DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: hnumpah on December 05, 2007, 09:01:22 AM
-
The Ideal Self-Defense Weapon
by Charley Reese
People who believe in gun control are ignorant, superstitious or stupid. Violence is not caused by inanimate objects. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws, including gun-control laws. Therefore, the only accomplishment of gun-control laws is to assure the criminals that their victims will be unarmed.
When the state of Florida was considering a law allowing honest citizens to carry concealed weapons, my liberal colleagues at the newspaper became virtually hysterical. They were certain the murder rate would skyrocket and that there would be shootings on every street corner and at supermarket checkout counters. The law was passed, and the murder rate did not skyrocket. Nor did hundreds of thousands of Floridians apply for concealed-weapon permits. After all, lugging around a pound or so of iron is inconvenient.
What their hysteria revealed, however, was how far removed from reality elitists are. How could any sane person imagine that his fellow citizens would suddenly go berserk if they had access to a firearm? It shows you what low opinion elitists have of their fellow man.
Having been born in the Deep South by the grace of God and having lived in the South, by choice, my whole life, I have lived among people who had access to firearms. In the South, there is a cultural rule: Never insult a man you are not prepared to fight, and never fight a man you are not prepared to kill. Southerners, unlike people in some parts of the country, all have lines they do not allow other people to cross.
I have been blessed to live with such people. I guarantee you that Southerners would not stand around and watch some criminal murder a woman, as happened in an infamous case in New York City.
On one of my visits to Georgia, I heard a local newscast about a man who attempted to rob a store and was captured by the store's customers. The news story said police planned to charge the man "as soon as he is released from the hospital."
Another point to consider about gun control is that no criminal attacks an innocent person in the presence of the police. Even if the victim can get to a telephone, he has to deal with the criminal until the police arrive. So ask yourself: How do you plan to deal with a violent criminal? The best thing to do is shoot the villain.
A friend of mine, a South Korean tae kwon do master and a former member of South Korean intelligence, was laughing one day about kung fu schools, which teach students the use of the broadsword and the halberd.
"Who is going to walk around carrying a broadsword?" he said. "Besides, if your life is in danger, use a gun."
Some years ago, a store owner in Texas, after several burglaries, decided to sleep in the store and eventually killed two armed burglars who broke in.
"Now I know what a conservative is," the store owner said. "He's a liberal who's been robbed one damned time too many."
The gun is the ideal self-defense weapon. It can be wielded by a woman, a child, an elderly person or even an invalid. There was an old saying in the American West: "God created men, but Sam Colt made them equal."
The Supreme Court is about to decide an issue based on the Second Amendment. God only knows how the court will rule, but the Bill of Rights is crystal-clear. It guarantees the people, not the states or the militias, the right to keep and bear arms. Let's hope the Supreme Court justices understand plain English.
December 3, 2007
-
Here....here. Sharp post, right on the mark 8)
-
In the South, there is a cultural rule: Never insult a man you are not prepared to fight, and never fight a man you are not prepared to kill. Southerners, unlike people in some parts of the country, all have lines they do not allow other people to cross. >
isn`t the n-word used freely in the south?
-------------------------------
Now I know what a conservative is," the store owner said. "He's a liberal who's been robbed one damned time too many." >
the complete phrase would finished with a liberal is a conservative who got arrested
-
isn`t the n-word used freely in the south?
No.
Unless you're black, then yes.
-
In the South, there is a cultural rule: Never insult a man you are not prepared to fight, and never fight a man you are not prepared to kill. Southerners, unlike people in some parts of the country, all have lines they do not allow other people to cross. >
isn`t the n-word used freely in the south?
-------------------------------
Now I know what a conservative is," the store owner said. "He's a liberal who's been robbed one damned time too many." >
the complete phrase would finished with a liberal is a conservative who got arrested
Not in my experience.
This is one of the things that has improved during my lifetime.
