Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
N583JB
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun Apr 26, 2020 2:18 pm

GDB wrote:
johns624 wrote:
GDB wrote:

Sure about that?
Or you have no idea of the recent history in your own country?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_A ... eapons_Ban

Please don't try to kid me, kid yourself if you like, the death industry in the US (nothing to do with hunting, unless it's for humans), has marketed rounds to defeat body armour. In fact NATO chose the 5.56mm SS109 in the late 70's in large part due to it's ability to defeat body armour, either steel or composite helmets, which themselves are more effective than body armour worn by say cops.

Plus a hunting rifle, which sane people elsewhere in the world tend to define as .22 calibre from a bolt action weapon, is nowhere near as lethal as a 5.56mm, or 7.62x39mm or worse of all, a 7.62mm NATO. All magazine fed, almost always semi auto. basically semi auto versions of full auto military weapons, which have NO place for hunters, farmers etc, or are the animals hunted packing too?
Or are hunters in the US just really poor shots?


Hook, line and sinker... I was hoping that you would answer like you did. You need to do a bit more research. The AWB of 1994 didn't ban any guns. It banned cosmetic accessories and certain names. The Colt AR15 was still available, it was just called the Colt Sporter. It didn't have an evil bayonet lug or flash hider, and was only available with 10 round magazines, but it was functionally the same gun. The NRA didn't get it repealed, it had a 10 year "sunset" provision and wasn't reauthorized by Congress.
A .22 rimfire is a fun gun, and I own a couple, but it isn't powerful enough to hunt anything bigger than a squirrel. Common medium game (deer, etc.) guns are normally as powerful as a 7.62mm NATO, known in civilian circles as the .308 Winchester. I've owned them, also. If you want to hunt larger game (brown bear, moose, etc.) then the guns become even more powerful.
The 5.56mm NATO needed an anti-body armor round because it is a relatively weak round. For hunting, it isn't used for anything bigger than coyote and fox. The SS109/M855 isn't really needed, because if it's not someone wearing ballistic armor, it actually has less terminal effect.
I'll put the average American gun owner up against the average British army infantryman as far as shooting ability. I remember reading years ago that the British Radway Green Arsenal couldn't even load matchgrade ammo for the Palma international matches because they didn't have the technical know-how. That's how far you've fallen.


'How far we've fallen' you really are far gone.
2 million rounds fired by UK forces in Afghanistan in 2006-7, don't recall any reports on issues with reliability of rounds, which the press would have jumped on. A friend who did 22 years in, leaving as a RSM in 16th Air Assault Brigade has never told me any issues with rounds. He was damn glad the mods from the crappy L85A1 were done (which should have been a major political scandal, the Thatcher government were so keen to priviatize Enfield the serious issues were ignored, the Blair Government's 1998 defence review started the process of either replacing or fixing it, the Canadian M-16 variants already in SF use were a front runner but they went with the extensive mods to create the L85A2 and a bit later, the much wider adoption of the Mimini beyond the SF).
In tests, the L85A2 were rated as reliable as the as the M-16 variants in US service, while retaining the one good thing about the weapon, it's accuracy.

(Didn't have a good start with the M-16 in Vietnam, though the 'far fallen' UK/Commonwealth forces were using it in action in the 1964-66 Borneo confrontation with no such issues. But I digress, not even born then).
I nor anyone in my Company ever have a stoppage due to faulty ammunition, not with the 7.62mm weapons, not the 9mm. (I was a bit 'meh' where the Sterling SMG was concerned, though you were only issued it if you were lugging the 84mm RCL). Still had to know how to use it though.

I note you didn't address what motivated the original, yes very flawed, full of loopholes, temporary legislation.
Answer me this, why then did the the NRA and those they pay, make such a fuss about it, made sure it was repealed, why also did the many families who lost people to those weapons not want it repealed and re-instated, with fewer loopholes?
But they don't count do they?

My point remains, unanswered too, why does a civilian need a AR-15 or similar?
Australia, like the US with large tracts of rural, who see themselves as rugged outdoors types, reacted to the 1996 massacre. A Conservative government there acted. Mass shooting since? No.
What was the weapons of choice for massacres in most US schools, Malls, in Vegas (remember that one?), that one at the cinema?

We something nastily tragic recently, four bodies in a rural area. Mother, Two kids, Father. Police not looking for anyone else.
What's called a 'family destroyer'. But no one is calling for banning shotguns in rural areas. There is a justification for their general use if kept secure.
It's not the anti gun 'nuts' being absolutist, the nuts are in the other camp, not here thank goodness.


Just as an aside, the deadliest mass shooting in recent Western history took place in Paris. Last I checked France has pretty stringent gun control laws.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12856
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun Apr 26, 2020 2:49 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
You’ll have offer something evidence on how “better background checks and mental health evaluations” would reduce those murders. What’s a better check? How reliable are psychologists at predicting who might use a gun?


For starters former service personnel with PTSD should be banned from owning weapons.
 
JJJ
Posts: 3657
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun Apr 26, 2020 4:27 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
CaptHadley wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:

Yea really it takes gun hating to whole other level. A waste of posting.


Hey Johns316,

Nope, just got a chuckle out of the "my right to own a gun" crowd. I guess owning and responsibility are two different things, things this guy won't have to deal with ever again. Hey Nik! guess you didn't read where I own handguns huh. To be precise, I own a .40, .45, 9mm Glocks. .45 S&W M&P Shield, 45 Springfield XDS and my favorite, Mossberg 12 gauge Shockwave with Defender loads. Sorry to burst your "gun hatin'" theory. I don't drive around with a NRA sticker on my car, nor do I spout off about my dern tootin rights being taken away. However, I do not feel there is any reason to own or posses a AK47 type military weapon. They make terrible range guns and are not even worth mentioning insofar as a hunting type weapon. They are only around due to people, like yourself, who enjoy going to the local county fair 4H building gunshow/confederate flag license plate extravaganza! Armed with a MAGA hat, flannel shirt tucked into jeans with the obligatory Skoal can outlined in the back pocket and having junior tag along to witness what the great U S of A is all about! I go to my local range a couple times a month and run thru a few boxes on various types of targets, to have some fun and sharpen my skills. See Nik, that's all you have to do. Stop thinking the boogeyman is coming for your guns every day, it's bad on your ticker!


