Jump to content

Gun Control, what is reasonable?

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Interesting anecedote on the natural disaster angle


My wifes daughter lives about a mile from the Jersey Shore, they were without power for 12 days after Sandy. They have a generator left over from the previous years Halloween Snow Storm. They did power lots of neighbors refrigerators with the generator but it was shut off around 9pm and locked up in the house because such things as generators were being stolen. The schools were closed and parents were home with children and couldnt get gas to go to shelters or first aid stations which were overwelmed by people who had lost their homes, not just power.


The police were also overwelmed which made the neighbors devise neighborhood watch patrols, some armed some not. Stories such as these make me think of "Lord of the Flies" the line that defines civilization is might mighty fragile


Damn, now I have to rethink the whole carrying issue

Link to post
Share on other sites

So hangin out at my bench. Coworker swings by on his way out the door......He's excited the ups man just delivered a couple of 100 round magazines for his AR.....Said he had to get them before they were ban. I asked him why.....His response was "In case the shuf hits the fan". What stuf? with 100 round clip aren't you worried about running out of ammo....he has 2500 rounds of 223 plus 1500 of 9mm.....now he might have been bragging.



So why does a fellow need a 100 round magazine?????


Are we out of control???? Hornady is marketing s Zombie ammo.





Really????? So are the video games warping us that much????


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Zombie Apocalypse! Don't you know about it! get with the program man this stuff is for real!

Even Homeland Security is in on it!



Actually before I retired I was on the regional Disaster Response Team for the Baltimore / Washington DC area. When the CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear) hit the fan it was our job to go in and decon large groups of people. Now that would be a real Zombie Apocalypse! I'm glad I'm retired, I never looked forward to getting that call because none of us expect to survive for long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun Control, what is reasonable? has made it's way after 5 pages to Zombie Apocalypse!


And then people wonder if it is a good idea to put guns in the hands of just anyone. :)


Dang am I going to sleep easy tonight.



Link to post
Share on other sites

No it is not. I have had many years of training in mass casualty/ CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear) disaster response. I have received training from the best people in the country, initially from the DOJ and later from DHS. The ease of which a scenario could (and will) happen and our limited ability to prevent or mitigate it is astonishing.




Link to post
Share on other sites

Ann Coulter is great at taking research and ignoring massaging or ignoring some facts so that it fits in with her narrative.


I read the Lott study she references. Other than being outdated, the authors admit far too often in the text that what they are suggesting may be explained by other causes. It generates statistics that aren't necessarily useful in an actual study - for instance, it has a table showing how many shootings took place in states without CCW laws, using the total states - it never identifies the states and it doesn't eliminate the states from the total that had no shootings at all. Its easy to say that in all states, there were 99 deaths and in 20 states with no CCW, there were 55 but without the raw data, we don't know if those 55 deaths took place in 5 states or 20 states and we don't know if the 44 deaths in CCW states were in 5 states or 30 states. Give us the raw data, please so we can determine if what you're saying makes sense.


Using their method today? Of all the mass shootings in 2012, there were none in a No-CCW state this year - every single one of them took place in a CCW state. That holds true for 2011, 2010 and 2009 as well. In 2008, there was one mass shooting in a No-CCW state. Since 2000, there have been far more deaths and shootings in CCW states than in non-CCW states - the hypothesis of that study is that more CCW will lessen the number of shootings - but there have been more shootings since 1995, and more lethal incidents since 1995 as well. The hypothesis has been tested in the real world - and has failed.


Ann mentions the number of shootings stopped by people with guns. She brings up the Appalachian School of Law but fails to mention that the folks who had guns were either current or former LEOs and that the shooting was over because the shooter had run out of ammunition before any of those armed folks were able to get to him.


She mentions the shootings in a Pennsylvania school but doesn't mention that the student shot up the school, then ended his shooting spree, left the building, and was waiting for the police to arrive when the Assistant Principle retrieved his gun to hold the student.


She mentions a shooting at a school dance in a restaurant stopped by the restaurant owner with a shotgun but doesn't mention that this shooter also ended his spree and had left the premises, had dropped his guns, and was waiting for the police.


She mentions the church member who stopped a killing spree outside a Colorado church but failed to mention she was also a former LEO and was working as an armed security guard at the church - she was not a random civilian.