I used to hear it more than I do , it has moved from being a common word to one used only with family to one used rarely even within the family.
Who is this a victory for?
-
I saw this on real world new orleans i think
the girl freaked that it`s used there
quite traumatized
the man who said it meant it as a funny word for a bird,but just didn`t work that way.
my friends who visit there says everybody says it
it`s simply tolerated by black folks there.
-
<<isn`t the n-word used freely in the south?>>
It's the "m-word" now - - macaca.
"Never insult a man you aren't prepared to fight."
Does that include hanging nooses from trees that a man likes to shelter under? And kinda leaves one wondering, exactly WHO did James Byrd Jr. insult?
-
lol
-
WHO did James Byrd Jr. insult?
That incident was very likely not Mr. Byrd's falt at all , his kilers belong on death row , in a region where death penaltys get carried out.
Like Texas.
-
Executing the murderers is a good thing, but kinda like locking the barn door after the horse is stolen. Better would be to prevent the murder in the first place because the execution won't bring the victim back or ease the pain of his or her survivors.
Texas, for example, probably has one of the most deadly rates of violent crime of any industrialized society. I think you have to look at the cult of violence and death that envelopes the U.S.A. today, from the "President" on down and is particularly thick in the South and in Texas with their worship of violence and militarism, their racism and their violence-breeding indifference to the plight of others, and ask how does a concealed-carry law fit into this death cult, and whether in the long run it's bound to increase or decrease the number of murders and violent assaults in that unfortunate little corner of the world.
Just this past week there was a case - - I believe also in the South, maybe even in Texas - - where a householder saw burglars emerging from his neighbour's house, called the cops but then as the burglars were attempting to get away, ran outside and killed both of them. Now call me a liberal if you will, but I do think a death penalty for burglary is kind of extreme, and I don't think that just any citizen should be allowed to pronounce it and execute it at his own whim. In all likelihood the property was insured or should have been, so we have here two human lives taken away without any reflection or consideration, to spare a neighbour the time and effort required to fill out a proof-of-loss form for his insurance company. Don't say much about the value your society places upon human life, now, does it?
-
Executing the murderers is a good thing, but kinda like locking the barn door after the horse is stolen. Better would be to prevent the murder in the first place because the execution won't bring the victim back or ease the pain of his or her survivors.
Texas, for example, probably has one of the most deadly rates of violent crime of any industrialized society. I think you have to look at the cult of violence and death that envelopes the U.S.A. today, from the "President" on down and is particularly thick in the South and in Texas with their worship of violence and militarism, their racism and their violence-breeding indifference to the plight of others, and ask how does a concealed-carry law fit into this death cult, and whether in the long run it's bound to increase or decrease the number of murders and violent assaults in that unfortunate little corner of the world.
Just this past week there was a case - - I believe also in the South, maybe even in Texas - - where a householder saw burglars emerging from his neighbour's house, called the cops but then as the burglars were attempting to get away, ran outside and killed both of them. Now call me a liberal if you will, but I do think a death penalty for burglary is kind of extreme, and I don't think that just any citizen should be allowed to pronounce it and execute it at his own whim. In all likelihood the property was insured or should have been, so we have here two human lives taken away without any reflection or consideration, to spare a neighbour the time and effort required to fill out a proof-of-loss form for his insurance company. Don't say much about the value your society places upon human life, now, does it?
"Better would be to prevent the murder in the first place......."
Exactly ! please refer to the essay at the top of this thread where effective means for preventing this sort of thing in the first place is discussed.
If Mr. Byrd had managed to shoot his assailants crippleing one and killing the other rather than what really happened, we would never have known how badly those two were going to treat Mr. Byrd .
We have the benefit of hindsight now to regret that Mr Byrd was not armed or accompanyed by Texas Rangers on that day , but we have no time machine to access the time before the incident with a preventive measure. If we did, I can imagine that even you would favor handing Mr Byrd a shotgun through the time portal.