It seems you must frequent those events to know so many details.


Anyone who's even been at a range for 5 minutes knows the type.
 
FGITD
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun Apr 26, 2020 9:33 pm

There's a great YouTube channel that displays guns of all varieties, and is extremely informational. Loads of knowledge and skill. And he routinely also says he avoids meeting fans, going to shows, expos, etc because too many gun owners only show the side of needing it to shoot someone.

It leads me to think the best way to sort of restructure the debate intelligently is to take the approach of the gun being part of a sport, or tool. Too many gun owners /worshippers seem to live by the wet dream of gunning someone down in their living room. It's not a good look.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2377
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun Apr 26, 2020 9:40 pm

FGITD wrote:
There's a great YouTube channel that displays guns of all varieties, and is extremely informational. Loads of knowledge and skill. And he routinely also says he avoids meeting fans, going to shows, expos, etc because too many gun owners only show the side of needing it to shoot someone.

It leads me to think the best way to sort of restructure the debate intelligently is to take the approach of the gun being part of a sport, or tool. Too many gun owners /worshippers seem to live by the wet dream of gunning someone down in their living room. It's not a good look.


Agreed. I would never want to take someone's life. I would if it came down to me or them but I wouldn't feel good about it. I enjoy going to the range with friends, it's a lot of fun. But I hope I never have to put my skills to use.
 
johns624
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun Apr 26, 2020 9:52 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
FGITD wrote:
There's a great YouTube channel that displays guns of all varieties, and is extremely informational. Loads of knowledge and skill. And he routinely also says he avoids meeting fans, going to shows, expos, etc because too many gun owners only show the side of needing it to shoot someone.

It leads me to think the best way to sort of restructure the debate intelligently is to take the approach of the gun being part of a sport, or tool. Too many gun owners /worshippers seem to live by the wet dream of gunning someone down in their living room. It's not a good look.


Agreed. I would never want to take someone's life. I would if it came down to me or them but I wouldn't feel good about it. I enjoy going to the range with friends, it's a lot of fun. But I hope I never have to put my skills to use.
I agree but it won't work. How many times have you heard an anti politician or lobbyist say that guns are only for killing people.
 
extender
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Tue Apr 28, 2020 1:13 pm

johns624 wrote:
How many times have you heard an anti politician or lobbyist say that guns are only for killing people.


Every chance they get.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2377
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Tue Apr 28, 2020 1:22 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
You’ll have offer something evidence on how “better background checks and mental health evaluations” would reduce those murders. What’s a better check? How reliable are psychologists at predicting who might use a gun?


For starters former service personnel with PTSD should be banned from owning weapons.


If you're going to do that then you're going to have to apply it to all government. Any cop that's been written up for bad behavior or judgement should be put behind a desk permanently and stripped of their gun. But that's a whole different problem. Cops that have been fired from multiple cities still got hired by police departments. Some even got hired with criminal records. There doesn't seem to be any reference or background checks.
 
extender
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Tue Apr 28, 2020 1:27 pm

Not to mention, you don't need to be "service personnel" to suffer some sort of event that will lead to PTSD. If you dig deep enough, everyone's psyche has suffered some sort of significant event to cause there behavior to become affected. It isn't only with guns, an A319 will serve to create mayhem. So when someone wants to do evil things, they will find a way to do it.
 
PixelPilot
Posts: 563
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:19 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Tue Apr 28, 2020 2:31 pm

CaptHadley wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
It's just me in my home. Three guns and none of them have ever accidently or purposely fired upon anyone. I have a biometric gun safe that I keep them in. No one is getting to them by accident.

And why do liberals only care about suicide if a gun is involved? They are so fake. And besides, if someone makes the choice to end their life then it's none of your business as long as they're not harming anyone else in the process. It's quite efficient but terribly messy.


First off, shocker.. Secondly, somebody breaks into your home, what are you going to do? Say "Hang on, biometric safe, it works kinda slow" And how on gods green earth did liberals enter into this? Fact of the matters is mr gun toting 2nd amendment guy got waxed by his 2 yr old. Can't wait for that talk in the future "hey mom how did dad die?" Lot of good that pistol is gonna do you locked away, unloaded, in a safe if somebody breaks into your home. Man up, keep that bad boy on the counter top or end table, within easy reach.


Like them or not this is what I would suggest.
Find a good (and I mean GOOD) shooting range. Research it.
Hire a instructor. A good one. A VERY GOOD one if you can find one.
Spend a day learning.
You don't have to ever own a gun after but your perception of reality will change forever and in WORST case scenario if you find yourself near a gun, at least you will not hurt yourself or anybody around you.
And most importantly, you will get rid of the fear that is impairing your judgment.

To be honest I believe EVERY american should have some sort of training course (not the joke one when doing CCW) before they are allowed to operate guns.
I get the second amendment but people should at least understand how to use them.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2136
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Tue Apr 28, 2020 3:10 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
It's just me in my home. Three guns and none of them have ever accidently or purposely fired upon anyone. I have a biometric gun safe that I keep them in.

Who said it is unloaded?

The safe (about the size of a large shoe box and looks nice on my desk) opens instantly upon authenticating the biometric input.


Just you in your home, with three guns (!), one of them loaded ready for action, sitting in a safe that "looks nice on my desk".
On your desk. :lol:

That tells me everything I need to know. Or is the 'hood you live in really that bad ass?
Maybe you should move to a nicer zip code?

Have a good day.
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
GDB
Posts: 13679
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Tue Apr 28, 2020 3:38 pm

N583JB wrote:
GDB wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Hook, line and sinker... I was hoping that you would answer like you did. You need to do a bit more research. The AWB of 1994 didn't ban any guns. It banned cosmetic accessories and certain names. The Colt AR15 was still available, it was just called the Colt Sporter. It didn't have an evil bayonet lug or flash hider, and was only available with 10 round magazines, but it was functionally the same gun. The NRA didn't get it repealed, it had a 10 year "sunset" provision and wasn't reauthorized by Congress.
A .22 rimfire is a fun gun, and I own a couple, but it isn't powerful enough to hunt anything bigger than a squirrel. Common medium game (deer, etc.) guns are normally as powerful as a 7.62mm NATO, known in civilian circles as the .308 Winchester. I've owned them, also. If you want to hunt larger game (brown bear, moose, etc.) then the guns become even more powerful.
The 5.56mm NATO needed an anti-body armor round because it is a relatively weak round. For hunting, it isn't used for anything bigger than coyote and fox. The SS109/M855 isn't really needed, because if it's not someone wearing ballistic armor, it actually has less terminal effect.
I'll put the average American gun owner up against the average British army infantryman as far as shooting ability. I remember reading years ago that the British Radway Green Arsenal couldn't even load matchgrade ammo for the Palma international matches because they didn't have the technical know-how. That's how far you've fallen.


