. foe, about the gun crimes with guns bought for defense and the gun crimes that happen because no real effort is made to keep guns out of the hands of the real sociopaths like the Va Tech shooter in the first place.

By the way I've never heard of anyone being killed by accidentally discharging their fire extinguisher.

Doug D.

[ManiacJoe]

170. Mistakes happen.

Friend vs foe identification is important. It only takes getting it wrong just once to ruin your day. That is why it is part of the standard four gun rules. Violate one rule and you scare people; violate two or more and someone will probably die. Fortunately for most people, ID-ing the bad guys is quite easy. (Unfortunately that does not hold for cops.) Note that Good-guy/Bad-guy distinctions are far less detailed than trying to put names with faces.

Crimes with guns is not really a gun problem. It is crime problem. The choice of weapon is usually not relevant as one can be replace with another to mostly the same effect.

The laws governing gun sales try to prevent things like this. Unfortunately, in cases like this it is the friends and family of the shooter who don't raise enough flags for the system to respond to. The system prohibits people with mental problems from buying guns, but only when those problems are entered into the system.

True about the extinguisher. Those problems are usually created with the "help of a friend" and a mixture of adult beverages.

[ddeclue]

173. I disagree that friend vs foe ID is easy or accurate.

Cops screw it up fairly regularly. So do soldiers. I doubt that civillians are any better. People misidentify intent more than anything else. Is this person really a threat to me or do I merely perceive a threat incorrectly?

Crime with guns IS a gun problem in that the gun makes it so much easier to kill. If guns didn't make it easy to kill, they never would have been invented. The choice of weapon is highly relevant to the attacker who has the element of surprise. He will choose the most deadly, easy to use, reliable, and accurate weapon possible to insure that his opponent does not get the chance to respond. That weapon is the gun.

He's not going to start off with the candlestick in the library. It's going to be the gun in the parlor.

Tell me that the Va Tech shooter or the Columbine Shooter or Charles Whitman or the DC snipers could have killed fifteen or 33 people with a brick or a bat and see just who actually believes that. It's a hell of a lot harder to kill people without firearms - especially at any distance or where more than one person is on the victim side. Guns are a huge advantage for the criminal but not so much for the victim even if he has one.

And the whole purpose of what I proposed is to MAKE the family, friends, co-workers have to vouch for the potential gun owner. It's not a draconian lets ban every gun owner from having one law like the gunners here think. It's do we trust crazy Uncle Bob with the SKS assault rifle and 22 full clips of ammunition and shouldn't the gun dealer get to meet Crazy Uncle Bob's family FIRST instead of the TV reporters and the lawyers and the cops AFTER Crazy Uncle Bob gets fired from the Toyota dealership and goes bezerk one day.

That's all I'm saying here folks. It seems like the most obvious way in the world to spot the person who really shouldn't have a gun because he's really on the edge of sanity but just hasn't committed a crime or been committed to a mental institution before. Ask his friends and family some probing questions BEFORE the killing - not AFTER wards. As someone here pointed out New Jersey already has a similar version of this except the cops ask the family and friends - not the gun dealer. Probably actually a better version than my own approach.

Doug D.

[ManiacJoe]

185. It really is not that hard for civilians.

For folks involved in the attack from the beginning, ID-ing that Bad Guys is quite easy. The Bad Guys are the ones attacking the innocent people.

Cops do not have it as easy because they are arriving in the middle of the action or after it is over. They have no score card to ID all the players like everyone from the beginning has. This is why they put everyone in cuffs and sort it out at their leisure. Civilians arriving in the middle or at the end have the exact same problem and often get into problems due to them entering a situation they don't know about.

Misjudging intent is common but it usually happens as saying "no threat" when it should be "big threat" according to my training. That mistake often gives the Bad Guy the same timing advantage as the element of surprise.

The choice of weapon does matter, just not as much as you are communicating. If a gun is not available, a knife or bat or rock will be substituted. Each has pros and cons. The unstated assumption by many people seems to be that victims will defend themselves against attackers with knives or clubs but not guns. I don't see the logic of the assumption. If doing nothing equals dying, then fighting back with or without a weapon only improves your odds of living. The VaTech shooter had to reload at least three times (assuming one shot per victim reported). That is three times the shooting stopped and the shooter now had a "plastic and steel rock" for a few seconds each time (assuming bad tactics of shooting the gun until it is empty each time). Had he used something other than a gun, yes, the number of victims would be lower, if for no other reason than contact weapons take longer. Would the victims have fought back then? I bet no, since they were not fighting back this time when it became obvious that would improve their odds of living (based on the reports of them being lined up and executed).

The ease of use of guns for attacking folks is the same ease of use in defending with them. They don't require the strength and dexterity that contact weapons require. However, as a distance weapon they lose lots (but not all) of effectiveness at contact distances.

[Beausoir]

56. Ouch. A voice of reason punctuates Karl-Wyatt-Earp's balloon of invincibility.

And..am I the only one who is nervous that he claims to be a pilot?

Just what we need...a gun-happy paranoid pilot with a huge chip on his shoulder.

Jesus.

[ddeclue]

61. I think that's a bit extreme to characterize him that way...

I would trust him with the airplane... it's the gun decision making that I don't really trust even him with. People's brains really aren't able to keep up with the speed of the gun -it's all split-second decision making.

I would trust him with the gun more than most people but still I don't think it is a good idea generally for everybody to be walking around with a loaded gun all the time.

Doug D.

[Beausoir]

64. You don't trust him with a gun but you trust him with a plane?

That kinda boggles my mind.

[ddeclue]

67. OK...to explain...

A good pilot isn't making split second decisions in the first place.

If he is, he's already WAY behind the game and will end up screwing up and dying.

He's planning far enough ahead that he doesn't have to.

In addition, I believe karl to be a rational (if somewhat gun happy) person so I don't see him pointing it at the Statue of Liberty or anything.

Gun decisions are usually split second and people make notoriously bad snap decisions.

Doug D.

[Beausoir]

74. OK. I see your point. But I still don't feel safe with gun-crazy guys flying around in planes.

It goes beyond split-second decision making.

It's about your general ability to make good decisions overall.



But I do take your point and I thank you for your comments. I have to admit, you taught me something tonight.

[ManiacJoe]

128. Right idea, but not accurate in the details.

Good pilots are constantly making split-second decisions; this is the definition of a good pilot. when he stops making them THEN things go to hell.

The same holds true for good car drivers. Even the mediocre drivers get by most of the time. Drivers are so used to making split-second decisions it becomes second nature to them. Unfortunately they can also become complacent and careless. While the number of car accidents tends to increase each year, technology is making it harder to die in them.

Properly driving a car is FAR more complicated than properly operating a gun. The laws governing the how/when for operating cars is far more complicated than the how/when for guns.

[ddeclue]

146. No Joe I AM a pilot and an aerospace engineer to boot...

The definition of a good pilot is one who uses his superior judgement to avoid having to demonstrate his superior reflexes.

People make notoriously BAD split second decisions be it in a car, in a plane or with a gun. Pilots are one of the few groups to look seriously at this problem and address it however. Flying is much safer than either guns or cars with their 30,000 and 48,000 deaths every year. A typical year in flying is less than 600 deaths including the general aviation community and we haven't lost very many in airline aviation since 2001 and flight 587 which was a mechanical failure. The last airline accident of any consequence was the 49 dead in Kentucky due to a combination of pilot error (a failure of split second decision making in properly identifying that the takeoff roll was too long for the available runway - the pilot previously misidentified the runway) and controller error.

Thanks,

Doug D.

[ManiacJoe]

165. Right on the money.

As a good pilot your correct, split-second decisions usually prevent the need for your reflexes. Also, most of your decisions (fast and slow) do not carry heavy, immediate consequences for your minor errors. Same with cars. Same with guns.

Major errors in judgment will cause pilots lots of grief, as will a very small percentage of minor errors. Same with cars. Same with guns.

Bad pilots tend to be a self-correcting problem in the long run (with or without collateral damage). Not so for cars. Not so for guns.

[ddeclue]

168. No you are just wrong and don't know what you are talking about

My CORRECT decisions never happen a "split second" before they were necessary. That's what a "split second" decision means it must be an immediately necessary decision that happens in less than a second.

Most of my SLOW thoughtful decisions in an airplane actually DO carry heavy though not immediate consequences if they are not ultimately corrected in sufficient time. Airplanes are very unforgiving of bad decision making.

FAST decision making means that either I or someone else involved have ALREADY made a POOR SLOW decision to start with and now I'm behind the curve and trying to correct it at the very last second which is - more often than not - far too late. If you are making a split second decision, you've already screwed up and you are about to screw up again even worse in your reflex reaction, probably far worse than in your original slow decision.

Usually panic in these split second scenarios is all but inevitable and at that point you are just screwed. People panic and then fixate on the wrong thing and never actually take the right steps to correct the real problem.

As a low time pilot I once found myself taking off out of Meridian Mississippi at night (it was technically VMC but..) and was totally unprepared by the sudden darkness and lack of visual references off the runway. Things started getting really scary but I fortunately figured things out BEFORE I panicked and crashed. Many low time pilots over the years in a similar situation (controlled flight into IMC) are not so lucky and the average time to panic and loss of attitude control is around 90 seconds.

Bad pilots, bad drivers, and bad gun users ALL suffer from Darwinian selection sooner or later my friend. It's just that car owners are better protected than pilots and gun owners though because more effort has gone into safety devices to protect drivers and make cars idiot proof. Even then we see people like Governor Corzine who don't buckle up. It's too late during the accident to buckle up.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[ManiacJoe]

171. Sounds like we are mostly in agreement and now just

arguing semantics and percentages.

[ManiacJoe]

Doug is slowly beginning to understand the dynamics.

Correct: having a gun is no magic wand.
Correct: for non-cops, the Bad Guy always as the initial advantage.

Having the correct tools for escaping a lethal encounter always increases the odds of a successful escape (ie, winning); but there is no guarantee. Without the correct tools for the job, you are left using whatever tools are available to you, which sometimes is good enough; but that is always the more difficult way.

If you have the bad luck of being target #1, there is not much that is going to save you short of body armor or the attacker being a really bad shot. If you survive the initial shot(s), you now get to choose (1) fight, or (2) give up. If you choose to fight, having a distance weapon (e.g. a gun) to counter the attacker's gun increases the odds of you winning/escaping.