The past is not accessable , but he future is , what can someone who is like Mr. Byrd ,but presently alive , do that would " prevent the murder in the first place"?
Perhaps become armed?
-
Just this past week there was a case - - I believe also in the South, maybe even in Texas - - where a householder saw burglars emerging from his neighbour's house, called the cops but then as the burglars were attempting to get away, ran outside and killed both of them. Now call me a liberal if you will, but I do think a death penalty for burglary is kind of extreme, and I don't think that just any citizen should be allowed to pronounce it and execute it at his own whim. In all likelihood the property was insured or should have been, so we have here two human lives taken away without any reflection or consideration, to spare a neighbour the time and effort required to fill out a proof-of-loss form for his insurance company. Don't say much about the value your society places upon human life, now, does it?
Those burgulars would have been wise to surrender to the armed man , but if they were wise they would not likely be burgulars.
If a policeman had seen the burgulary going on what would you expect the policeman to do?
-
Let us assume for just a moment, that the kid who went apesh*t in that mall on Omaha could not have purchased am assault rifle, but only an ordinary rifle suitable for defending himself against rabid, crazed jackrabbits, that would have required him to cock it before each shot.
What are the odds that more people would be alive today?
Aren't they lucky that he did not have expert military training, though?
-
<<Those burgulars would have been wise to surrender to the armed man , but if they were wise they would not likely be burgulars.>>
I don't get it. Was the householder executing them for burglarizing a home or for failing to surrender or for general lack of wisdom?
<<If a policeman had seen the burgulary going on what would you expect the policeman to do?>>
I dunno. Radio for backup? Tell them to freeze while he's got 'em covered? It's something they must have covered at the Academy, hopefully. One thing I would definitely NOT have expected would be for the cop to decide that he's their judge, jury and executioner.
-
what about the issue of the parents possibly shooting thier own kids at night by mistake
how is it impossible for a parent to mistakenly shoot their young child for going tp the bathroom at night.
I`ve heard several parents state this is the reason they don`t have a gun in the house.
are those parent considered traitors for not taking the risks?
a gun is there to kill (nobody is taught to wound)an intruder,but it`s hard to tell a clumsy kid from an intruder at night.
it`s not exactly easy to teach a 5 year old to be quite at night.
-
Let us assume for just a moment, that the kid who went apesh*t in that mall on Omaha could not have purchased am assault rifle, but only an ordinary rifle suitable for defending himself against rabid, crazed jackrabbits, that would have required him to cock it before each shot.
What are the odds that more people would be alive today?
Let us assume there was a law-abiding citizen nearby with a concealed carry permit, a firearm, and the sense and skill to use it.
Same question.
-
Let us assume there was a law-abiding citizen nearby with a concealed carry permit, a firearm, and the sense and skill to use it.
Same question.
====================================================================
But there wasn't. Maybe there could have been.
Wouldn't anyone with a rifle in a mall cause some reaction from a security person?
Are you seriously advocating that "law-abiding citizens with concealed carry permits, firearms, and the sense and skill to use them" cruise every mall?
Such a person might be a "law-abiding citizens with concealed carry permits, firearms, and the sense and skill to use them" but they could look like a serious and dangerous nutjob.
If this wacko could only have bought a standard hunting rifle, wouldn't everyone be safer?
-
But there wasn't. Maybe there could have been.
And he wasn't carrying a plain rifle, either.
Wouldn't anyone with a rifle in a mall cause some reaction from a security person?
Only if they saw it.
Are you seriously advocating that "law-abiding citizens with concealed carry permits, firearms, and the sense and skill to use them" cruise every mall?
In Florida, it's safe to assume there might be someone in the mall with a carry permit and a firearm. About the only places they are banned are bars, schools and government buildings.
Such a person might be a "law-abiding citizens with concealed carry permits, firearms, and the sense and skill to use them" but they could look like a serious and dangerous nutjob.
Describe a dangerous and serious nutjob. Now describe the mall shooter.