No one apparently wants to mention where things went wrong when civilians intervened either. In 2005, a civilian in a Tacom, Washington mall pulled his handgun and confronted an armed assailant, was promptly shot 6 times, got no rounds off himself, and the shooter wounded 6 other people near the "hero" while shooting the "hero", or that in Tyler, Texas, in 2005, a civilian fired at a man on a rampage at a courthouse and was killed when the body-armored wearing man turned his AK-47 on him.


The other nonsense being spouted off is the idea of the shootings happening at "gun free zones" and that it's because they are "gun free zones" that it happens - never mind that the "gun free zones" are also places where large numbers of people gather. A big deal is being made out of the so-called fact that the movie theater shooter in Aurora passed up 9 theaters closer to his home to attack the one in Aurora because the one in Aurora is a "gun free zone" when he deliberately chose that theater because it was one of the few that was showing the latest Batman movie at midnight.


The Tuscon shooter certainly wasn't deterred by the knowledge that some of the people in the crowd he shot up might have been armed.


What's really sad is that whenever we have one of these tragic shootings we are immediately inundated with the kind of bull-puckey Coulter spews in order to prevent us from talking about comprehensive solutions.


What is reasonable? How about this - you can't own a gun in your state that is not approved by your state, or in a neighboring state in which you hold an active hunting license, to hunt. Semi-automatic weapons, including handguns, are not legal for hunting in most states. Want to play Rambo and fire off AR-15's and 9mm Glocks? Let people open up ranges where people can come in and pay to shoot the weapons - that'll add jobs which is good for the economy.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Ann Coulter doesn't speak of me. I don't believe she is an expert in firearms or even knowledgable of the subject, but I guess she can say whatever she wants, for now. There are far more knowledgable experts out there to get your facts from than her.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Gun Control, what is reasonable?"


I think that I'm reasonable when I expect not to live in fear that some nut with a gun isn't going to come and blow me away.

I think that I have the right to not live in fear.


As yet I'm not sure how we get to this point or if we ever will?


Thankfully, most of the people I can think of who might want to blow me away are in a place where they can't get to me.


I tend to think that most gun owners are not the bad guys.

The bad guys are not following the law and chances are no matter what laws are in place they will be happy to just ignore.

Doing our best to prevent bad guys getting guns does seem to make sense.

A lot of the guns the bad guys get they get by stealing them from the good guys.

So how about a law that has all the good guys make sure that their guns are locked up in a safe and secure place?

I was in a local tractor supply store the other week, they had gun safes on sale.

Some of these looked like they would be hard to get into and big enough that no one is just going to pick one up and drive away with it.


Yes I know this has its faults. The bad guys could make the good guys open the safe and still get what they want.

But it seems like a fairly good place to start.

Responsible gun ownership ought to mean making it hard for the bad guys to get their hands on your guns..




Link to post
Share on other sites

"A lot of the guns the bad guys get they get by stealing them from the good guys."


And that's the final solution after a step by step systematic dismantling of the 2nd Amendment. The left won't be happy until ALL the guns are confiscated and destroyed so they simply won't be available...to anyone...except the Government. Good luck with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn da nonsense of talkin' about "da left" already! Wake up and smell da coffee people.


Da left is OUR FELLOW COUNTRYMEN. Patriots like ourselves who love the country and from time to time lay down their lives in its defense. And by and large none of 'em are suggesting all guns be confiscated and destroyed, except perhaps in a moment's heated response to idiocy like Friday's NRA fellow. If we can't tell da truth about an issue of public policy then we should hope our fellow countrymen would be reluctant to trust us with firearms.


This us vs. them nonsense has got to stop, and those of us who have da temerity to claim to be religious conservatives should be the ones who step forward with honor and integrity to stop it. Thou shalt not bear false witness ...


Suggestin' that a woman who is stockpilin' arms for da imminent collapse of da country and is livin' with a mentally unstable 20 year old should not have automatic high-powered rifles with large magazines unsecured in her house is not suggestin' all guns be confiscated and destroyed.


It's suggestin' that reasonable, prudent people wouldn't give someone like that a gun, and that perhaps, just maybe, our laws can reflect what da large majority of our fellow citizens consider reasonable and prudent.





Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...