If you are lucky enough to not be target #1, the advantage of surprise is now gone, and you have the opportunity to deploy your gun against the attacker. If you have training and/or practice, your marksmanship and/or tactics may give you an advantage over the attacker. There still is no guarantee that you will win, but having a gun when you involuntarily enter a gun fight will always increase your odds of winning/escaping.

Unfortunately for most innocents, gun fights don't come by invitation only. When avoidance fails you, you get to participate using only what tools you have with you. If you happen to have enough hand-to-hand training to be effective, great; but not so great if that is your only tool in the toolbox/Bat-Belt.

[karlrschneider]

121. Nicely put. What amazes me is that so many here would rather the potential victims

should just sit there and wait to be executed as if it's somehow more honorable than (gasp) owning a GUN.

[ddeclue]

Come on karl..that's just so lame and insultingly not true...

i.e. the only way to defend is to have a gun and that a gun WILL allow you to defend in a public shooting like the Va Tech solution.

That's simply not reality.

And AGAIN, I've been in two life threatening crime situations where I DID fight back and DID NOT have a gun. Had I had a gun, there was a good chance it could have been taken from me and used on me for that matter. Why is it so important for you to believe that you are somehow more "courageous" than other people just because you've got a gun The reality is that you are no more courageous or smart than any one else here.

That's just compensating an ego problem, not solving your personal security problems.

The real best defense in these public shooting cases is to prevent the nut from loading the gun in the first place. Your gun won't save you at the point that he has made the decision to kill a bunch of people and he has already drawn his weapon. It's far too late at that point. Just how fast do you think you can draw it anyways? His gun is already out and aimed and yours is still in the holster.

You just aren't THAT fast and you just aren't THAT accurate. No one is.

And if everyone adopts your solution your brain is going to have to choose who the shooter is and you will, more likely than not, make the wrong choice.

It's just a fact of biology.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[ddeclue]

151. Come on karl..that's just so lame and insultingly not true...

i.e. the only way to defend is to have a gun and that a gun WILL allow you to defend in a public shooting like the Va Tech solution.

That's simply not reality.

And AGAIN, I've been in two life threatening crime situations where I DID fight back and DID NOT have a gun. Had I had a gun, there was a good chance it could have been taken from me and used on me for that matter. Why is it so important for you to believe that you are somehow more "courageous" than other people just because you've got a gun The reality is that you are no more courageous or smart than any one else here.

That's just compensating an ego problem, not solving your personal security problems.

The real best defense in these public shooting cases is to prevent the nut from loading the gun in the first place. Your gun won't save you at the point that he has made the decision to kill a bunch of people and he has already drawn his weapon. It's far too late at that point. Just how fast do you think you can draw it anyways? His gun is already out and aimed and yours is still in the holster.

You just aren't THAT fast and you just aren't THAT accurate. No one is.

And if everyone adopts your solution your brain is going to have to choose who the shooter is and you will, more likely than not, make the wrong choice.

It's just a fact of biology.

What happened to you need sleep for tomorrow? Are you still flying?
Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[ddeclue]

152. Come on karl..that's just so lame and insultingly not true...

i.e. the only way to defend is to have a gun and that a gun WILL allow you to defend in a public shooting like the Va Tech solution.

That's simply not reality.

And AGAIN, I've been in two life threatening crime situations where I DID fight back and DID NOT have a gun. Had I had a gun, there was a good chance it could have been taken from me and used on me for that matter. Why is it so important for you to believe that you are somehow more "courageous" than other people just because you've got a gun The reality is that you are no more courageous or smart than any one else here.

That's just compensating an ego problem, not solving your personal security problems.

The real best defense in these public shooting cases is to prevent the nut from loading the gun in the first place. Your gun won't save you at the point that he has made the decision to kill a bunch of people and he has already drawn his weapon. It's far too late at that point. Just how fast do you think you can draw it anyways? His gun is already out and aimed and yours is still in the holster.

You just aren't THAT fast and you just aren't THAT accurate. No one is.

And if everyone adopts your solution your brain is going to have to choose who the shooter is and you will, more likely than not, make the wrong choice.

It's just a fact of biology.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[The Doctor.]

172. Guns were banned on Campus... How did Cho get one onto campus?

I thought the reason guns were banned on campus was to make them safer. Serious question; Why didn't it work?

[ddeclue]

182. Well because how was that actually enforced other than the honor system?

Were people searched?

Were there metal detectors, cameras or armed guards like at most gov't buildings?

The reality is that it was merely a policy in word only.

Why wasn't Cho's room searched after he was so threatening so many times?

I don't think that you can point to a campus gun ban as being effective given that guns were probably being sold legally within 3 miles of campus.

Doug D.

[ddeclue]

122. NO I DO understand the dynamics entirely. It is YOU who fail to understand

that you will never get the chance to shoot your gun. Don't patronize me smart ass.

And you aren't all that likely to ever get such a chance. The reality is that most cops only fire their guns 1 time in anger in their whole careers.

The chance that you will kill yourself or your loved ones or that your gun will be stolen and used for that purpose is MUCH higher than the chance that you will EVER use it to defend yourself against an attacker.

Most people are killed by someone they know - that's a fact. The anonymous armed robber is not how it happens

The REALITY of the shooter situation is that you will more than likely shoot the wrong person. You think you won't but you will. It's called adrenaline and split second decision making.

The REALITY is that the MORE people in the room with guns at the time that the shooting takes place, the more likely you are to make the incorrect choice of who to shoot back at. That's what happens because your brain is not as fast or as smart as you think it is. No one's is.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[ManiacJoe]

156. I understand better than most.

But then I have spent the time and money to get training, beyond just enjoying the sport.

I don't patronize; it is a waste of my time. Take it all at face value as it was intended.

In a gun fight I may get to use my gun defensively, I might not. Having the gun is no guarantee, just an odds multiplier. But I said that already. I am also more aware of my surroundings than most folks, which helps with avoidance and preparation. (You might be, too. If so, great.)

Correct, most cops fire their guns very little, if ever outside of training. The reality is that people with concealed weapons permits will never fire their guns. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

I am thankful that the odds of needing my gun(s) for defensive purposes is extremely low. Yes, someone might break into my house and steal things, including my guns; hence the gun safe. Suicidal folks don't get access to my guns, so the odds of my guns killing someone I know are now quite slim. Killing an attacker is also quite slim since the odds of getting attacked are low and handguns are relatively poor man stoppers. (But handguns are more convenient to carry than long guns.)

Yup, adrenaline and split second decision making will effect anyone's accuracy. I might miss the attacker and hit someone else. Given practice, it is not likely, but certainly possible. If you define "shoot the wrong person" as "misidentify the attacker", also not likely since I was present when the Bad Guys introduced themselves. (The cops do have this identity problem since they almost always arrive late to the party. This is why they take everyone down at gun point, put cuffs on everyone, and sort things out at their leisure.)

Obviously, our "realities" are not the same. The people I know and associate with (both the gunnies and non-gunnies) are quite good at distinguishing between the Good Guys and the Bad Guys. Actually the human brain is far smarter and faster than most people give it credit for.

[ddeclue]

164. No the human brain is usually a fuckup when it comes to split second decision making.

You just think you know what will happen because you've never actually been faced with the situation.

You can believe what you want but it doesn't make you right.

Let me know how the "first time" goes for you...

Doug D.

[ManiacJoe]

167. OK, you got me.

I am at the mercy of my instructors in various topics that require decision making on the fly. I am making the assumption that they are feeding me accurate info about human capacities and the wide range it covers.

No one is claiming the human brain is perfect at split second decision making. However, all seem to claim it is better than you are claiming. Maybe we just see the percentages differently. You might be including the folks who "freeze up"; I don't include them because they are not making any decisions, slow or fast.

I haven't had the experience of a "gun" decision yet, but I have done enough split second decision making to know what I can do.

[ddeclue]

169. I don't have the experience of a "gun" decision but:

1) I've been in the situation of saving a man's life through CPR. Try to remember is it 1001, 1002, 1003 or how many breaths and how many compressions per minute? Did you remember to go through ALL the steps? That was REALLY high stress but fortunately the guy lived. I take refresher courses every year to do what I can to remember it the next time. You'd be surpised how easy it is to forget supposedly simple procedures in an emergency.

2) I'm a private pilot (since Nov 98) and have a little over 200 hours in a number of light aircraft. I have on a few occasions found myself in some "pucker factor" situations such as a night takeoff I made from Meridian Mississippi into total blackness off the end of the run way. It is a highly disturbing and fear inducing experience the first time you do that alone. I got lucky there and paid a lot more attention to these sorts of situations afterwards and have worked on and off on an instrument rating as a result.

3) I've found myself in two high stress situations confronting a criminal (without a gun). Neither time did I make the smart decision. I just got lucky:

a) First time I tackled a robber at the supermarket where I worked because he was attacking one of my cashiers for her till. That was damned stupid of me but I got lucky and dropped him and other people piled on to hold him and he didn't have a gun or knife. As I said I got lucky.

b) Second time I saw a woman's car being stolen from her by a carjacker and made the dumbass decision to try run out in front of the car as he fled the parking lot - I ended up spread eagle T.J. Hooker style on the hood of the stolen car and then falling off as he left the parking lot. I was lucky I wasn't killed. As it was I ended up all bruised up and cut up and my clothes were ripped to shreds. As I said DUMBASS move.

Overall I don't think people perform all that well under stress as you believe. They tend to panic and then fixate on the wrong thing or on a very small portion of the real problem and then they screw up and die.

I would recommend the following books to you: "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell, "The Killing Zone", and "Deep Survival". They discuss these sorts of human responses to high stress life and death decision making and split second decisions.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[ManiacJoe]

176. Sounds like you are doing OK to me.

In high stress situations people tend to default to their (good or bad) levels of training/habits/practice.

You needed to do CPR, your brain kicked in with enough of your training to get the job done. Did you get it perfectly right? Probably not, but in many cases, good enough is good enough.

Same with your early piloting. Except that here higher levels of training are needed due to it being less forgiving of mistakes.

Your lack of training/practice in crime fighting left you in panic mode, in your case "do something, anything, NOW". You survived, learned from it, and now have at least "some" experience to guide your next adventures. :-)

I agree that most people perform poorly under stress. We just don't seem to agree on the level of badness, based on the way we are describing things.

[ddeclue]

180. Yeah but most people DON'T get the chance to learn from their mistakes

in life threatening situations - they make bad decisions and die. In real life there are no do overs and no reset button - game over.