If this wacko could only have bought a standard hunting rifle, wouldn't everyone be safer?
No. With practice - and not much of that - he could have put just as many people down with a bolt action or lever action rifle before the police showed up.
-
I agree with hnumpah in this case .
If it were possible to ensure that many responsible persons were armed and it was ordinary for a few such persons to be in every crowd someone plotting a crime like this one couldn't plan on being uninterrupted as he took over the place.
Observe the time required to throw the bolt of a hunting rifle like the model 700, less than a second.
http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/3-D/
Very simple weapons can be reloded in seconds , even break action rifles do not require lots of time to reload.
Unless we are reduced to muzzleloaders , multiple murders with firearms will remain possible , and even then , the limitations of muzzleloaders can be coped with as Blackbeard did , by carrying a brace of them.
-
actually wouldn`t the guy with the concealed weapon get shot
despite the requirements to get the permit.
he is not a trained person who can handle a life or death situation.
the permit simply prove one has knowledge.
it doesn`t mean he`s skilled
it`s like a drivers license
it`s just proves you know how to drive,but it doesn`t mean your going to be good at it.
-
It is insane to argue that we should allow everyone to own assault rifles, just so that perhaps a few might go to the mall as freelance guardians and protect the hapless public from crazed homicidal maniacs that might also go to the mall to shoot members of the public at will.
One does not need an assault weapon to shoot deer.
-
I wouldn`t mind a militia
people specially trained for this
everyone has the right to join but they must be trained to be in
personally automatic weapons is not too much of a problem
bullets cost too much for most folks to do it as a hobby
I`m required to go to the gun range for my job
if it wasn`t for the fact I get re-embursed
I wouldn`t go at all.
it`s not cheap.
-
actually wouldn`t the guy with the concealed weapon get shot
despite the requirements to get the permit.
he is not a trained person who can handle a life or death situation.
the permit simply prove one has knowledge.
it doesn`t mean he`s skilled
it`s like a drivers license
it`s just proves you know how to drive,but it doesn`t mean your going to be good at it.
Not necessarily.
In Florida, you have to take a course to get a concealed carry permit. You have to show you know how to handle the firearm safely, and know when and where you may or may not carry it, and when you would be allowed to use it. Most have some experience with firearms before they even apply for the permit; many take their own time and money to go to the range and learn how to use their weapon. Consider also that many of those are current and former military, retired police officers, security officers, and others who have more experience and training than just what it takes to get a permit.
Even those that have no further experience would at least have the opportunity to defend themselves, and maybe help get others out of harm's way. And consider that, even if the person with the permit had done nothing more than show that they had the good common sense to show that they were responsible enough and capable of handling a firearm, if there were more people out there carrying legal firearms, some nutjob shooter would be more likely to think twice before whipping out a rifle in a mall and plinking shoppers.
You don't necessarily have to be Mario Andretti to drive from point A to point B safely.
-
It is insane to argue that we should allow everyone to own assault rifles, just so that perhaps a few might go to the mall as freelance guardians and protect the hapless public from crazed homicidal maniacs that might also go to the mall to shoot members of the public at will.
One does not need an assault weapon to shoot deer.
(1) Define "assault rifles" it is important that we are speaking in the same terms.
(2)Pistols are really better, both for massicres and for self defense. Conceilable pistols allow no one to know when there are no armed persons around.
-
actually wouldn`t the guy with the concealed weapon get shot
despite the requirements to get the permit.
he is not a trained person who can handle a life or death situation.
No one is quite ready to handle a "life & death" situation, Kimba. Have you read the myriad of stories where multiple Police Officers fired hundreds of rounds at one suspect, missing him about 75%? The issue is training in handing a firearm, and MOST locales have very stringent guidelines before handing out a CCW.
the permit simply prove one has knowledge.