'How far we've fallen' you really are far gone.
2 million rounds fired by UK forces in Afghanistan in 2006-7, don't recall any reports on issues with reliability of rounds, which the press would have jumped on. A friend who did 22 years in, leaving as a RSM in 16th Air Assault Brigade has never told me any issues with rounds. He was damn glad the mods from the crappy L85A1 were done (which should have been a major political scandal, the Thatcher government were so keen to priviatize Enfield the serious issues were ignored, the Blair Government's 1998 defence review started the process of either replacing or fixing it, the Canadian M-16 variants already in SF use were a front runner but they went with the extensive mods to create the L85A2 and a bit later, the much wider adoption of the Mimini beyond the SF).
In tests, the L85A2 were rated as reliable as the as the M-16 variants in US service, while retaining the one good thing about the weapon, it's accuracy.

(Didn't have a good start with the M-16 in Vietnam, though the 'far fallen' UK/Commonwealth forces were using it in action in the 1964-66 Borneo confrontation with no such issues. But I digress, not even born then).
I nor anyone in my Company ever have a stoppage due to faulty ammunition, not with the 7.62mm weapons, not the 9mm. (I was a bit 'meh' where the Sterling SMG was concerned, though you were only issued it if you were lugging the 84mm RCL). Still had to know how to use it though.

I note you didn't address what motivated the original, yes very flawed, full of loopholes, temporary legislation.
Answer me this, why then did the the NRA and those they pay, make such a fuss about it, made sure it was repealed, why also did the many families who lost people to those weapons not want it repealed and re-instated, with fewer loopholes?
But they don't count do they?

My point remains, unanswered too, why does a civilian need a AR-15 or similar?
Australia, like the US with large tracts of rural, who see themselves as rugged outdoors types, reacted to the 1996 massacre. A Conservative government there acted. Mass shooting since? No.
What was the weapons of choice for massacres in most US schools, Malls, in Vegas (remember that one?), that one at the cinema?

We something nastily tragic recently, four bodies in a rural area. Mother, Two kids, Father. Police not looking for anyone else.
What's called a 'family destroyer'. But no one is calling for banning shotguns in rural areas. There is a justification for their general use if kept secure.
It's not the anti gun 'nuts' being absolutist, the nuts are in the other camp, not here thank goodness.


Just as an aside, the deadliest mass shooting in recent Western history took place in Paris. Last I checked France has pretty stringent gun control laws.


Sure? I know of the one you speak of, about the same body count as say the Vegas one?
Missing the point too, the one in France was by organized terrorists, with a supply line, networks, actual military weapons - often fallout from the 90's Balkans wars.
Nearby Belgium, which you'll know has a major arms industry, has also long been a hotbed of illegal sales.

The fact remains, most since, that network was wound up/killed/killed themselves, attacks since have largely been without guns. Because outside of a terrorist network, guns are hard to source, networks are vulnerable to penetration by security services.
Lone nuts are not.
But lone nuts here only have knifes, they even have to fake suicide vests, not that this have saved the ones here from getting shot by the specialized firearms officers, who have to assume otherwise and most of all, they are going around stabbing people so need slotting. Though some have been taken down with a Taser.

Thank god they don't have access to firearms, not least the types seen at gun shows in the US.
Which have a fair few extremist nuts too.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2136
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Tue Apr 28, 2020 3:52 pm

N583JB wrote:
meecrob wrote:
This is the part that I don't get. You make it sound like you regularly have to defend yourself with a gun while going about your daily business.

Of course not. I think of a gun the same way I think of airbags, smoke detectors, and fire extinguishers. You hope you never need them, but when you do need them, you really need them. My firearm that I store securely, unloaded, is not going to suddenly load itself and shoot me, but in the event of a home invasion, it may save my life or the life of someone else I care about.

I'm intrigued by this, because the term "home invasion" is possibly misunderstood by the majority of the sane world.
Definition
Home invasion differs from burglary in that its perpetrators have a violent intent apart from the unlawful entry itself

Home invasion as such is not defined as a crime in most countries other than the US

Few statistics are available on the crime of home invasion as such, because it is not defined as a crime in its own right in most jurisdictions

Most worryingly; "Statistics about home invasion found on the Internet are often false or misleading."

Here's are some prime examples...
Globalsecurityexperts.com wrote:
The statistics for violent home invasions and burglaries is really troubling:
A burglary occurs nearly every 15 seconds in the United States.
A majority of home intruders gain access forcibly through a "locked" door.
1 out of every 5 homes will encounter a violent home intrusion or burglary

Oh wait, those stats are for "...and burglaries". Goddammit.

BrandonGaille wrote:
25 Surprising Home Invasion Robbery Statistics

According to the FBI, one property crime happens every 3 seconds.
Every 3 seconds!!! That's five times more frightening than the "one every 15 seconds" given above. :scratchchin:
OTOH "property crime" - that's an interesting description - I wonder what it actually means?

Over 2 million homes will experience a break-in or burglary at some point in time in the United States.
- "at some point"? This year, this decade, this century? I'd vote for per annum, but why make it subject to guesswork?

The estimated number of household burglaries that occur every year: 3.8 million.
Finally some actual stats to work with, except this leads to the problem of 3.8 million burglaries versus 2 million homes.
I guess some trailor parks get hit over and over again? Wow.

7% of all household burglaries results in some form of a violent victimization.
Again, good to have some hard numbers, well, almost. The trouble is I'm losing faith in any of these numbers.

Most home invasions occur as a form of domestic violence. It may be from a close family member, a dear friend, or a trusted associate.
Holy smoke. Still it's good to know that when your cousin comes knockin', you can blow him away with that loaded pistol on your desk. Yee-haa!