If I screwed up in the CPR, the cardiac victim dies, not me - so theoretically I still get another chance to learn from any mistakes.

Otherwise, emergency flying or crime fighting, I don't think the initial performance is all that good nor is the learning opportunity really there.

Train to respond, HELL YES. but realistically you should plan ahead enough to know that in the real deal many people panic, blank out, fixate, make stupid mistakes distort what they were taught, and any number of other things that ends up killing them and/or someone else. That's just human nature.

My own opinion of the Meridian experience is that the FAA requires FAR TOO LITTLE instrument training for your basic private pilot rating (3 hours is all) and should require at least 20 hours as a bare minimum. I am just damned lucky that I figured out what was going on before I became the next JFK, Jr.

As for crime fighting, I don't think I acted out of panic so much as fixation on the wrong things. In each case, I was fixated on stopping the crime and protecting someone from the perpetrator not on fearing the crime. If I was actually half as smart as I think I am, I should have been thinking, what if he has a gun or what if he points the car at me. All very bad decisions but not based specifically in panic or outright fear. Yet I let my mid-brain do the thinking for me and was more or less lucky in both cases - NOT good.

Doug D.

[Irreverend IX]

186. "you will never get the chance to shoot your gun"

This thread is about "myths and reality." You seem to enjoy parroting the former, so I'll take care of the latter. Unless the mass murderer in the hypothetical scenario is fast enough to shoot everyone in sight in a second. If some guy storms into a room where you are and starts shooting people, unless you're the first person he shoots you have a decent chance of drawing and aiming in time to hit him. During the Luby's massacre, Suzanna Hupp and her parents were watching the shooter for several seconds, I believe, as he systematically executed the other patrons. If she had been carrying her gun instead of having left it in her car she could have shot him easily while his attention was elsewhere.

And if guns aren't the most effective self-defense device available, why do cops carry them? Police seem to prevail in many situations where the bad guy draws first, and don't go telling me that they have superhuman shooting abilities beyond what any civilian can achieve. They qualify with their weapons twice a year and get just a hundred rounds supplied to them annually for training.

Lastly, stop spreading the "you'll just get it taken from you" crap. Your gun will be taken from you by an attacker if a) you haven't been trained in weapon retention and b) you're too afraid/merciful to shoot the attacker before they're upon you. Judging by your statements, the gun in the hand of a criminal or psycho is an unstoppable engine of death that can exterminate entire rooms of people instantly, but a gun in the hands of a civilian is utterly ineffectual and will immediately be snatched away and used against them. Never mind the fact that of civilians, police and criminals, civilian shooters are by far the most interested in training.

[jgraz]

127. Wait -- that's not how it would go at all!

You were looking at the professor or your notebook. Suddently your spidey-sense goes off. You know danger is approaching.

Before you can draw your gun he can get off at least 3 rounds - which you dodge, Matrix-style, then run up the side wall while pulling out your matching Tek 9 automatics.

So bang bang bang! Then bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang!!! The dude is hamburger. Along with a one or two extras, but hey, that's the price of freedom.

You're a hero! That cute girl in the back of the class will now have sex with you and your Dad will call, telling you how proud he is of you.


And...ROLL CREDITS

[ddeclue]

134. Bwa hah hah...

In my personal experience, things did seem to slow down for me when I found myself on the hood of a stolen car "T.J. Hooker" style but hey I wasn't able to do anything but fall off thank God... I got pretty bruised and bloodied up over that...

The problem is when things start going into "slow motion" we start making stupid decisions more often than not.

I found your version very funny though...

Doug D.

[jgraz]

139. BTW, fucking awesome OP

I don't think you got enough kudos for that post. Great logic and great writing.

[ddeclue]

143. Thanks..I've been at it a while...

I am a regular guest blogger at www.brainshrub.com (see www.brainshrub.com/blog/121) since Dec of 2005 and have been posted a few times at the Edwards blog as well.

Doug D.

[Redstone]

55. And, ddclue, don't waste your time trying to talk to someone who resorts to the words

"wingnut" and "chickenshit" when you try to have a sensible conversation with them.

There simply are some people who cannot see anything beyond their own obsession.

Just some more friendly advice.

Redstone

[Beausoir]

68. BTW, Redstone? May I remind you...

that you decided two days ago to stay out of this whole mess?;-)

And here you are...voicing your reasonable voice again.

You just can't stay away.

[Redstone]

79. I'm sorry. The OP did such a great job that I could NOT just stand by and watch.

Redstone

[Beausoir]

85. Yep. That's why I'm here too. I am not very reasonable most of the time, but he made it clear

and reasonable to me.

[ddeclue]

22. Oh.. and P.S. this "craven coward" has stopped a robbery UNARMED

by tackling the robber as he struggled with my cashier to steal the till and has also put himself in front of a moving stolen car and did a "T.J. Hooker" on the hood in the past.

Being a "hero" can get you killed quicker than you pretend and I never have done either of those things consciously. They were instinct reactions and actually the absolute wrong thing to do. I just got lucky and lived to tell about it.

Having a gun but not having the initiative or element of surprise on your side very often leads to you shooting the wrong person - cop, soldier or whatever.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[Beausoir]

47. Uh...your reply proves my point. You are so terribly frightened. You are frightened by life.

You need a gun to make you feel safe.

Most of us don't need a gun to make us feel safe.

Your story is sad. And you never did answer my question. What happened to you when you were a child that was so horrible that you feel the need to pack a gun at all times?

Help me to understand because I just don't comprehend your kind of fear.

What happened that made you so frightened?

[karlrschneider]

52. Ignored

buh bye

[Beausoir]

82. Your ignore list must be HUGE by now. Here's an idea....

print up a list of all your ignored Du'ers and use it for target practice with that great big gun of yours.

That should really make you feel better.

Should make you feel safe and normal.

[Madspirit]

101. STOP!!

I really hate to jump into the middle of a conversation but you know...public place and all. You are being so incredibly condescending to karlschneider it's almost unbearable to read. Quit talking about his childhood. That just pisses me off. I DID have a lousy-assed childhood and it's up to ME when and where and if I want to disclose personal stuff. That's how it should be for EVERYONE. For you to be aggressive and confrontive about something like that AND arrogant and condescending.... STOP. 'Cause you really can't say "MYOB" on a public board. It IS my business.

I hate guns but I still think...well, never mind because I'm just not going to be Talked Down To but I will tell you people this.... You cannot regain innocence anymore than you can regain your virginity. This country is floating in guns. Got a widdle wand in your Kit of Happiness? We will make all the guns vanish and we will all have our very own painted pony and a picket fence and if we still have time, we can teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony.

That is NOT this world.

Also, I don't trust my government enough to want them to be the only ones with guns. Why do you trust George Bush and his neo-nazi co-hort evangelical lunatic friends? Why? THAT is nuts.
Lee

[Redstone]

105. Madspirit, listen to me, please.

I understand the feeling behind your post. I do.

But think: Are whatever guns you have any match for the US Army, if it comes to that?

If it comes to that, will you fire one shot and die? And what would that prove?

Just asking. I don't know you, and I'm not looking for an argument here. Just asking a question or two.

And I do not believe that anyone is being condescending to karlschnieder. His posts absolutely drip with anger and rage and contempt. I see a lot of reasonable posts in reply to his.

But that's just my opinion; your mileage may vary, and if it does, that's OK with me.

Redstone

[Madspirit]

114. I don't own a gun Redstone, my friend.

I just think there is a lot of work of the consciousness raising kind before people are going to willingly give up their guns.

...and I do think if everyone held onto their guns and Bush tried some nazi thing, we might have a chance but I don't know. I just think this country is a mess. There are divisions among people in this country that are not resolvable.

There is even a Group called Pink Pistols, arming gays and lesbians because we are victims of hate crimes.

I don't have a gun. I know I'm bipolar. I know what I've done to sheetrock with my fist. I know better than to own a gun. I live in a liberal hippie town. So it's EASY to NOT have a gun here. I don't know what I would do if my girlfriend and I were living some place that is not safe for lesbians.

People are scared. Just not of the kind that is the condescending crap directed at Karlschneider about his childhood. To be that dismissive of the real fear real people really feel about real things...muggings, rape, criminals, hate crimes, the government....isn't going to start any kind of dialogue with anyone who even slightly supports firearm ownership.

The problems in this country are deep...really really deep. Hunger, mental illness, homelessness, crime, poverty, war, fundamentalist cults, etc. You're simply not going to get people's guns until there is some effort to address these issues.

...and you guys can pretend all you want but if this boy couldn't have gotten these guns from that gun shop, he would have gotten them somewhere else. Guns are easy to get. It was his mental illness that caused the crime. The guns were the instruments with which he carried out the crime. It would have been lovely if someone could have stopped him from having guns but as things are, he would have gotten them one way or another. It would have been lovelier, if someone had REALLY dealt with his mental illness. Then no one would have ever had to deal with his guns.
Lee

[Redstone]

124. Yes. Yes to all you said.

Redstone

[ddeclue]

129. Fear is not a good way to live your life..

Perspective is required.

You are most likely to die because of your own health choices - you smoke, you drink, you eat too much and exercise too little - you don't buckle up.

You are much less likely to be be killed by war, terrorism, etc. and all the fearmongering crap that BushCo spreads around to keep people cowering.

Crime is a possible threat but a gun does not provide real answers - at least not in a public setting. I can reasonably see having a gun in your house if you don't have kids and keep it secured and you are mentally healthy. I personally DON'T have one although I've shot them in the past and I have an engineering interest in them as machines - but I don't have one not because I'm bipolar or anything but simply because I don't spend my life in fear and don't see a gun as providing a false sense of protection. I've lived in or near a lot of big cities including downtown Atlanta for 10 of my 12 years there and the only place I've ever felt afraid to be out at night in was downtown Detroit.

I'd rather recognize the fact that guns offer a false sense of security and choose pay more attention to what goes on around me and just avoid putting myself in stupidly dangerous situations than guess wrong and then kill someone by mistake and have to say oops...

Doug D.

[Madspirit]

147. ...yeah...but...

You can "rather" in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first. You simply will not get people's guns until they are no longer afraid. Telling them..."oh, you shouldn't be afraid. Your high cholesterol will kill you before the sex creep who just moved into your neighborhood will" isn't going to convince anyone. Period.

