reflections on downtown Anchorage (Tok: air quality, garages, car)

[AlaskaErik]

Originally Posted by Haolejohn

alpha males don't threaten to pull a glock 19, they solve problems with their hands.

Originally Posted by pittsflyer

Are you sure people that solve problems with fists in a gun fight are not called fools?

No, they're usually called deceased.

[Haolejohn]

Originally Posted by pittsflyer

Are you sure people that solve problems with fists in a gun fight are not called fools?

It's not a gun fight, unless someone pulls a gun.
And if you have to threaten to use deadly force for all issues, then you ain't an alpha male.

[Haolejohn]

Originally Posted by AlaskaErik

No, they're usually called deceased.

That is a good one!! LOL!

[pittsflyer]

Originally Posted by Haolejohn

It's not a gun fight, unless someone pulls a gun.
And if you have to threaten to use deadly force for all issues, then you ain't an alpha male.

At that point does it matter?

[Haolejohn]

Originally Posted by pittsflyer

At that point does it matter?

Just to clarify. I support the second amendment. I support concealed carry. I think you are trying to make a point that isn't makeable.

Our local alpha male, is who my comments were directed at. His stance and views on his glock 19 are irresponsible and bothered me.

Violence is always a last resort. I avoid confrontation if I'm carrying. My CCW is a defensive tactic.
A true alpha male will know how to handle a situation whether it be by diplomacy or by force.

[pittsflyer]

Originally Posted by Haolejohn

Just to clarify. I support the second amendment. I support concealed carry. I think you are trying to make a point that isn't makeable.

Our local alpha male, is who my comments were directed at. His stance and views on his glock 19 are irresponsible and bothered me.

Violence is always a last resort. I avoid confrontation if I'm carrying. My CCW is a defensive tactic.
A true alpha male will know how to handle a situation whether it be by diplomacy or by force.

If someone is treatening to attack you how is that not defensive, or are you refering to situations where both people agree to a sort of unofficial ultimate fighter match?

[rhiannon67]

Originally Posted by rwjoyak

I can't tell whether you're just a troll or really as stupid as your comments paint you to be. I clearly know more about environmental issues, including geology and earthquakes, than you. Despite this, you post an inane smug comment that appears to be an unsuccessful attempt to make it look like you won some sort of prize.

I didn't post to get an argument with someone that should know better, I wanted to correct some misinformation about 1964 earthquake, why it caused so much damage in Anchorage, and what that means for future development in downtown Anchorage. In particular, I was responding to the following posts:





So I provided a valid reference that explained "what is in Anchorage downtown". And that "what" is bad enough that the city fathers listened to the experts and passed laws stopping a lot of development in downtown. The following information, contained on page 129 of https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1994/0218/report.pdf, documents this:

It was determined by the Corps of Engineers that by excavating all material down through the clay deposits and installing a drainage system and refilling with gravel, the resulting buttress would stabilize the land upgrade to the south so as to withstand future earthquakes of similar intensity. An urban renewal request was made, as I mentioned, through the Alaska State Housing Authority for funds for the design and construction of the proposed project. It was approved and construction by the Corps of Engineers was begun in 1965, which was a year later than the earthquake, and finished by 1967.

The urban renewal project specified that land use of the buttress area would be restricted. Low buildings would be permitted between Third and Fourth avenues with specified foundations. But the area north of Third Avenue would need to be used only for parks or parking areas.

The above citation also documents, on pages 3-7, the severity of historic earthquakes in Alaska and how much more seismically active Alaska is than California. See Figure 4 on page 6, which compares the number of events of magnitude 5.5 and larger between 1974-1989 in both states. The entire document provides a wealth of additional information that supports the position that Anchorage continues to face serious potential problems from a future earthquake event. Both San Francisco and Anchorage face these, but the historic data supports the conclusion that this potential is higher for Anchorage than California. Only someone with a California-centric attitude would argue otherwise.

I grew up in California. Largest quake I experienced there was the 71' Sylmar quake, but I have no memory of it because I was only 3 when it happened. The 94' Northridge quake happened less than mile from where I grew up, but I was living in the PNW by then. Both quakes were in the 6.5-6.7 range.

People there think they have the market cornered on Earthquakes.

I found out inside my first six months of moving to Alaska just how WRONG they were by experiencing the largest earthquake I've ever been in.....the 7.1 Quake in Jan, 2016. Thing scared the holy hell out of me.

Alaska quakes mean business. The only saving grace here is that this state isn't full of people and huge buildings. Had the 7.1 that happened here without anyone batting so much as an eyelash (or so it seemed to me lol) happened in say....Los Angeles or San Fran??? Results would have been catastrophic.

[rhiannon67]

Originally Posted by stiffnecked

So you mean Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Tucson, Miami and Seattle? Cause I been to the downtown in those places and they all smell pee, urine, etc.

I noticed a pee smell in Amsterdam as well. But they have public urinals sort of out in the open. This was back in 1999.

[Haolejohn]

Originally Posted by pittsflyer

If someone is treatening to attack you how is that not defensive, or are you refering to situations where both people agree to a sort of unofficial ultimate fighter match?

DO you understand the use of force? Just because there is a threat, doesn't mean you can come out guns blazing.

Do you remember the road rage incident a few years ago (possibly two or three) where the guy shot another guy in the gas station parking lot? He shot him because he was threatened by him...he's facing jail and possibly murder charges.

Carrying a gun comes with responsibilities. It isn't a "I get to shoot everyone that scares me" card.

[pittsflyer]

Originally Posted by Haolejohn

DO you understand the use of force? Just because there is a threat, doesn't mean you can come out guns blazing.

Do you remember the road rage incident a few years ago (possibly two or three) where the guy shot another guy in the gas station parking lot? He shot him because he was threatened by him...he's facing jail and possibly murder charges.

Carrying a gun comes with responsibilities. It isn't a "I get to shoot everyone that scares me" card.

I agree that's why I need to take a CCW course, my biggest fear is what to do about larger unarmed people or groups of people that could stomp me, take my gun and kill me with it. People who are stronger, in groups or well trained can do a lot of damage without a weapon. So understanding how much retreat I am required to make before firing is something I do need to know and I know its not infinite and if it is welp I guess that means there will be a lot of unreported shootings in the USA.


I don't feel like I need to get ran down and beat to death just because they don't have a gun.