All joking aside, does anybody have any proper stats for home invasions?

Or are y'all keeping yourselves tooled-up for a once-in-a-millenium event?
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
N583JB
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:17 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
N583JB wrote:
meecrob wrote:
This is the part that I don't get. You make it sound like you regularly have to defend yourself with a gun while going about your daily business.

Of course not. I think of a gun the same way I think of airbags, smoke detectors, and fire extinguishers. You hope you never need them, but when you do need them, you really need them. My firearm that I store securely, unloaded, is not going to suddenly load itself and shoot me, but in the event of a home invasion, it may save my life or the life of someone else I care about.

I'm intrigued by this, because the term "home invasion" is possibly misunderstood by the majority of the sane world.
Definition
Home invasion differs from burglary in that its perpetrators have a violent intent apart from the unlawful entry itself

Home invasion as such is not defined as a crime in most countries other than the US

Few statistics are available on the crime of home invasion as such, because it is not defined as a crime in its own right in most jurisdictions

Most worryingly; "Statistics about home invasion found on the Internet are often false or misleading."

Here's are some prime examples...
Globalsecurityexperts.com wrote:
The statistics for violent home invasions and burglaries is really troubling:
A burglary occurs nearly every 15 seconds in the United States.
A majority of home intruders gain access forcibly through a "locked" door.
1 out of every 5 homes will encounter a violent home intrusion or burglary

Oh wait, those stats are for "...and burglaries". Goddammit.

BrandonGaille wrote:
25 Surprising Home Invasion Robbery Statistics

According to the FBI, one property crime happens every 3 seconds.
Every 3 seconds!!! That's five times more frightening than the "one every 15 seconds" given above. :scratchchin:
OTOH "property crime" - that's an interesting description - I wonder what it actually means?

Over 2 million homes will experience a break-in or burglary at some point in time in the United States.
- "at some point"? This year, this decade, this century? I'd vote for per annum, but why make it subject to guesswork?

The estimated number of household burglaries that occur every year: 3.8 million.
Finally some actual stats to work with, except this leads to the problem of 3.8 million burglaries versus 2 million homes.
I guess some trailor parks get hit over and over again? Wow.

7% of all household burglaries results in some form of a violent victimization.
Again, good to have some hard numbers, well, almost. The trouble is I'm losing faith in any of these numbers.

Most home invasions occur as a form of domestic violence. It may be from a close family member, a dear friend, or a trusted associate.
Holy smoke. Still it's good to know that when your cousin comes knockin', you can blow him away with that loaded pistol on your desk. Yee-haa!

All joking aside, does anybody have any proper stats for home invasions?

Or are y'all keeping yourselves tooled-up for a once-in-a-millenium event?


Without divulging too much about my personal life, I work in public safety and home invasions are not uncommon at all. In the event that my home is broken into while I'm at work, I want my wife to be able to protect herself. If our home is broken into while I am home, I want to be able to defend myself. A gun is a tool, not a toy, and ideally I will go my entire life without pointing it at another person. As I said earlier, though, when seconds count the police are minutes away.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2136
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Tue Apr 28, 2020 5:03 pm

N583JB wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Definition
Home invasion differs from burglary in that its perpetrators have a violent intent apart from the unlawful entry itself

Few statistics are available on the crime of home invasion as such, because it is not defined as a crime in its own right in most jurisdictions

"Statistics about home invasion found on the Internet are often false or misleading."

I work in public safety and home invasions are not uncommon at all.
You sound like the kind of guy who could get hold of some actual numbers.
Please, help us out here.
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
N583JB
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Tue Apr 28, 2020 5:15 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
N583JB wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Definition
Home invasion differs from burglary in that its perpetrators have a violent intent apart from the unlawful entry itself

Few statistics are available on the crime of home invasion as such, because it is not defined as a crime in its own right in most jurisdictions

"Statistics about home invasion found on the Internet are often false or misleading."

I work in public safety and home invasions are not uncommon at all.
You sound like the kind of guy who could get hold of some actual numbers.
Please, help us out here.


Sure, I could get you some numbers for where I work and live, but I value anonymity more than I value winning an internet argument.
 
GDB
Posts: 13679
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Tue Apr 28, 2020 5:58 pm

N583JB wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
N583JB wrote:
I work in public safety and home invasions are not uncommon at all.
You sound like the kind of guy who could get hold of some actual numbers.
Please, help us out here.


Sure, I could get you some numbers for where I work and live, but I value anonymity more than I value winning an internet argument.


That's fair enough, I'm not but do not put any real details on line either.
It's just that now I'm imagining you as a Bounty Hunter or something!
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2377
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Tue Apr 28, 2020 9:11 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
It's just me in my home. Three guns and none of them have ever accidently or purposely fired upon anyone. I have a biometric gun safe that I keep them in.

Who said it is unloaded?

The safe (about the size of a large shoe box and looks nice on my desk) opens instantly upon authenticating the biometric input.


Just you in your home, with three guns (!), one of them loaded ready for action, sitting in a safe that "looks nice on my desk".
On your desk. :lol:

That tells me everything I need to know. Or is the 'hood you live in really that bad ass?
Maybe you should move to a nicer zip code?

Have a good day.


Do you really believe criminals stay out of the better zip codes?
 
meecrob
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 6:15 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Wed Apr 29, 2020 12:41 am

N583JB wrote:
meecrob wrote:
N583JB wrote:
The ones with blood on their hands would be people like you, who want law-abiding citizens to be completely defenseless while well-armed criminals are free to do as they please. Thankfully, the 2nd Amendment doesn't care about the opinions you have of it.


This is the part that I don't get. You make it sound like you regularly have to defend yourself with a gun while going about your daily business.


Of course not. I think of a gun the same way I think of airbags, smoke detectors, and fire extinguishers. You hope you never need them, but when you do need them, you really need them. My firearm that I store securely, unloaded, is not going to suddenly load itself and shoot me, but in the event of a home invasion, it may save my life or the life of someone else I care about.


I see your point, but is it realistic? I could make the same point about adding a flare dispenser to my Cessna in case anyone shoots a manpads at me.
 
extender
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Wed Apr 29, 2020 2:33 pm

meecrob wrote:
I see your point, but is it realistic? I could make the same point about adding a flare dispenser to my Cessna in case anyone shoots a manpads at me.