You just not getting it. I'm not talking about what would be wonderful. I'm talking about reality. You're simply NOT going to get people's guns as long as this country has the problems and the divisions it has. Dream on.
Lee

[ddeclue]

153. I DO live very much in the real world and I'm NOT after your gun..that's your delusion.

Your gun will not make you fearless and if it does then you are an idiot to believe that it protects you all that much. It really won't. Your kid is more likely to shoot your other kid than you are to stop an intruder with it.

Dream on yourself.

Doug D.

[karlrschneider]

118. Thanks. There must have been a big DU sale on rose-colored glasses I missed out on.

It sure seems like a bunch of "us" think they can change their ideal world into a real one with a few keystrokes.
Amazing.
:toast:

[Madspirit]

203. You're welcome!

:toast:

[eridani]

205. We already have a well-armed citzenry which is too cowardly--

--to do anything about the government that has abolished all of the Bill of Rights except for the 2nd amendment. Iraqi society has always been even more heavily armed than American society, and it never inspired them to overthrow Saddam until 1991, and the professional army still beat them.

[jgraz]

142. Yeah Karl, we're the craven cowards

Remind me again which one of us won't go outside without his metal penis?

[Critters2]

49. Living in farming areas,

I can tell you it is MUCH harder to get the kind of fertilizer McVeigh used now. Same with other farm chemicals that might work for such uses. Most co-ops and elevators won't sell them to people they don't know, or people they don't believe to be active farmers.

If this kind of vigilance were used by gun dealers, the VT massacre might have been averted.

[EstimatedProphet]

7. All of this is meaningless

There is 1 germaine point: Cho was involuntarily placed under observation a couple years ago for mental issues. That is a violation of the background check. Somebody didn't do the required background checking.

This is what we mean when we say that the rules that are on the books need to be enforced. If they were, Cho would have failed his background check. No gun.

Was it the hospital's fault where he was interred? Doubt it. I'm sure their record-keeping would be up to date.

Was it the gun shop owner's fault? Again, doubt it. He just reads the form information to the ATF official. Why would he know anything about anyone's background? Why should he, anyway? Unless somone came into his store visibly impaired in some way, why expect him to have clinical psychological experience?

Was it the fault of the ATF guys? I would have to ask why they didn't do more of a thorough background search. If it is a disqualifying mark to have been involuntarily taken under observation, then why don't they have a database of people that fall into that category, or at least check that database? Had someone done that, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

[ddeclue]

12. He has experience being HUMAN doesn't he?

the gun shop owner's fault?

IMHO - YES - he just went through the motions rather than deciding if his $600 sale was worth 33 people's lives by actually spending some time deciding if Cho was nuts.

He just reads the form information to the ATF official.

REPLY: That's WHY it's his fault. He didn't care about anything but filling in the blanks on the form.

Why would he know anything about anyone's background?

REPLY: Because he was selling a deadly weapon....duh!!

Why should he, anyway?

REPLY: Because he was selling a deadly weapon!!

Unless somone came into his store visibly impaired in some way, why expect him to have clinical psychological experience?

REPLY: He has experience as a HUMAN doesn't he? I'm not a psychologist either but the simple straightforward questions that I suggest he ask would easily reveal whether Cho was a wack job - especially if the dealer called his friends and family and talked to them. It's not enough to just run somebody's name through an ATF computer and call it "OK". That's a pathetic excuse for not doing the right thing.

Was it the fault of the ATF guys? I would have to ask why they didn't do more of a thorough background search.

REPLY: It's all pretty much automatic database querying - they don't have resources to run every gun deal through an actual investigation any more than the IRS can audit everyone's taxes.

If it is a disqualifying mark to have been involuntarily taken under observation, then why don't they have a database of people that fall into that category, or at least check that database?

REPLY: Because the NRA and the mental health people don't want that - for different reasons. The NRA wants to sell guns. The mental health people want to remove the stigma from people having mental health disorders or seeking treatment for them.

[EstimatedProphet]

191. No, I disagree

Why should the store owner have any expertise in examining someone's mental state, on-site, first-seen? Can you do that? I can't. I'm not a clinical psychologist. You're asking the store owner to be one, which is a pretty tall order. Do you have any idea how many people you meet on the street that have emotional disturbances? No one does. They don't all talk to invisible people and rave uncontrollably.

Asking the store owner to have examined the buyer's psyche is more than not feasible, it's ridiculous. Besides, he did that - the transaction was 'uneventful' in his words. What kind of diagnostic ability do you expect the average store owner to have anyway? How can you even expect the average store owner to diagnose the fact that a customer had mental issues 2 years prior? That's laughable. Besides that, IT IS THE ATF AND FBI'S JOB TO DO JUST THAT! That's exactly what the paperwork is for! That's why it's in place! And you start blaming the store owner for not doing the job of the ATF and FBI! It's all automatic database querying like you said, so why didn't it turn his history up? Because they fucked up, that's why! Blame where blame is due.

You want to stop things like this from happening, then how about we enforce the rules that are already there. You want to complain about the NRA, fine. I hate them too, and where they are campaigning to allow anyone and everyone access to a gun, that's wrong and way out of line. But if the mental health industry is trying to allow people with psychological problems to buy guns because they worry about the stigma of mental disturbance, then we need a new mental health industry. For the record, I don't buy that one bit, and you're going to have to prove to me that that is their policy.

If you really want to fix the system, fix where the system doesn't work. We have a clear case here where Cho lied on his background form, and it was not picked up by the background check where it should have been. If you think the background check process needs to be more stringent, fine, argue that. Don't try to pin it on the store owner when there's nothing realistically he should be expected to do about the situation. He owns a gun store because he sells guns. He doesn't own a gun store in order to give psychological evaluations.

[Thothmes]

193. Observation

Cho was legally detained for observation. He was found to be sufficiently mentally stable to be treated on an out patient basis by shrinks at a mental hospital. Since he was not involuntiarly committed or found to be a mental risk to himself or others, no report is required to be filed that would show up in a instant background check.

[EstimatedProphet]

198. Are you sure on that?

I heard on NPR yesterday that he was admitted involuntarily.

There's a lot of facts being thrown around, and a lot of people playing loosely with them. I don't know that NPR is any more right than what you heard, so I'll just have to say may he was, maybe he wasn't, for now, until the facts are all in. I will say this right now: if he was admitted involuntarily, then the Feds really fucked up. If he was not, then we should consider adding the outpatient criteria you talk about to the background check.

[EstimatedProphet]

8. Delete, server blunder

[EFerrari]

10. Guns weren't the problem here. That you can use term "nuts"

is a much, much bigger problem.

[ddeclue]

13. No NUTS PLUS GUNS was the problem.

I DIDN'T say that "guns" where problem now did I?

You put those words into my mouth when I didn't say them.

I said nuts WITH guns was the problem.

And that you would think that my use of the word "nuts" is the problem shows YOU are the one out of touch with reality.

Let's face it Cho was "nuts"...He wasn't just a little bit neurotic - he was a psychopath - he killed 32 people.

Psychopath = commitment to a mental institution.

Psychopath+a gun = 33 dead people.


Get Real..

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[Cetacea]

45. Agreed. Thank you! eom.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[ddeclue]

21. Ahh the ad-hominem attack when you have nothing real to contribute...

How refreshingly MEANINGLESS.

Have a nice day too..

Doug D.

[beevul]

31. About those myths...

"Myth #2 - "We have an unalienable right to bear arms"

"The notion that gun owner "rights" are enshrined in the 2nd amendment and that there ought to be no limits on your right to "bear arms" is ridiculous on its face."


Who is claiming no limits? Can you cite it please.

Generally, its accepted that ARMS as used in talk of gun rights are small arms. Generally, its accepted by pro-gun proponents that the nfa and the brady background are fine. That is HARDLY no limits.


"Myth#4 - "If everyone else had a gun too, this wouldn't have happened...This is my favorite myth to bust."


Problem is, your not doing that. Your saying you are, but you really aren't. You don't even have the so called "myth" right. The stance is "allow those that wish it to be liscensed and trained for concealed carry". Conceal carry HAS saved lives. If you want to argue against THAT then fine, do so. But at least get it right.


"It is laughable, then, to think that some average Joe with his own gun would be able to "take out the shooter".. especially with a concealed handgun as opposed to a prepositioned sniper rifle. He would be much more likely shoot some innocent bystander or himself by accident than to hit the shooter."

Heres people that ended 2 school shootings with privately owned firearms:

Google Joel Myrick, Mikael Gross or Tracy Bridges.

You go on to say:


"Where the one rogue shooter may kill a few, the responding armed citizens will likely kill everyone else including themselves - by mistake."

With the heavy libreralization of concealed carry in the last 20 years, can you even come up with 3 examples of this, unless it is it just speculation.



"We as American citizens put an end to gun-toting of the Wild West at the end of the 19th century BECAUSE of just these types of situations."



Quite clearly we didn't. And you'll be hardpressed to find real and true problems stemming from it. Statisticly speaking, CCW holders as a group are more law abiding than police are. See the map below:



""

The above is a graphical representation of how concealed carry has been liberalized in the last 2 decades.

You surely must be able to come up with say 2 examples right? Just 2. Examples of where "the responding armed citizens kill everyone else including themselves". I bet you can't even find one.

You also assert "You will get shot anyways and then he (almost all such shooters are young men) will take your gun and then use it to shoot someone else."

I'll come up with 10 examples where this hasnt happened, for every ONE you come up with that does. You up for it?



Cops hate the "everybody should be carrying" mentality even worse than I do."

Thats funny. First, the mentality is NOT that everyone should carry. Second We have police here on DU that support concealed carry.



I understand you want these type of incidents to end, and so do I believe it or not.

BUT.


Not having your facts strait, and preaching it like the gospel, will cause magnitudes more harm than what your trying to stop. Think about elections that might not be so easily lost or stolen, and what difference it might have made.

[ddeclue]

48. UH..NOT SO MUCH...

"Myth #2 - "We have an unalienable right to bear arms"

"The notion that gun owner "rights" are enshrined in the 2nd amendment and that there ought to be no limits on your right to "bear arms" is ridiculous on its face."


Who is claiming no limits? Can you cite it please.


Generally, its accepted that ARMS as used in talk of gun rights are small arms. Generally, its accepted by pro-gun proponents that the nfa and the brady background are fine. That is HARDLY no limits.