AND that he's had training, AND that he has an understanding of how to handle a firearm, AND he becomes a significant deterrent to anyone else who might try pulling what this latest fella pulled.
it doesn`t mean he`s skilled
That's not entirely correct. Skilled like a Police officer?, no. Skilled in handing a firearm?, yes
it`s just proves you know how to drive,but it doesn`t mean your going to be good at it.
as I said, many Police officers don't have adequate shooting skills either, many only having to pass bare minimum shooting standards, and no one knows how they're going to react in a life & death situation, until it literally becomes life or death. And as H clearly stated, you don't have to be a formula 1 racing driver to drive a car safely
-
(1) Define "assault rifles" it is important that we are speaking in the same terms.
(2)Pistols are really better, both for massicres and for self defense. Conceilable pistols allow no one to know when there are no armed persons around.
----------------------------------------------------------
The rifle the kid in Omaha had was an AK-47. That is an assault rifle.
A pistol is far less accurate than a rifle, but it is easily concealable. Yopu don't need a pistol to massacre deer with, either.
-
(1) Define "assault rifles" it is important that we are speaking in the same terms.
(2)Pistols are really better, both for massicres and for self defense. Concealable pistols allow no one to know when there are no armed persons around.
----------------------------------------------------------
The rifle the kid in Omaha had was an AK-47. That is an assault rifle.
A pistol is far less accurate than a rifle, but it is easily concealable. You don't need a pistol to massacre deer with, either.
In this setting the range and striking power of the rifle were superfluous and made no difference.
The rate of fire does make a difference but many pistols can match the AK-47 in rate of fire.
I do not know if this shooter took any long shots , but within the mall he would not have to , so I don't know if the rifles range made a difference or not.
The difference "assault rifle" makes is emotional.
What characteristic of an "assault rifle" makes reducing their availability a good idea?
-
What caricteristic of an "assault rifle" makes reduceing their availibility a good idea?
(1) They are designed to be used to kill people with.
(2) In the case of the AK-47, they are way too affordable. If they cost $500 or more, fewer people would own them.
If we limit crazed mass murderers to rich people, we have significantly limited them, I imagine.
I don't believe that everyone should necessarily have the same equal right to be a crazed mass murderer. Any limitations we can put on the number and competence of crazed mass murderers is a good thing for those of us who are not crazed mass murderers.
I insist that simply allowing everyone to stroll about armed to the teeth is really going to make anyone safer. I am sure that it would make the armed and dangerous types feel safer.
Florida and Texas, as has been pointed out, pretty much allow everyone to stroll about like Blackbeard. But strangely, this has not resulted in either state having fewer gun murders than states with more stringent laws.
So I would say that pragmatically, this theory won't hunt.
-
Florida and Texas, as has been pointed out, pretty much allow everyone to stroll about like Blackbeard. But strangely, this has not resulted in either state having fewer gun murders than states with more stringent laws.
Isn't this an error of fact?
The better measure would be the result of the change from haveing no leagal conceiled carry permits to haveing them , as in Florida , the result was not any increase in crime of any sort .
Another good measure is that when President Clinton seemed on the verge of restricting more firearms , firearms sales skyrocketed and gun ownership set record levels almost monthly , co-incidentally with a falling murder rate almost constantly during the same period.
The theroy that fewer guns would result in fewer murders seems to have almost no supporting evidence , it is merely an intuitive deduction , my intuition is exactly opposite to yours and seems to have an easy time finding facts that are supporting.
-
The theoy that fewer guns would result in fewer murders seems to have almost no supporting evidence , it is merely an intuitive deduction , my intuition is exactly opposite to yours and seems to have an easy time finding facts that are supporting.
==========================================================================
Lookit, if it is as you say, that there was no change in the number of crimes when Florida decided to let everyone pack heat, then by definition this accomplished nothing.
Presumably, we have more people walking about armed and dangerous. Or at least we COULD have them.
It was supposed to LOWER crime, because then the baddies would know that everyone could be armed and dangerous, and perhaps they would take their evil criminal ways to Minnesota or North Dakota, or perhaps reform and go straight.