Ever hear about identifying hazards and risk assessments? What is the likelihood someone is going to uncork a MANPAD on a Cessna? You have better odds of hitting the Powerball. What are your chances of encountering a situation where you may be facing death or great bodily harm at the hands of some malfeasance? Your better off using your funds to buy a firearm and train with it than spend it on an STC to install a AN/ALE-47 Airborne Countermeasure Dispenser on your bug masher.
 
PixelPilot
Posts: 563
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:19 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:21 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
It's just me in my home. Three guns and none of them have ever accidently or purposely fired upon anyone. I have a biometric gun safe that I keep them in.

Who said it is unloaded?

The safe (about the size of a large shoe box and looks nice on my desk) opens instantly upon authenticating the biometric input.


Just you in your home, with three guns (!), one of them loaded ready for action, sitting in a safe that "looks nice on my desk".
On your desk. :lol:

That tells me everything I need to know. Or is the 'hood you live in really that bad ass?
Maybe you should move to a nicer zip code?

Have a good day.


Do you really believe criminals stay out of the better zip codes?


Probably. Though forgets to take into account higher police presence, security / security guards and etc.
 
FGITD
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:24 pm

extender wrote:
meecrob wrote:
I see your point, but is it realistic? I could make the same point about adding a flare dispenser to my Cessna in case anyone shoots a manpads at me.


Ever hear about identifying hazards and risk assessments? What is the likelihood someone is going to uncork a MANPAD on a Cessna? You have better odds of hitting the Powerball. What are your chances of encountering a situation where you may be facing death or great bodily harm at the hands of some malfeasance? Your better off using your funds to buy a firearm and train with it than spend it on an STC to install a AN/ALE-47 Airborne Countermeasure Dispenser on your bug masher.


True as this may be, I think it would be much more entertaining to watch a Cessna dodge rockets while popping flares.

Granted if it comes to that, I'd be a little concerned about the well-being of the country it's being flown over.
 
meecrob
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 6:15 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:29 pm

That is exactly my point - what are the "chances of encountering a situation where you may be facing death or great bodily harm at the hands of some malfeasence"?


Edit: Full disclosure - I'm not trying to rile you guys up, I'm genuinely curious. I'm a typical young male who loves all things that are loud, fast and explode, but there is a cultural difference here that I am trying to put my finger on.
 
N583JB
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:51 pm

meecrob wrote:
That is exactly my point - what are the "chances of encountering a situation where you may be facing death or great bodily harm at the hands of some malfeasence"?


Edit: Full disclosure - I'm not trying to rile you guys up, I'm genuinely curious. I'm a typical young male who loves all things that are loud, fast and explode, but there is a cultural difference here that I am trying to put my finger on.


The problem is that no one knows how many true instances of defensive gun use there are each year in the United States. The estimates range from millions on the high end to thousands on the low end, with flaws found in either methodology (see: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/ ... d1bffe299a ).

I can provide anecdotal evidence. The first shooting I ever responded to involved a young woman home alone while her husband was at work. Broad daylight, middle class neighborhood. Two random men kicked in her door despite her screaming and calling 911. She grabbed their .45 and shot the first one to make it through the door. The second one ran and was arrested a short distance away. Had the woman not been armed, the outcome may have been much worse.

On the other side of the spectrum, I treated a 10 year old child who lived in an apartment building and was shot through the wall by her neighbor who was "cleaning" his firearm.

The reality is that you can find numbers online to back up whatever argument you want to make. At the end of the day each person has to sit down and realistically decide if it makes sense for them to own a firearm (or multiple firearms) or not, and if so, how to safely use and store those firearms. With proper storage and gun safety measures, the risk of a firearm harming you or a loved one is essentially zero. If you are reckless or unstable, the risk is obviously much higher than that and may outweigh the benefits.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2136
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Wed Apr 29, 2020 5:09 pm

N583JB wrote:
The problem is that no one knows how many true instances of defensive gun use there are each year in the United States. The estimates range from millions on the high end to thousands on the low end, with flaws found in either methodology (see: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/ ... d1bffe299a ).

I can provide anecdotal evidence.....

On the other side of the spectrum....

The reality is that you can find numbers online to back up whatever argument you want to make. At the end of the day each person has to sit down and realistically decide if it makes sense for them to own a firearm (or multiple firearms) or not, and if so, how to safely use and store those firearms. With proper storage and gun safety measures, the risk of a firearm harming you or a loved one is essentially zero. If you are reckless or unstable, the risk is obviously much higher than that and may outweigh the benefits.


Wow. That's a really good, well-considered & balanced reply - something of a rarity here on a.net. :lol:

Respect is due. Well done Sir. :checkmark:
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2136
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Wed Apr 29, 2020 5:16 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
It's just me in my home. Three guns and none of them have ever accidently or purposely fired upon anyone. I have a biometric gun safe that I keep them in.

The safe (about the size of a large shoe box and looks nice on my desk) opens instantly upon authenticating the biometric input.

Just you in your home, with three guns (!), one of them loaded ready for action, sitting in a safe that "looks nice on my desk".
On your desk. :lol:

That tells me everything I need to know. Or is the 'hood you live in really that bad ass?
Maybe you should move to a nicer zip code?

TTailedTiger wrote:
Do you really believe criminals stay out of the better zip codes?

Is that a serious question?
Do you not have access to crime statistics for your zip code? (& others for comparison?)

Hell, in my zip code, I don't even bother to lock my car. The problem is, I'm so used to doing that I get so that I don't bother when I'm at the mall either.
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
Reddevil556
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 2:09 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat May 02, 2020 1:38 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
You’ll have offer something evidence on how “better background checks and mental health evaluations” would reduce those murders. What’s a better check? How reliable are psychologists at predicting who might use a gun?


For starters former service personnel with PTSD should be banned from owning weapons.


If you're going to do that then you're going to have to apply it to all government. Any cop that's been written up for bad behavior or judgement should be put behind a desk permanently and stripped of their gun. But that's a whole different problem. Cops that have been fired from multiple cities still got hired by police departments. Some even got hired with criminal records. There doesn't seem to be any reference or background checks.