ANSWER: Every time ANYONE proposes making gun rights more limited, the NRA and their friends jump up and preach the Second Amendment to us as though it is an unlimited right when the Supreme Court has repeatedly held otherwise.


"Myth#4 - "If everyone else had a gun too, this wouldn't have happened...This is my favorite myth to bust."


Problem is, your not doing that. Your saying you are, but you really aren't. You don't even have the so called "myth" right. The stance is "allow those that wish it to be liscensed and trained for concealed carry". Conceal carry HAS saved lives. If you want to argue against THAT then fine, do so. But at least get it right.

WRONG: I demonstrated the Diallo example, the Reagan/Hinckley example and there's one right here in Orlando that I've included below where so called "trained" cops shot another cop and killed him by mistake.

"Myth#4 - "If everyone else had a gun too, this wouldn't have happened...This is my favorite myth to bust."

....You don't even have the so called "myth" right. T

NO- YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH. I HAVE THE MYTH RIGHT. I SAID WHAT I MEANT TO SAY AND WHAT THE RIGHT WINGERS ARE CLAIMING.

he stance is "allow those that wish it to be liscensed and trained for concealed carry".

NO THAT'S YOUR STANCE - NOT THE RIGHTWING.

Conceal carry HAS saved lives.


REPLY: OH BROTHER WHAT NONSENSE. YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT IT HASN'T TAKEN MORE THAN IT HAS SAVED OR THAT IT EVEN WORKS. IT IS NOT A DETERRENT SINCE THE BAD GUY CAN'T SEE YOUR CONCEALED WEAPON AND IT STILL DOES NOT PROVIDE YOU WITH THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE WHEN THE BAD GUY DRAWS FIRST BEFORE YOU REALIZE WHAT IS GOING ON.



"It is laughable, then, to think that some average Joe with his own gun would be able to "take out the shooter".. especially with a concealed handgun as opposed to a prepositioned sniper rifle. He would be much more likely shoot some innocent bystander or himself by accident than to hit the shooter."

Heres people that ended 2 school shootings with privately owned firearms:

Google Joel Myrick, Mikael Gross or Tracy Bridges.

REPLY: YAWN - ANTECDOTAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT OVER COME 30,000 Gun deaths a year.

HERE'S ORLANDO'S FINEST KILLING THEIR OWN BY MISTAKE... I can match you antecdote for antecdote if you feel it necessary:

http://www.fanblogs.com/central_florida/005770.php

"However, tragedy struck outside before the game as a UCF police officer was killed by an an Orlando PD officer. According to TV reports this morning, Mario Jenkins was undercover assisting Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco agents in cracking down on underage drinking at tailgates before the game.

Various reports all confirm that he was surrounded by students who may have been throwing beer cans at him and that when he drew his weapon he was shot by the uniformed officer from another law enforcement agency. One television report mentioned something about rubber bullets being used to break up the crowd initially but other print reports make no mention of this. Other reports indicate that three shots were fired into the air by Jenkins as he sought assistance and that resulted in him being shot. Florida Department of Law Enforcement is investigating the incident. Later articles included eyewitness accounts."

REPLY: SO MUCH FOR CONCEALED CARRY TRAINING MEANING MUCH..IF THE COPS CAN'T GET IT RIGHT, WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE THAT YOU WILL?

And you'll be hardpressed to find real and true problems stemming from it.

REPLY: NO PROBLEMS? EXCEPT FOR THE 30,000 GUN DEATHS LAST YEAR???? GET REAL.

You surely must be able to come up with say 2 examples right? Just 2. Examples of where "the responding armed citizens kill everyone else including themselves". I bet you can't even find one.

You also assert "You will get shot anyways and then he (almost all such shooters are young men) will take your gun and then use it to shoot someone else."

I'll come up with 10 examples where this hasnt happened, for every ONE you come up with that does. You up for it?

REPLY:NOT GOING TO WASTE MY TIME ON YOUR ANTECDOTALS... I CAN MATCH YOURS WITH PLENTY OF EXAMPLES OF SO-CALLED "TRAINED" POLICE SCREWING UP AND KILLING PEOPLE BY MISTAKE - IT HAPPENS MORE OFTEN THAN YOUR EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE.

Cops hate the "everybody should be carrying" mentality even worse than I do."

Thats funny. First, the mentality is NOT that everyone should carry. Second We have police here on DU that support concealed carry.

REPLY:YOU CAN ALWAYS FIND A FEW EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE BUT THAT DOESN'T DISPROVE THE RULE.



I understand you want these type of incidents to end, and so do I believe it or not.....

REPLY: I HAVE MY FACTS STRAIGHT...YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO DISPUTE AND CONFUSE THE OBVIOUS WITH NRA SMOKE AND MIRRORS. YOU DIDN'T REFUTE ANYTHING.

[ddeclue]

50. UH..NOT SO MUCH...

"Myth #2 - "We have an unalienable right to bear arms"

"The notion that gun owner "rights" are enshrined in the 2nd amendment and that there ought to be no limits on your right to "bear arms" is ridiculous on its face."


Who is claiming no limits? Can you cite it please.


Generally, its accepted that ARMS as used in talk of gun rights are small arms. Generally, its accepted by pro-gun proponents that the nfa and the brady background are fine. That is HARDLY no limits.

ANSWER: Every time ANYONE proposes making gun rights more limited, the NRA and their friends jump up and preach the Second Amendment to us as though it is an unlimited right when the Supreme Court has repeatedly held otherwise.


"Myth#4 - "If everyone else had a gun too, this wouldn't have happened...This is my favorite myth to bust."


Problem is, your not doing that. Your saying you are, but you really aren't. You don't even have the so called "myth" right. The stance is "allow those that wish it to be liscensed and trained for concealed carry". Conceal carry HAS saved lives. If you want to argue against THAT then fine, do so. But at least get it right.

WRONG: I demonstrated the Diallo example, the Reagan/Hinckley example and there's one right here in Orlando that I've included below where so called "trained" cops shot another cop and killed him by mistake.

"Myth#4 - "If everyone else had a gun too, this wouldn't have happened...This is my favorite myth to bust."

....You don't even have the so called "myth" right. T

NO- YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH. I HAVE THE MYTH RIGHT. I SAID WHAT I MEANT TO SAY AND WHAT THE RIGHT WINGERS ARE CLAIMING.

he stance is "allow those that wish it to be liscensed and trained for concealed carry".

NO THAT'S YOUR STANCE - NOT THE RIGHTWING.

Conceal carry HAS saved lives.


REPLY: OH BROTHER WHAT NONSENSE. YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT IT HASN'T TAKEN MORE THAN IT HAS SAVED OR THAT IT EVEN WORKS. IT IS NOT A DETERRENT SINCE THE BAD GUY CAN'T SEE YOUR CONCEALED WEAPON AND IT STILL DOES NOT PROVIDE YOU WITH THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE WHEN THE BAD GUY DRAWS FIRST BEFORE YOU REALIZE WHAT IS GOING ON.



"It is laughable, then, to think that some average Joe with his own gun would be able to "take out the shooter".. especially with a concealed handgun as opposed to a prepositioned sniper rifle. He would be much more likely shoot some innocent bystander or himself by accident than to hit the shooter."

Heres people that ended 2 school shootings with privately owned firearms:

Google Joel Myrick, Mikael Gross or Tracy Bridges.

REPLY: YAWN - ANTECDOTAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT OVER COME 30,000 Gun deaths a year.

HERE'S ORLANDO'S FINEST KILLING THEIR OWN BY MISTAKE... I can match you antecdote for antecdote if you feel it necessary:

http://www.fanblogs.com/central_florida/005770.php

"However, tragedy struck outside before the game as a UCF police officer was killed by an an Orlando PD officer. According to TV reports this morning, Mario Jenkins was undercover assisting Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco agents in cracking down on underage drinking at tailgates before the game.

Various reports all confirm that he was surrounded by students who may have been throwing beer cans at him and that when he drew his weapon he was shot by the uniformed officer from another law enforcement agency. One television report mentioned something about rubber bullets being used to break up the crowd initially but other print reports make no mention of this. Other reports indicate that three shots were fired into the air by Jenkins as he sought assistance and that resulted in him being shot. Florida Department of Law Enforcement is investigating the incident. Later articles included eyewitness accounts."

REPLY: SO MUCH FOR CONCEALED CARRY TRAINING MEANING MUCH..IF THE COPS CAN'T GET IT RIGHT, WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE THAT YOU WILL?

And you'll be hardpressed to find real and true problems stemming from it.

REPLY: NO PROBLEMS? EXCEPT FOR THE 30,000 GUN DEATHS LAST YEAR???? GET REAL.

You surely must be able to come up with say 2 examples right? Just 2. Examples of where "the responding armed citizens kill everyone else including themselves". I bet you can't even find one.

You also assert "You will get shot anyways and then he (almost all such shooters are young men) will take your gun and then use it to shoot someone else."

I'll come up with 10 examples where this hasnt happened, for every ONE you come up with that does. You up for it?

REPLY:NOT GOING TO WASTE MY TIME ON YOUR ANTECDOTALS... I CAN MATCH YOURS WITH PLENTY OF EXAMPLES OF SO-CALLED "TRAINED" POLICE SCREWING UP AND KILLING PEOPLE BY MISTAKE - IT HAPPENS MORE OFTEN THAN YOUR EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE.

Cops hate the "everybody should be carrying" mentality even worse than I do."

Thats funny. First, the mentality is NOT that everyone should carry. Second We have police here on DU that support concealed carry.

REPLY:YOU CAN ALWAYS FIND A FEW EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE BUT THAT DOESN'T DISPROVE THE RULE.



I understand you want these type of incidents to end, and so do I believe it or not.....

REPLY: I HAVE MY FACTS STRAIGHT...YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO DISPUTE AND CONFUSE THE OBVIOUS WITH NRA SMOKE AND MIRRORS. YOU DIDN'T REFUTE ANYTHING.

[beevul]

98. So...

ANSWER: Every time ANYONE proposes making gun rights more limited, the NRA and their friends jump up and preach the Second Amendment to us as though it is an unlimited right when the Supreme Court has repeatedly held otherwise.

Oh, I see. One simply can't say enough is enough without reading a right as absolute. Also no cite about the claim you make about the supreme court. Gotcha.