But they didn't.
This is because our criminals are not logical beings. They are stupid and lazy, which explains why they had become criminals in the first place.
We should have given them gift subscriptions to the NRA Journal. and Podcasts for those who are illiterate.
-
Lookit, if it is as you say, that there was no change in the number of crimes when Florida decided to let everyone pack heat, then by definition this accomplished nothing.
He said the rate did not go up. That is not the same as saying it was unchanged.
In Florida, the rate did indeed go down.
So, something was accomplished.
-
the crime rate going down is not much of a indicator unless it continues in a ten year span.
any new idea works at the beggining it`s the test of time that show if it works.
my town just got a super serious anti-gang program and it`s show super fast results.
but the downside is it has a habit of arresting people who simply known the wrong people.
no rule or policy is rarely perfect first time out the gate.
hope this program last it`s the first time in awhile people are not afraid to walk down the street in those areas.
until it`s made to be self-modifying I doubt it`ll be permanent
all laws are open to abuse otherwise
-
The theoy that fewer guns would result in fewer murders seems to have almost no supporting evidence , it is merely an intuitive deduction , my intuition is exactly opposite to yours and seems to have an easy time finding facts that are supporting.
==========================================================================
Lookit, if it is as you say, that there was no change in the number of crimes when Florida decided to let everyone pack heat, then by definition this accomplished nothing.
If that were what I had said ,then we would be in agreement that Conceiled carry is harmless.
But no, actually I beleive that having Conceiled wepons in responsible hands is an improvement and States that feature this have had improvement in violent crime rates compared to the same state before the measure.
Many of the gun related injurys reported in our country are wounds inflicted by police , would disarming the Police nessacerily reduce the number of gun injurys?
-
>>But no, actually I beleive that having Conceiled wepons in responsible hands is an improvement and States that feature this have had improvement in violent crime rates compared to the same state before the measure.<<
I plan on getting a concealed carry permit when we move to Florida. The positives have always been obvious, and recent events have born that out.
-
the crime rate going down is not much of a indicator unless it continues in a ten year span.
any new idea works at the beggining it`s the test of time that show if it works.
my town just got a super serious anti-gang program and it`s show super fast results.
but the downside is it has a habit of arresting people who simply known the wrong people.
no rule or policy is rarely perfect first time out the gate.
hope this program last it`s the first time in awhile people are not afraid to walk down the street in those areas.
until it`s made to be self-modifying I doubt it`ll be permanent
all laws are open to abuse otherwise
Is thos program popular in the neighborhoods where it is being used?
-
yes and no
those that get arrrested while taking a shower don`t like it(that actually happened)
those that finally don`t get shot loves it.
definately needs improvement.
but it does work
but if anybody gets killed it will disappear,as it should
-
the crime rate going down is not much of a indicator unless it continues in a ten year span.
If I disremember correctly, it's been about that long since the concealed carry law in Florida went into effect.
-
than it`s good for that area
my town tries to legalized prostitution because it worked so well in nevada.
but the problem just because it works there ,doesn`t mean it`ll work here.
I never had a problem with peoples right to own guns.
but as a person who works with the public I simply have a very low opinion of my fellow man to believe everone is capable to own one.
note the gun supporter paint a picture of a gunowner is a super responsible person.
I`m just stating not everybody is.
I`m talking from experience here
It`s scarey who made it.
I never like how easy it was for me to get my gun permit.
I juist believe people should earn the right .
at least a 2day class
that should help weedout most of the flakes
.
-
note the gun supporter paint a picture of a gunowner is a super responsible person.
I`m just stating not everybody is.
Ahem....and I think you'll be hardpressed to find many "gun supporters" who believe everyone is as well. In fact, I've already been on record indicating I've come across some folks, who really should have no business handling, much less owning a firearm.
-
(http://www.cagle.com/working/071210/lester.jpg)