Well I am law enforcement, my background investigation took 3 months to complete before I got hired. So blanket statements like that are completely errant. The length and depth of investigation varies from agency to agency, state to state. In my state, background investigators have to attend specialized training to become qualified to do the tasks. Yes they dig very deep.
Jumped out of: C130H, C130J, C17A, C212, CH47, and UH60. Bucket list: C160, A400, C2
 
Reddevil556
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 2:09 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat May 02, 2020 1:48 am

[photoid][/photoid]
meecrob wrote:
That is exactly my point - what are the "chances of encountering a situation where you may be facing death or great bodily harm at the hands of some malfeasence"?


Edit: Full disclosure - I'm not trying to rile you guys up, I'm genuinely curious. I'm a typical young male who loves all things that are loud, fast and explode, but there is a cultural difference here that I am trying to put my finger on.


I joined the Army and became a paratrooper in a heavy weapons platoon. Most civilian guns are boring, especially when you have to pay for the ammo. That being said, since I am law enforcement now, my guns go home with me every day. But they are secured. Self defense starts way left of the boom. You make yourself a hard target, you make yourself look anonymous. My house has lovely flowers, nice landscaping, and bird feeders around it. You would not pick out that house as a prime burglary target. I drive older used cars, nothing flashy. My house is modest. If I were a bad guy looking to steal guns, I would drive around until I found a house flying a “Don’t tread on Me” flag. Bad part of being a vet and now LE...you spend a lot of time trying to get into the mind of the enemy or criminals.

PS Open carry is about the most foolish thing a legal gun owner could ever do. Those are easy/soft targets believe it or not.
Jumped out of: C130H, C130J, C17A, C212, CH47, and UH60. Bucket list: C160, A400, C2
 
johns624
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat May 02, 2020 2:42 pm

Reddevil556 wrote:

I joined the Army and became a paratrooper in a heavy weapons platoon. Most civilian guns are boring, especially when you have to pay for the ammo. That being said, since I am law enforcement now, my guns go home with me every day. But they are secured. Self defense starts way left of the boom. You make yourself a hard target, you make yourself look anonymous. My house has lovely flowers, nice landscaping, and bird feeders around it. You would not pick out that house as a prime burglary target. I drive older used cars, nothing flashy. My house is modest. If I were a bad guy looking to steal guns, I would drive around until I found a house flying a “Don’t tread on Me” flag. Bad part of being a vet and now LE...you spend a lot of time trying to get into the mind of the enemy or criminals.

PS Open carry is about the most foolish thing a legal gun owner could ever do. Those are easy/soft targets believe it or not.
I mainly agree with you about being the "gray man". OTOH, I don't believe most burglars go around breaking in to steal guns, I think that's just an added plus after the other stuff they steal.
 
UpNAWAy
Posts: 678
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 12:42 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat May 02, 2020 3:17 pm

The US gun debate is pointless because the Constitution is crystal clear. I'd like for once anti 2nd amendment folks actually acknowledged that and start down the path to change the 2nd rather than illegally restricting gun rights. If you don't like a law change it, stop getting courts and cities to do the dirty work.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22335
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat May 02, 2020 4:32 pm

UpNAWAy wrote:
The US gun debate is pointless because the Constitution is crystal clear. I'd like for once anti 2nd amendment folks actually acknowledged that and start down the path to change the 2nd rather than illegally restricting gun rights. If you don't like a law change it, stop getting courts and cities to do the dirty work.


It is pointless. Those who want all guns all the time because they believe the last four words of the Second Amendment are the most important in all of law are also the same ones who say we must enforce existing laws then get all upset because existing laws are enforce and that infringes on the last four words of the Second Amendment.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2685
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat May 02, 2020 5:15 pm

Agreed, it's crystal clear: A well armed militia ...

Notice the word "militia", which is a paramilitary organisation aimed at securing a specific area, often under local or regional control. As in, your National Guard.

So there you have, clear as ice: To be armed means you have to be a member of a militia, in your case the US National Guard.

That wasn't so hard, now was it?
Signature. You just read one.
 
johns624
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat May 02, 2020 7:27 pm

B777LRF wrote:
Agreed, it's crystal clear: A well armed militia ...

Notice the word "militia", which is a paramilitary organisation aimed at securing a specific area, often under local or regional control. As in, your National Guard.

So there you have, clear as ice: To be armed means you have to be a member of a militia, in your case the US National Guard.

That wasn't so hard, now was it?
No. Back when the BoR was written, there wasn't a uniformed national guard. It was every able-bodied male. Sort of like a western posse. The 2nd basically says that since a militia may need to be formed, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed so it can be formed quickly. Also, the government can't give you "rights", it can only be kept from taking them away.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2685
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat May 02, 2020 9:41 pm

[quote="johns624]No. Back when the BoR was written, there wasn't a uniformed national guard. It was every able-bodied male. Sort of like a western posse. The 2nd basically says that since a militia may need to be formed, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed so it can be formed quickly. Also, the government can't give you "rights", it can only be kept from taking them away.[/quote]

So, muskets only then?

But I can certainly see the need to form an armed militia today. I mean, it makes total sense to go into a fight against intercontinental ballistic missiles, Main Battle Tanks with 120mm canons, nuclear powered aircraft carriers and armed drones ...... with an AR-15.
Signature. You just read one.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22335
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sat May 02, 2020 11:11 pm

For those who believe their stash of weapons will stop the United States government, watch documentaries on Ruby Ridge, Waco, or the first 20 minutes of "Straight Outta Compton". I have never ever said we need to give up all guns, but the "everyone must be armed to the teeth no matter what" crowd really need to think and understand what they are talking about.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5664
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun May 03, 2020 12:04 am

B777LRF wrote:
[quote="johns624]No. Back when the BoR was written, there wasn't a uniformed national guard. It was every able-bodied male. Sort of like a western posse. The 2nd basically says that since a militia may need to be formed, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed so it can be formed quickly. Also, the government can't give you "rights", it can only be kept from taking them away.[/quote]

So, muskets only then?