"REPLY: OH BROTHER WHAT NONSENSE. YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT IT HASN'T TAKEN MORE THAN IT HAS SAVED OR THAT IT EVEN WORKS. IT IS NOT A DETERRENT SINCE THE BAD GUY CAN'T SEE YOUR CONCEALED WEAPON AND IT STILL DOES NOT PROVIDE YOU WITH THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE WHEN THE BAD GUY DRAWS FIRST BEFORE YOU REALIZE WHAT IS GOING ON."

You assume what the bad guy is going to do, and you assume MY awareness level. You cant even be bothered to show an example where concealed carry has cost innocent lives, yet you can claim I cant that it has taken more than it ihas saved. Gotcha.



"REPLY: YAWN - ANTECDOTAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT OVER COME 30,000 Gun deaths a year."


Except 30,000 gun deaths a year wasnt what we were talking about. You are attempting to change the subject, rather than argue the merits of a point you attempted to make. Remember? You said "It is laughable, then, to think that some average Joe with his own gun would be able to "take out the shooter".. especially with a concealed handgun as opposed to a prepositioned sniper rifle. He would be much more likely shoot some innocent bystander or himself by accident than to hit the shooter." and I responded that a few private citizens HAD stopped school shootings. What do 30,000 gun deaths have to do with your claim or how I responded to it?"



"HERE'S ORLANDO'S FINEST KILLING THEIR OWN BY MISTAKE... I can match you antecdote for antecdote if you feel it necessary:"

While tragic, noone except you was talking about police, and that is only after you changed the subject.

"REPLY: SO MUCH FOR CONCEALED CARRY TRAINING MEANING MUCH..IF THE COPS CAN'T GET IT RIGHT, WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE THAT YOU WILL?"

Well, because for one, your talking about cops rather than bothering to examine statistics on ACTUAL licensed concealed carry.

"REPLY: NO PROBLEMS? EXCEPT FOR THE 30,000 GUN DEATHS LAST YEAR???? GET REAL."

Um, are you inferring that concealed carry caused 30,000 deaths? Lets see, I said "And you'll be hardpressed to find real and true problems stemming from it." It being concealed carry. What exactly do 30,000 gun deaths have to do with what I said?



"REPLY:NOT GOING TO WASTE MY TIME ON YOUR ANTECDOTALS... I CAN MATCH YOURS WITH PLENTY OF EXAMPLES OF SO-CALLED "TRAINED" POLICE SCREWING UP AND KILLING PEOPLE BY MISTAKE - IT HAPPENS MORE OFTEN THAN YOUR EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE."

You wont because you cant. Again, aparently I have to remind you of what it is you said, that I was refuting:

"You will get shot anyways and then he (almost all such shooters are young men) will take your gun and then use it to shoot someone else."

Remember? You said that. Now your trying to change your qualifiers because you can't support it.



"REPLY:YOU CAN ALWAYS FIND A FEW EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE BUT THAT DOESN'T DISPROVE THE RULE."

You never proved this to be a rule in the first place. It is...because you say so? Prove it.




"REPLY: I HAVE MY FACTS STRAIGHT...YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO DISPUTE AND CONFUSE THE OBVIOUS WITH NRA SMOKE AND MIRRORS. YOU DIDN'T REFUTE ANYTHING"


I am no NRA member. And, for a bunch of stuff so obvious, you sure cant seem to defend it without changing the subject or goalpost moves. You can't be bothered to cite anything applicable to any of your initial claims. You can't be bothered to show that what you claim as a rule really IS a rule. Unless you start debating in good faith by doing things like backing up claims you make rather than modifying them or changing the subject entirely, and citing anything to back up your initial claims, it can only be concluded that you have no interest in doing so.

If you don't want to debate in good faith, fine, just say so and I wont respond anymore.

[ddeclue]

108. I DID debate in good faith..you didn't...

[beevul]

111. Saying you did, and I didn't doesnt make it so. N/T

[ddeclue]

113. I DID justify everyone of my points using elementary logic.

All you offered was a questionable bunch of statistics and antecdotal stories.

You failed to refute my argument about the shooter scenarios as to how you will beat a shooter who has the gun out before you and you failed to explain how you would know just who to shoot at in a room full of guns.

Don't waste our time any further..

Doug D.

[beevul]

115. You did NOTHING of the sort.

I offered statistics which you never questioned, yet now call questionable.

The ancedotal stories completely disproved some verry absolute statements you made.


And you made clear you would not argue the merits of any particular point you made and I refuted.


I wont waste any more of your time.

[ddeclue]

130. I did SO and please DO stop wasting our time...

[jgraz]

155. "Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges"

You've been shown repeately that these examples are bullshit, yet you persist in bringing them up. Do you just keep jumping thread in the hope of finding someone who will buy the shit you're selling?

Here again, is the response I gave you TWO HOURS BEFORE YOU POSTED HERE that shows their story to be complete crap. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=681709&mesg_id=695534

And yet here you are again, flogging the same, tired story.

This type of intellectual dishonesty is not the way to convince people. Nor are your constant pleading for citations as soon as you realize you're losing the argument. You want a real discussion? You consider giving up lying as your primary rhetorical weapon.

[beevul]

184. Yeah, Ignore Joel Myrick.

"You've been shown repeately that these examples are bullshit, yet you persist in bringing them up. Do you just keep jumping thread in the hope of finding someone who will buy the shit you're selling?"

"Here again, is the response I gave you TWO HOURS BEFORE YOU POSTED HERE that shows their story to be complete crap"

I hadn't gotten back to that thread til you replied here that you responded. I guess I must be lieing though...its my primary rhetorical weapon ya know :eyes:

No. You showed 1 example (2 of the three names) that may or may not be what iether of us say it is. Nothing more, nothing less. You showed that exactly ONE time. You asserted it more than once. Showed your work only once. Makes me wonder what kind of position you are in to be saying anyone has "lying as thier primary rhetorical weapon". In any case, thats fine, and was all I was asking for to begin with. I just read your link about the appalachian shootings, and its questionable. Because you actually shared information and decided to support your assertion (backed it up err I mean provided material) amazingly, I am actually inclined to agree with something you say, enough to withdraw those names from my argument. I bet thats a complete shocker eh? Now , do you want to talk about the principal that proved you wrong?


"This type of intellectual dishonesty is not the way to convince people. Nor are your constant pleading for citations as soon as you realize you're losing the argument."



And as far as constant pleaing for cites? I asked for cited before there was much of an argument to lose. There wouldn't be any if you did it out of courtesy like everyone else rather than waiting 8 posts (6 posts after you were asked to) to back up an assertion err I mean "give me material". Hope you didnt strain yourself...that "material" can get aweful heavy.

"And yet here you are again, flogging the same, tired story."

And I'll wager you'll be here again, completely ignoring the Principal that saved lives and proved you wrong.



I'm done with you. Seriously. Trying to have a discussion with you brings words like "pantload" and "Bench" to mind.


Good day sir.

[jgraz]

197. In other words: Please let me hang onto the one fantasy that lets me keep my guns

Sorry, can't do it. As you well know, Myrick was going after a kid with a DEER RIFLE. The kid had to reload after EVERY SHOT. Now put that same principle up against a guy with two semi-automatics with 33-round magazine. I'm guessing you have one dead principle on top of the pile of dead students.

That's the problem with you gun nuts. You're obsessed with your Die Hard Dirty Harry Rambo Bullshit I-Played-Halo-One-Too-Many-Times fantasies. You don't want to save lives, you WANT GUNS. And you'll say anything to keep them.

[symbolman]

33. Fuck if I AM

going to give up my WEAPONS while THESE ASSHOLES are in "charge"..

NO WAY. You want to give up YOUR right to bear arms against these monsters who could declare Martial law at the drop of a hat, FEEL FREE.

YOU have that RIGHT.

But I will be loaded for BEAR if they come after me.

I was trained to kill in the military, yet I DON'T KILL indescriminately, and aren't CRAZY. It's not MY FAULT that there are crazy people, and that COPS won't put them in jail.

The gun stays right HERE, safely locked away from my son, until someone enters my home and attempts to harm any of us.

There needs to be an NRA for DEMOCRATS, so we can steal this ISSUE from the RIght Wingers.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[proud2BlibKansan]

41. Well call me a shitbag then

Can't call me a Cheney 5-deferment type or a Bush/never served armchair general.

So you're one for three. Not good odds.

[karlrschneider]

44. Ask and you shall receive.

But I guess you were safe, being a female from Kansas. How convenient.

[Redstone]

63. And what, specifically, is wrong with her being a female from Kansas? Care to elaborate?

What's your problem with women? What's your problem with people from Kansas?

Redstone

[karlrschneider]

78. Nothing "wrong" with either. Not at all. You aren't responsible for the idiotic policies

of your state (I hope...like I'm not for those of your southern neighbor) - but I might point out that women were never subject to a draft - as I was.

[Redstone]

83. And what difference does that make? Good God, to think you actually fly airplanes with

people in them who have NO idea of your mental state...this is troubling.

Redstone

[karlrschneider]

84. Check your DUmail before you get into serious trouble.

...

[Redstone]

97. I'm no stranger to trouble. But see my last reply first.

And I don't see any DUmail coming through, anyway.

Redstone

[proud2BlibKansan]

195. Actually I live in a big city

I drive into a 'high crime area' every day - for 30 years now - to work and never once have I needed or wanted a gun. Never once.

I also have no desire to take your gun from you. Your choice. I can keep you out of my house and I can avoid the public places you go while you are are CCW but I realize I don't have the right to take your guns away.

I can also feel sorry for you that you are so paranoid that you feel the need to CCW. Like I said, I am in the hood every day and have never once been a crime victim. And there are hundreds of thousands of people just like me in our city, not paranoid.

[Redstone]

62. I was in Quang Tri City and An Loc in April and May of 1972. Does that qualify me

as a "Cheney 5-deferment types or Bush/never served armchair general?"

And yes, I was wounded in combat. Is that a further qualification as a "shitbag" in your estimation?

Redstone

[Redstone]

69. And you're a COMMERCIAL AIRLINE PILOT? Christ, I wish the FAA could see that post; you are clearly

a danger to the public, climbing into a cockpit with that kind of rage in your head.

I am SO glad I don't fly on commercial airliners anymore, if there are pilots like you out there.

In fact, I think I'm going to get in touch with the FAA right now. This is a public safety issue that goes WAY beyond an Internet discussion board.

Redstone

[karlrschneider]

81. Be my guest. I fly private jets for corporations. Mostly GOP-owned ones.

My pilot certificate number is 1586180. I've had it since 1963. You want to fuck with me, give it your best shot.
That is not a threat, it is a GENUINE threat.

[Redstone]

86. Well, that's fine. As long as you're not flying unsuspecting civilians around, be my guest.

GOP-owned private jet-setters can take their chances with pilots like you, and it's OK with me.

Pop your cork in the cockpit and take a couple of GOP "gold contributors" with you, and I won't mind.

Thanks for the information; it made me feel a lot better. As long as you're not flying for a commercial airline, it's OK. That was what had me worried.

Redstone

[karlrschneider]

88. Bully for you. I take their money, they get a great ride.

What the fuck does "pop your cork" mean?

[ddeclue]

94. Translation = go postal, go nuts..lose it..etc.

[Redstone]

95. Uh, it means the same as "lose your grip." You got a lot of anger bottled up, right there.

Even though I have deep disagreements with other DUers, individually and as an ideological group, I have never made such vile comments about them as you have in this thread.

I have posted in anger and passion, but that one post in theis thread was WAY out of line.

Do you think you're the ONLY one to have gone through that? You're NOT. Others of us have, and we've come out of it with different opinions.

As the younger folks say, you gotta chill, dude. Especially if you're flying tomorrow. The hours of "bottle to throttle" apply to discussions that raise your anger level, too. As a pilot, you must understand that.

You owe it to your passengers.

Redstone

[ddeclue]

90. Dude...I would never give out that kind of personal info...

Folks...take a chill pill...

I'm a pilot too but I don't think that karl is really a danger as a pilot...Reporting him to the FAA is over the top.

Everybody calm down..

Doug D.

[Redstone]

99. Not necessary, since he doesn't fly the general public in his planes.

And it really would be a public-safety issue if he did...I'd not want that much anger on the flight deck of an airliner I was on.

Not a personal attack. Not calling out. Only a safety concern. And for others, not for me, since I don't fly on commercial airliners.

Redstone

[ddeclue]

Oh grow up karl...

I've personally stopped violent crimes twice WITHOUT A GUN...

Hmmm... that makes me a "coward" HOW?

[ddeclue]

Oh grow up karl...

I've personally stopped violent crimes twice WITHOUT A GUN...

Hmmm... that makes me a "coward" HOW?

[Redstone]

89. I'll admit, I do get angry sometimes. But I don't think I've ever seen anyone at DU as angry as you.

Why are you so angry? Why such bitter words about your fellow DUers?

Redstone

[ddeclue]

70. Good luck with that when they bring an attack helicopter and a tank...

You'll be outgunned and outmanned.

You are kidding yourself if you think you're stopping them...

Put the guns down and get a breath of fresh air...

Doug D.

[symbolman]

158. I know plenty of Nam guys who know better than that

Are you a VETERAN by any chance? I am. I signed up in 1971, and even if I didn't WANT TO, I still did my service.

If they bring attack helicopters it's already over, but they ain't taking ME LIVE at that point, if nothing else I may inspire some people left that have BALLS to FIGHT.

Put the USE of MY RIGHTS DOWN, and MOVE away from THEM, please.

[ddeclue]

163. So yippee your a veteran so what.???

That makes you an expert all of a sudden - I still know a hell of a lot more about helicopters than you do - and hey you're right they won't take you alive but they'll be just as happy taking you dead if you start shooting at people. Your problem is that you're thinking with your balls and not your brains.

YOU are NOT going to take down a helicopter and you certainly won't take out a tank.. They are going to stand back and let you shoot at them one time and then blow the crap out of you from 2 miles away.

Get real and hey dude THAT war is over...stop being so damned paranoid.

Doug D.

[symbolman]

189. You DO do you?

I happen to have spent TWO SUMMER flying around in Choppers, Hughes 500ds IN ALASKA sampling for the Dept of Energy, 18 hours a day ALL DAY LONG. Even CRASHED in one, was lost for four days, and they knew where we were. ALL of the Pilot were ARMED Vietnam Veterans. ARMED. And those guns saved our lives on more than ONE occasion. Like when a Village chased my and two pals naked back to camp, they were going to LYNCH US, for what reason I still don't know, but they had axes and rifles and the RIGHT as a Soveriegn Native Nation to HANG US.

I've seen SKULLS exposed by chopper blades, and save THAT MAN'S LIFE.

The NAME of my Book is THE JESUS BOLT, so TELL ME I don't know about choppers..

Oh, and YIPPEE I'm a VETERAN, no shit, and I happen to be PROUD OF IT, obviously You are a SLACKER in that regard, no answer, instead INSULT THE VET..

Yeah, that's supporting the troops alright, sickening.

I spent a YEAR caring for Veterans who'd LOST THEIR MINDS at the DOWNEY VA in Illinois, they couldn't even tell DOCTORS what was WRONG with them.. my job was to Observe them for signs of pain and suffering and schedule appointments, I took care of 300 of them, read all their case histories, and gave them Excellent care.

SO it's about time YOU stop thinking with YOUR BALLS, and back off - my heart is PURE, and my Mind is CLEAR, and anyone who thinks they should give up their Second Amendment RIGHTS HAS that RIGHT, I EARNED THAT FOR YOU.

Feel free to leave yourself wide open, I WON'T, and YOU will not SUSPEND My Rights Anymore than BUSH will.

You have yourself a nice delusional day now. :)

[spoony]

202. To be fair we have a lot of both of those in Iraq

and things aren't going swimmingly there.

[ComerPerro]

34. oh wow. Lots of luck to you.

[merh]

38. Regulating guns does not equate to a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

thank you for your post - I gladly gave it the 5th recommendation so that it is on the Greatest page.

:hi:

[karlrschneider]

39. Great. I nominated it for the "stupidest fucking post ever" gallery.

:puke:

[merh]

40. I don't have that feature

Do I have to be a platinum donor to get it? :rofl:

I guess you like guns then. What is it about them that gives you the greatest pleasure? Is it the smell of the gun oil while you are cleaning your gun? Is it the feel of the metal in your hands and that power you feel as you squeeze off a round? Or is it just knowing you have the power to take a life if you have to?

[karlrschneider]

42. I just love the power of it. My gun gives me nonstop orgasms. I caress it with loving tenderness.

Is that what you wanted to hear?
FOAD

[merh]

53. Hey, you are the one that took it to a personal level

when you decided to post to me.

You don't have to agree with the OP, that's cool.

But you don't have to mess with me because I do.

Guess what, I've had to wear a gun for the job and it was not something I liked having to do.

I was a great shot when I had to carry a gun, it amazed folks how quickly I picked up on the use of a gun and how accurate I was, even though I objected to having to be assigned a gun.

I hated the way they felt, the smell of the gun oil, the smell of the gun after discharge, they were cold and heavy and dangerous and their only purpose is to kill.

So you can enjoy your gun all you want, just stop pushing the myths of the conservatives. Regulation does not equate to total banning and it does not deny you the right to "keep and bear arms".

IMHO, the largest, legal terrorists group operating in our nation is the NRA - they put fear in the hearts of folks like you for political purposes, they don't care about the folks damaged as a result of their campaigns of fear, they just want to promote their fanatic love of guns.

And you will have to forgive me, but I don't know what FOAD means so I don't know how I am to respond to it or if you expect me to respond to it.

[Redstone]

73. I'll be forwarding that post to the FAA as well. You are a danger to the public.

Redstone

[symbolman]

190. What the hell are you doing?

You seem to have lost your marbles pal. If you are in Pain, and I am a pain person, so I know what it's like, then TAKE A CHILL PILL.

REPORTING A DU'R to the FAA?

Again, WHAT THE HELL are YOU Doing?

So NOW the man ISN'T Allowed his opinion, and YOU decided to TRY and KILL his Livelyhood?

STOP it.

You have an IGNORE capability for a REASON, I don't think the RULES suggest that you OUT PEOPLE SOMEHOW.

STOP. You are getting SCARY.

[proud2BlibKansan]

43. . . .

[ddeclue]

75. self delete

[piedmont]

46. Well, you've successfully bundled together a bunch of oft-repeated straw-men in one post.

And you apparently think the "War on Drugs" is going swimmingly. What next? Say goodbye to booze?

[ddeclue]

76. No I didn't say that..

I only say that less people do illegal drugs because they are illegal.

That is an irrefutable fact.

Doug D.

[Redstone]

107. Excellent NRA bundle, right there.

Redstone

[piedmont]

126. Hitler chewed gum. Do you chew gum?

[Redstone]

132. Actually, I don't. Next question?

Redstone

[piedmont]

150. Ha. Alright then. Good night.

[Redstone]

51. I'm not easily impressed, but I'm fucking impressed right now. Yes, indeed.

Excellent post. Too bad that the Gunners will only respond with the same bullshit that you so masterfully discredited in your post.

Your post is one of the best I've seen here in a long time.

Redstone

[karlrschneider]

57. masterfully discredited? You bucking for Tony Snow's job?

:eyes: :rofl:

[Redstone]

77. Haven't answered ONE of my replies except with this bullshit, have you?

But that's what I'd expect.

And you fly airplanes with innocent people inside them? Now I'm scared.

Redstone

[doc03]

66. Give me an example where a gun killed someone. nt

[ddeclue]

80. Only if you will give me one example where someone was killed from

someone THROWING a bullet at them first...

Have a nice day...

Doug D.

[doc03]

102. Well if I hit you with a rock

and it kills you would we outlaw the possession of rocks? I would claim I was an Innocent victim I didn't hit you the rock did. People have killed people for thousands of years our weapons have just become more efficient over the years, a gun is just a tool like a club, rock, knife or a frozen leg of lamb.

[ddeclue]

109. Well there isn't an epidemic of "rock" murders now IS THERE?

Get real - Gun deaths are an epidemic and the design purpose of a gun is to kill. All the other tools you mentioned and the lead pipe, candlestick, and all the other murder weapons from "Clue" are designed to do this are they?

Show me someone who died from some throwing a bullet at them.. I'm still waiting...

Doug D.