But I can certainly see the need to form an armed militia today. I mean, it makes total sense to go into a fight against intercontinental ballistic missiles, Main Battle Tanks with 120mm canons, nuclear powered aircraft carriers and armed drones ...... with an AR-15.[/quote]


Read about Afghan history and superior forces
 
Reddevil556
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 2:09 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun May 03, 2020 12:56 am

johns624 wrote:
Reddevil556 wrote:

I joined the Army and became a paratrooper in a heavy weapons platoon. Most civilian guns are boring, especially when you have to pay for the ammo. That being said, since I am law enforcement now, my guns go home with me every day. But they are secured. Self defense starts way left of the boom. You make yourself a hard target, you make yourself look anonymous. My house has lovely flowers, nice landscaping, and bird feeders around it. You would not pick out that house as a prime burglary target. I drive older used cars, nothing flashy. My house is modest. If I were a bad guy looking to steal guns, I would drive around until I found a house flying a “Don’t tread on Me” flag. Bad part of being a vet and now LE...you spend a lot of time trying to get into the mind of the enemy or criminals.

PS Open carry is about the most foolish thing a legal gun owner could ever do. Those are easy/soft targets believe it or not.
I mainly agree with you about being the "gray man". OTOH, I don't believe most burglars go around breaking in to steal guns, I think that's just an added plus after the other stuff they steal.


True, but they are frequently stolen when readily available.
Jumped out of: C130H, C130J, C17A, C212, CH47, and UH60. Bucket list: C160, A400, C2
 
User avatar
CarlosSi
Posts: 655
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:29 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun May 03, 2020 1:18 am

Look, guns are here to stay in America, and as a “gun control supporter”, there are concessions I may make to those for more lax gun-laws (keeping AR15s, allowing more public-carry in general), but what drives me nuts is that the NRA and many others aren’t willing to make *ANY* concessions at all. Can’t do a gun registry, can’t mandate all sellers and distributors to complete background checks on buyers. There needs to be zero tolerance on missed red flags such as history of domestic violence...

Getting an AR15 should be like getting a loan and require character witnesses like in most Western countries.

Maybe there wouldn't be so many fatalities from items like baseball bats if they were banned, ya know? Ever thought about that argument? The goal here is to minimize these random acts of terror, and honestly, I definitely agree there should be focus on why people do these things in the first place, but almost always we shouldn't have to if they didn't have their weapon of maximum lethality in the first place.

I actually do thing the good guy with a gun is an ok deterrent, but that should always be a last resort. I shouldn't have to gun down a mass killer because our lawmakers have tons of NRA money in their checking accounts and couldn't do their work to prevent those countless lives that died prior to being shot by that good guy.

Chicago? INDIANA!
 
GDB
Posts: 13679
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun May 03, 2020 6:36 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
B777LRF wrote:
[quote="johns624]No. Back when the BoR was written, there wasn't a uniformed national guard. It was every able-bodied male. Sort of like a western posse. The 2nd basically says that since a militia may need to be formed, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed so it can be formed quickly. Also, the government can't give you "rights", it can only be kept from taking them away.[/quote]

So, muskets only then?

But I can certainly see the need to form an armed militia today. I mean, it makes total sense to go into a fight against intercontinental ballistic missiles, Main Battle Tanks with 120mm canons, nuclear powered aircraft carriers and armed drones ...... with an AR-15.[/quote][/quote]

Read about Afghan history and superior forces[/quote]


A point often made and deserving of an answer.
And it's a simple one, whatever we think of them, they tend to have a tough life from cradle to grave, going back generations over centuries.
They live a life that is unencumbered by consumerism, living off the land isn't something they would do as an exercise, hobby, in the knowledge that what we all take for granted (even during this pandemic), is but at most a few miles away, usually more like feet.

Now look at these so called militia's all confederate flags, some swastikas, gucci'd up weapons, none of them look like they've missed a meal. Indeed if it came to it, their fantasy, the actual US militia, even a basic National Guard rifle company, would make short work of them.
That bunch in MI are range warriors, few if any will have been drilled in basics, worked as a section etc.

Going back to your example, another post marked 9 years since Bin Laden got offed.
A very rich kid, whose claims of being a 'fighter' against the USSR should have been undermined by visual evidence, how he loved to have that AKS-74 for photo ops but remember other footage, taken in the late 90's.
There he is, with an AK-47, he goes to fire, no sound on the film but something seems to cause an issue with the most reliable assault rifle ever made, someone helps him, or seems to be instructing him on it's use. The weapon of choice for the untrained, even child soldiers, easiest to use. He seems not to be able to.
 
N583JB
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun May 03, 2020 11:10 am

B777LRF wrote:
Agreed, it's crystal clear: A well armed militia ...

Notice the word "militia", which is a paramilitary organisation aimed at securing a specific area, often under local or regional control. As in, your National Guard.

So there you have, clear as ice: To be armed means you have to be a member of a militia, in your case the US National Guard.

That wasn't so hard, now was it?


The SCOTUS has already ruled on the issue and they disagree with you. With all due respect, your interpretation of the 2nd is irrelevant. It has already been decided.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2685
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun May 03, 2020 1:06 pm

Bringing up the SCOTUS as a point of reference is highly debatable, since its members are all political appointees. To wit, due to the nature of the way judges are appointed to the SCOTUS, it fails the litmus test of being an independent, unbiased, fair and balanced, entity. Populate the SCOTUS with the "right" kind of people, and you will get the ruling you want.

Don't know why I'm wasting bandwidth arguing this, and frankly I couldn't care less if imbecilic yanks shot each other in the tens of thousands every year. He who doesn't want to learn, must face the consequences, as the saying goes. It only saddens me when large groups of kids get in the way of 2nd amendment idiots and pays the ultimate price. But if Sandy Hook wasn't enough to change minds, there is zero chance of any argument swaying opinions.
Signature. You just read one.
 
N583JB
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun May 03, 2020 1:34 pm

B777LRF wrote:
Bringing up the SCOTUS as a point of reference is highly debatable, since its members are all political appointees. To wit, due to the nature of the way judges are appointed to the SCOTUS, it fails the litmus test of being an independent, unbiased, fair and balanced, entity. Populate the SCOTUS with the "right" kind of people, and you will get the ruling you want.