[doc03]

96. A friend of mine from work killed himself with a gun.

Here's the story a co-worker of ours asked him to drive him home because his car broke down. My friend drives him home and the guy offers to buy him a beer for his trouble so they stop at a bar and have 2 maybe 3 beers. Then he drives the guy on home and leaves him off, after that he gets stopped for DUI. They take him to jail, he calls a lawyer and the lawyer gets him to go to a Psychiatrist he said he can keep you from serving the mandatory jail sentence for DUI. He goes to the doctor and the doctor says he is mentally ill and puts him on Prozac and another drug I can't remember. Now the guy that was previously perfectly normal walks around like a zombie for a month or two. Finally one day he doesn't show up for work and he is found dead, he put a shotgun in his mouth and blew his head off. Now in your expert opinion what killed him the guy that sold him the beer, the quack that put him on Prozac, the Prozac or the gun?

[ddeclue]

104. I happen to know of FOUR separate gun deaths of people I knew from my days in Atlanta in 80's/90's

1) One was a architecture student who was shot in the back by someone with a shotgun in Atlanta - it was a murder not an accident.
2) Another was a beautiful young woman I worked with at a Kroger in Atlanta who was killed in a car jacking by a bullet to the head in New Orleans after she left working with us. She was shot in the head.
3) Another was one of our stock clerks who was killed in his neighborhood apparently over drugs.
4) Another was the cousin of a co-worker of mine who accidentally shot a friend of his playin with his parents' gun.

Add to this I was in Atlanta when the guy got out of the insane asylum and went to the mall the next day and killed 5 people.

Add to that I worked right across the street on Piedmont Ave from where the failed day trader went it (after I had left Atlanta) and killed another 5 people.

I'm passsionate about this because it is personal to me - not because I'm some kind of uber-liberal reactionary.


Doug D.

[doc03]

204. A gun didn't kill any of those people, people did.

I heard many times on this very site people say if you give up your freedoms for security you get neither. Everyone complained over the last few years about Bush taking our Constitutional rights away now we have Democrats wanting to take away the rest of them. Just because you don't like guns don't mean the millions of law abiding people in this country that legally own them should give them up because some nut-case kills someone. I have 7 guns in my cabinet and they will never hurt anyone themselves someone has to pull the trigger. In this part of the country everyone has a gun and we don't need deadbolts on our doors and an alarm system to keep people out. It was Democrats from the more conservative states that gave us the majority in Congress and you can bet your ass if any Democrat running for President starts talking gun control you will have the Republicans back in control in 2008.

[AZBlue]

71. Great post! I'm printing this out and keeping it.

Thank you!

K&R

[Madspirit]

103. Wackiness Ensues

I hate guns and I don't have one but I still think...well, never mind because I'm just not going to be Talked Down To. I've got it. I will talk down to the Total Anti-Gun Ownership People. For a change, it can go the other way.

Listen up. You cannot regain innocence anymore than you can regain your virginity. This country is floating in guns. We are a violent people. So, got a little wand in your Kit of Happiness? We will make all the guns vanish and we will all have our very own painted pony and a picket fence and if we still have time, we can teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony.

That is NOT this world.

Also, I don't trust my government enough to want them to be the only ones with guns. Why do you trust George Bush and his neo-nazi co-hort evangelical lunatic friends? Why? THAT is nuts.
Lee

[ddeclue]

112. What a bunch of nonsense

I never said that we should take everyone's guns away. Just that they shouldn't be available in boxes of crackerjacks as long as you have two forms of ID and no criminal history.

Your approach is to say "we can and should do nothing" and let the nuts with guns continue to kill innocent people.

What a bunch of fatalistic (literally) nonsense...let's just ignore the problem and hope it goes away...

As for trusting the gov't... in reality they DO have all the guns that matter. Your shotgun or assault rifle aren't going hold out very long against an Apache gunship, a Predator drone, a Tomahawk cruise missile or an M1 tank are they?

Get real..

Doug D.

[Madspirit]

125. Arrogant, condescending pedant

I'm not even going to bother to re-type a new one. I will just leave out the civility I put in my post to my friend Redstone...a person who KNOWS how to talk to people.

I DON'T OWN A GUN!

There is a lot of work of the consciousness raising kind before people are going to willingly give up their guns.

...and I do think if everyone held onto their guns and Bush tried some nazi thing, we might have a chance but I don't know. I just think this country is a mess. There are divisions among people in this country that are not resolvable.

There is even a Group called Pink Pistols, arming gays and lesbians because we are victims of hate crimes. In Nazi Germany they put us in ovens too. People conveniently forget that little bit of trivia.

I don't have a gun. I know I'm bipolar. I know what I've done to sheetrock with my fist. I know better than to own a gun. I live in a liberal hippie town. So it's EASY to NOT have a gun here. I don't know what I would do if my girlfriend and I were living some place that is not safe for lesbians.

People are scared. Just not of the kind that is the condescending crap directed at Karlschneider about his childhood. To be that dismissive of the real fear real people really feel about real things...muggings, rape, criminals, hate crimes, the government....isn't going to start any kind of dialogue with anyone who even slightly supports firearm ownership.

The problems in this country are deep...really really deep. Hunger, mental illness, homelessness, crime, poverty, war, fundamentalist cults, etc. You're simply not going to get people's guns until there is some effort to address these issues.

...and you guys can pretend all you want but if this boy couldn't have gotten these guns from that gun shop, he would have gotten them somewhere else. Guns are easy to get. It was his mental illness that caused the crime. The guns were the instruments with which he carried out the crime. It would have been lovely if someone could have stopped him from having guns but as things are, he would have gotten them one way or another. It would have been lovelier, if someone had REALLY dealt with his mental illness. Then no one would have ever had to deal with his guns.

I have a mental illness. I come from abuse and poverty. I've been a good leftist since the Viet Nam war. I have been homeless and on the streets...FOR YEARS. Now I own my own home and drive a Volvo and have been with the same woman for 15 years. DO NOT TALK DOWN TO ME. What have YOU ever done or lived that wasn't just an armchair debate?

Lee

[ddeclue]

159. Quite a lot thank you and you can stop talking down to me while you're at it.

What have I done with MY life? I've worked on the space program and the Olympics, worked on political campaigns for President, Governor and other offices, graduated from a first tier engineering school, earned a pilot's license and travelled the world to start with. I won't toot my horn longer but to say you need watch that nasty tone of yours.

By your own excuse we should stop prosecuting hate crimes because hey the bigots are gonna commit them anyways.

And guns are not that easy to get illegally. At least not for most people. It wasn't his mental illness that caused the crime. It was someone selling a gun TO him in his mentally ill state without regards to that fact just to make a quick buck that caused the crime.

Doug D.

[piedmont]

131. It's called asymetrical warfare, and the Iraqis are pantsing us with it.

[ddeclue]

160. Only because George Bush is an idiot...n/t

You can believe what you want to but a Hellfire anti-tank missile has an 8 mile range and your small arms do not.

Good luck with that theory...

[mzmolly]

117. This kid purchased a gun legally. Mental health records are not checked, and that

should change. This guy had a history of serious mental illness. I'm not saying that specific info should be given out to gun dealers. But, I do feel that there should be a systematic notification just as there are with felons. This guy didn't just suffer from run of the mill depression, he was deemed "a threat to himself and others" he was delusional.

[ddeclue]

161. And even THAT is not a sufficient test.

Just because someone has never been diagnosed doesn't mean that they don't have real problems. Who ever heard of the Columbine shooters or Hinckley or Chapman or Son of Sam before they showed up? Would they have been in the mental health records?

A real investigation that includes someone actually TALKING with friends, neighbors, family and coworkers is what is needed. They are the most likely victims of that gun after all.

Doug D.

[mzmolly]

201. That's a good point.

:hi:

[ddeclue]

183. MUST SLEEP NOW.. GOOD NIGHT ALL... AN INTERESTING DEBATE...

and do not fear gunner DU friends, I'm not out to take your guns away. I just want to keep them out of the hands of the crazies and to make people think through what the real situation is when you are confronted - that it's just much too late to solve the problem with your own gun at that point. The real solution is keeping the guns out of the hands of the Malveaux, Hinckleys, and Chos in the first place.

Doug D.

[raccoon]

194. Myth #4 is so stupid. You debunked it well. nt

[Prophet 451]

196. Nice idea

Here (England), we already have something similar: You must be a member of a shooting club for at least six months before you can be licensed to own firearms. Since the range officer (the very experianced, well-trained guy who enforces safety requirements on teh range) is obliged to comment on your application, it usually (not always but usually) serves to week out the whack-jobs.

Look, my position is this: I'm a sport-shooter. I took up shooting because I wanted to win medals (I'm not that good sadly) and discovered a life-long (although expensive) hobby. I'm also a history buff and, were my finances more secure, would probably collect antique weapons. Sport-shooters tend not to be overly bothered about how powerful a weapon is. As long as it's powerful enough to accuratly punch a target at X yards, that's enough for us. We're not much bothered about fire rate either because if you rush your shot, you'll probably miss. We're more interested in things like point spread (getting your shots as close together as possible), accuracy and reliability. I've also been known to go hunting on occasion (carrying a rifle and ammo around miles of Scottish moorland, there's some excercise). I won't take a shot unless I can be sure of getting a one-shot kill, I either eat the meat or pass it to someone who will eat it (and a pair of antlers to my father which he uses as a hatrack).

If you can work out a system that'll let me keep target shooting, I'll support that system. I can't see a need for a hunter to own an automatic weapon as it removes the element of skill (a weapon firing 300 rounds a minute doesn't give the elk many options, plus all you're left with after that is hamburger). A target shooter uses semi-auto pistols simply because the gun industry has poured all their research into them for years so they tend to be the most accurate. If you want to run a criminal check, fine. Want me to get some of my buddies or my range officer to vouch for me, no problem. I'll resist if you want a psych evaluation because I hate therapy but that's just me. I don't even mind having to keep my weapon at the club (and have you seen gun club lockers? You'd need a rocket strike to get into them). So long as some kind of permit system could be worked out for me to attend Bisley each year, that's fine.

[IronLionZion]

199. That was brilliantly put. Thank you.

I'm a strong advocate of the right to bear arms for self-defense. YES, to kill people who want to kill you.

Thank you for sharing. I'm guessing I'm not the only one who appreciates the alternate viewpoint and you explained it in a very rational way that makes sense to anyone.

If there's a shooting and you are holding a gun, the police will kill you. They are trained to put two in your chest and one in your head. As sure as the sun will rise tomorrow they will do it. If you shoot back, then you're really fucked. The SWAT team has bullet proof vests, helmets, and are trained to kill people without hesitating. You have nothing but your god damn gun. You won't survive but even if you did, you will face the death penalty.

If there is a shooting and you pull your gun, you will die.