Don't know why I'm wasting bandwidth arguing this, and frankly I couldn't care less if imbecilic yanks shot each other in the tens of thousands every year. He who doesn't want to learn, must face the consequences, as the saying goes. It only saddens me when large groups of kids get in the way of 2nd amendment idiots and pays the ultimate price. But if Sandy Hook wasn't enough to change minds, there is zero chance of any argument swaying opinions.


Glad we are in agreement that guns aren't going anywhere here.
 
CaptHadley
Topic Author
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:36 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun May 03, 2020 2:56 pm

N583JB wrote:
B777LRF wrote:
Bringing up the SCOTUS as a point of reference is highly debatable, since its members are all political appointees. To wit, due to the nature of the way judges are appointed to the SCOTUS, it fails the litmus test of being an independent, unbiased, fair and balanced, entity. Populate the SCOTUS with the "right" kind of people, and you will get the ruling you want.

Don't know why I'm wasting bandwidth arguing this, and frankly I couldn't care less if imbecilic yanks shot each other in the tens of thousands every year. He who doesn't want to learn, must face the consequences, as the saying goes. It only saddens me when large groups of kids get in the way of 2nd amendment idiots and pays the ultimate price. But if Sandy Hook wasn't enough to change minds, there is zero chance of any argument swaying opinions.


Glad we are in agreement that guns aren't going anywhere here.


So you working in law enforcement don't have a problem with people owning military style assault rifles. That's scary.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2614
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun May 03, 2020 3:10 pm

N583JB wrote:
B777LRF wrote:
Agreed, it's crystal clear: A well armed militia ...

Notice the word "militia", which is a paramilitary organisation aimed at securing a specific area, often under local or regional control. As in, your National Guard.

So there you have, clear as ice: To be armed means you have to be a member of a militia, in your case the US National Guard.

That wasn't so hard, now was it?


The SCOTUS has already ruled on the issue and they disagree with you. With all due respect, your interpretation of the 2nd is irrelevant. It has already been decided.


The 2nd amendment says 'the right to bear arms shall not be infringed', right? You should have a nuclear bomb and ICBMs on hand, just to be on the safe side. No one's coming near you with that!
 
N583JB
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun May 03, 2020 3:13 pm

CaptHadley wrote:
N583JB wrote:
B777LRF wrote:
Bringing up the SCOTUS as a point of reference is highly debatable, since its members are all political appointees. To wit, due to the nature of the way judges are appointed to the SCOTUS, it fails the litmus test of being an independent, unbiased, fair and balanced, entity. Populate the SCOTUS with the "right" kind of people, and you will get the ruling you want.

Don't know why I'm wasting bandwidth arguing this, and frankly I couldn't care less if imbecilic yanks shot each other in the tens of thousands every year. He who doesn't want to learn, must face the consequences, as the saying goes. It only saddens me when large groups of kids get in the way of 2nd amendment idiots and pays the ultimate price. But if Sandy Hook wasn't enough to change minds, there is zero chance of any argument swaying opinions.


Glad we are in agreement that guns aren't going anywhere here.


So you working in law enforcement don't have a problem with people owning military style assault rifles. That's scary.


I don't work in law enforcement and I don't have a problem with people owning rifles that look like military rifles.
 
N583JB
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun May 03, 2020 3:14 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
N583JB wrote:
B777LRF wrote:
Agreed, it's crystal clear: A well armed militia ...

Notice the word "militia", which is a paramilitary organisation aimed at securing a specific area, often under local or regional control. As in, your National Guard.

So there you have, clear as ice: To be armed means you have to be a member of a militia, in your case the US National Guard.

That wasn't so hard, now was it?


The SCOTUS has already ruled on the issue and they disagree with you. With all due respect, your interpretation of the 2nd is irrelevant. It has already been decided.


The 2nd amendment says 'the right to bear arms shall not be infringed', right? You should have a nuclear bomb and ICBMs on hand, just to be on the safe side. No one's coming near you with that!


Sure, if you can afford to build, develop, and safely store them. I don't think anyone outside of a few mega billionaires who would be able to do so, and I doubt they would want to go bankrupt building ICBMs, though.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2614
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun May 03, 2020 3:22 pm

N583JB wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
N583JB wrote:

The SCOTUS has already ruled on the issue and they disagree with you. With all due respect, your interpretation of the 2nd is irrelevant. It has already been decided.


The 2nd amendment says 'the right to bear arms shall not be infringed', right? You should have a nuclear bomb and ICBMs on hand, just to be on the safe side. No one's coming near you with that!


Sure, if you can afford to build, develop, and safely store them. I don't think anyone outside of a few mega billionaires who would be able to do so, and I doubt they would want to go bankrupt building ICBMs, though.


Apparently it's illegal even if you have the means. Disgusting that the US government would infringe my right to bear arms!
 
CaptHadley
Topic Author
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:36 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun May 03, 2020 3:52 pm

N583JB wrote:
CaptHadley wrote:
N583JB wrote:

Glad we are in agreement that guns aren't going anywhere here.


So you working in law enforcement don't have a problem with people owning military style assault rifles. That's scary.


I don't work in law enforcement and I don't have a problem with people owning rifles that look like military rifles.


Wait, you said earlier "I work in public safety"

Is there a difference?
 
N583JB
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun May 03, 2020 4:09 pm

CaptHadley wrote:
N583JB wrote:
CaptHadley wrote:

So you working in law enforcement don't have a problem with people owning military style assault rifles. That's scary.


I don't work in law enforcement and I don't have a problem with people owning rifles that look like military rifles.


Wait, you said earlier "I work in public safety"

Is there a difference?


Indeed there is. There are multiple branches of public safety. Law enforcement is just one of them.
 
CaptHadley
Topic Author
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:36 pm

Re: Good guy with a gun doesn't win.

Sun May 03, 2020 6:22 pm

N583JB wrote:
CaptHadley wrote:
N583JB wrote:

I don't work in law enforcement and I don't have a problem with people owning rifles that look like military rifles.


Wait, you said earlier "I work in public safety"

Is there a difference?


Indeed there is. There are multiple branches of public safety. Law enforcement is just one of them.


Well, I wouldn't call 2 other areas "multiple branches" now. Of course we have the PoPo, the Barca lounge Lizard AKA fireman and the dreaded ParaGod. Age old saying "Can't be a doctor, be a paramedic"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: casinterest, ER757, MaverickM11, Newark727, olle and 50 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos