U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-01-2015, 08:17 AM
 
Location: NWA/SWMO
2,949 posts, read 2,830,176 times
Reputation: 2950

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenn82 View Post
the kid in the article was a toddler and didn't know better

he probably had no idea what the hell he was even holding


anyway he had no ill will, It was an ugly accident.
I understand, but I was responding to someone talking about kids copying keys, etc. Not typical 2-year-old activities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-01-2015, 08:18 AM
 
Location: NWA/SWMO
2,949 posts, read 2,830,176 times
Reputation: 2950
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
Actually....I would argue you are in the majority....or did u mean minority? All the people I shoot with feel this way. LE , as they are setting the bar, needs to step it up, and programs like the DCM could get involved. Practice and instruction should NOT be difficult to find, or prohibitively expensive. LE and the training community could be way more proactive with all aspects of firearms training. From awareness and safety all the way to carry permit status. And...the latter needs to be an earned status, on that we seem to readily agree.

I see no reason to apologize for this opinion, either. Its not a tactic to see permitting denied. It will just take some people longer to vet their permit, and when they do, they will be as ready as possible.
Training, IMO, is very accessible. I have had no trouble taking courses from people like Kyle Lamb, Craig Douglas, Frank Proctor, etc. There are also a PLETHORA of options below that price-point that are still good options, as well, if one does not wish to travel/spend that much (average about $600/class for several days).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2015, 08:29 AM
 
Location: NWA/SWMO
2,949 posts, read 2,830,176 times
Reputation: 2950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777 View Post
Excellent article. It should be titled "Live by the Gun, Die by the Gun."
The big irony is that every single person in this country relies on someone with a gun to maintain order and keep them safe.

If it weren't for someone with a gun, what in the world would stop someone from raping, murdering, and pillaging? What, you going to talk them into stopping? Pepper-spray them? HAH! YouTube has plenty of those failures to peruse at your leisure.

Violence remains the gold standard of order and safety, and in today's society, until we have a plasma gun in the 40 watt range, that means a firearm.

What do anti-gunners think will compel people to give up their guns? Answer: People with guns.

The whole thing is stupid and a farce. Every single one of these politicians who advocates that people should not own guns either carries one personally, or pays someone to carry one and use one on their behalf.

Since the dawn of humankind, this has been the case. You cannot have law, and you cannot have order, and you cannot have safety, if you are not willing to ENFORCE IT.

The golden standard has always, and always will be violence. Whether it is the police officer that the anti-gunner cowers and waits for to show up, hoping they arrive in time to enforce that law and order, or whether it is the gun owner, hoping that he or she is the quicker, better, smarter individual in an encounter that threatens life and limb, who hopes to impose law and order (their safety...a gun does not a police officer make).

No, people who don't believe guns should exist, well, they do. If we could wish them all out of existence 100%, your argument would have merit, and we would be reduced to weapons which may or may not be suitable for some people (older/handicapped/etc) and they would lose the option to enforce law and order regarding their person and crimes committed against, unless a paid official were nearby to do it for them.

So whine, chafe, sputter, and wax eloquent all you want, because this world is controlled and kept in order---every single pocket of it---by threat of, and WILLINGNESS to commit violence. The gun is the cornerstone upon which that threat of violence is made, small-scale wise. The most prolific acknowledgement of this can be found on the flag of Mozambique, which depicts the AK-47. If you'd like to know more, Google it. It's a long and good read.

So before you go mewling about how we need new laws about guns...consider that you're simply wanting to pay someone ELSE with a gun to enforce whatever law you are mewling about.

The big question is: Are you responsible and empowered? Are you a driver? Or do you not wish to accept personal responsibility, and would you rather be a passenger? Either way, you're in the vehicle just the same, because that gold standard of law, order, and freedom applies across the board, to every single citizen of this country (and the world).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2015, 08:34 AM
 
Location: Florida
22,389 posts, read 9,507,963 times
Reputation: 18255
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWG223 View Post
The big irony is that every single person in this country relies on someone with a gun to maintain order and keep them safe.

If it weren't for someone with a gun, what in the world would stop someone from raping, murdering, and pillaging? What, you going to talk them into stopping? Pepper-spray them? HAH! YouTube has plenty of those failures to peruse at your leisure.

Violence remains the gold standard of order and safety, and in today's society, until we have a plasma gun in the 40 watt range, that means a firearm.

What do anti-gunners think will compel people to give up their guns? Answer: People with guns.

The whole thing is stupid and a farce. Every single one of these politicians who advocates that people should not own guns either carries one personally, or pays someone to carry one and use one on their behalf.

Since the dawn of humankind, this has been the case. You cannot have law, and you cannot have order, and you cannot have safety, if you are not willing to ENFORCE IT.

The golden standard has always, and always will be violence. Whether it is the police officer that the anti-gunner cowers and waits for to show up, hoping they arrive in time to enforce that law and order, or whether it is the gun owner, hoping that he or she is the quicker, better, smarter individual in an encounter that threatens life and limb, who hopes to impose law and order (their safety...a gun does not a police officer make).

No, people who don't believe guns should exist, well, they do. If we could wish them all out of existence 100%, your argument would have merit, and we would be reduced to weapons which may or may not be suitable for some people (older/handicapped/etc) and they would lose the option to enforce law and order regarding their person and crimes committed against, unless a paid official were nearby to do it for them.

So whine, chafe, sputter, and wax eloquent all you want, because this world is controlled and kept in order---every single pocket of it---by threat of, and WILLINGNESS to commit violence. The gun is the cornerstone upon which that threat of violence is made, small-scale wise. The most prolific acknowledgement of this can be found on the flag of Mozambique, which depicts the AK-47. If you'd like to know more, Google it. It's a long and good read.

So before you go mewling about how we need new laws about guns...consider that you're simply wanting to pay someone ELSE with a gun to enforce whatever law you are mewling about.
Did you even read the article before you went off on this emotional rant? Nobody is talking about law enforcement.

More like quoting the bible.

Matthew 26:52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2015, 08:36 AM
 
Location: NWA/SWMO
2,949 posts, read 2,830,176 times
Reputation: 2950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777 View Post
Did you even read the article before you went off on this emotional rant? Nobody is talking about law enforcement.

More like quoting the bible.

Matthew 26:52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.
How do you figure? Who is it talking about? Why do you think law enforcement is not involved in enforcing law and order? How do you figure that you are uninvolved in protecting yourself (or not)?

Since you have decided to quote the Bible, let me give you a Biblical response (although as an Atheist, it's kindof immaterial to me, although the Bible has some great ideas, for sure!)

Luke 22:36
Quote:
And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.
Also:

Matthew 12:29 (keep in mind they did not have firearms back then):
Quote:
"Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2015, 08:44 AM
 
Location: Florida
22,389 posts, read 9,507,963 times
Reputation: 18255
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWG223 View Post
How do you figure? Who is it talking about? Why do you think law enforcement is not involved in enforcing law and order? How do you figure that you are uninvolved in protecting yourself (or not)?

Since you have decided to quote the Bible, let me give you a Biblical response (although as an Atheist, it's kindof immaterial to me, although the Bible has some great ideas, for sure!)
Like I said--did you read the article or post I was referring to before you got on the soapbox? It has nothing to do with law enforcement. It's about households with guns. Excellent article.

The health risk of having a gun in the home | MinnPost
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2015, 08:50 AM
 
Location: NWA/SWMO
2,949 posts, read 2,830,176 times
Reputation: 2950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777 View Post
Like I said--did you read the article or post I was referring to before you got on the soapbox? It has nothing to do with law enforcement. It's about households with guns. Excellent article.

The health risk of having a gun in the home | MinnPost

It's an editorial piece.

Sponsored by Ucare.

Ignoring numerous previous studies to the contrary of their assertion that "The possible health benefits of gun ownership are twofold: deterring crime and stopping crimes in progress. But there are no credible studies, says Hemenway, that higher levels of gun ownership actually do these things."

In fact, multiple studies cited by the CDC/IOM, as well as crime data from Chicago, and Washington DC, along with data from the UK, are quite clear on the impact of banning firearms on violent crime. It's not a good thing, and it doesn't seem to work.

Yes, a firearm can be used for bad. For suicide. Carelessly handled to cause accidents. Etc.

However, lets take a look at what kills people per year in America...you would be looking at fast food, automobiles, and medical noncompliance. Those just aren't emotional enough to get the leftists interested in it. So consider how irresponsible it is to eat the crap Americans eat before going and looking for some of the more obscure causes of death in this country, is all I'm saying regarding "guns are dangerous". No, dangerous people are dangerous (unfortunately, high-fat, high sugar diets are dangerous regardless of who you are).

Want to ban something scary? Start at the top of issues indicated by this list:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lead...s-of-death.htm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2015, 08:57 AM
 
Location: NWA/SWMO
2,949 posts, read 2,830,176 times
Reputation: 2950
The long and short of it is this:

Some people want to pay a person to be there in 15-30 minutes with a gun when they need it.
Some people want to have their own gun when they need it.

Those two people will NEVER see eye to eye.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2015, 09:03 AM
 
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
7,330 posts, read 4,176,914 times
Reputation: 18397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenn82 View Post
yeah I cant believe she left it in her purse and so close to the kid and then just left it there unattended?
I can, because it's what most women do with their purse when they're shopping. Years of habit had trained her to do that. And that's one of the biggest issues with a CCW purse: it looks like a PURSE, but must at all times be treated as a GUN. It's all but asking for a mistake to be made.

Think about how women handle their ordinary purses. They place them in the shopping cart at the grocery store rather than continue to carry it over their shoulder. They put it down on the floor next to their feet or loop it over the back of a chair in restaurants. They put it in an empty seat beside them or on the floor in a movie theater. They stick it in a corner out of the way when visiting a friend's house. None of these perfectly ordinary practices, which the woman has probably been doing for years before she ever thought about getting a CCW permit, can EVER be safely done with a CCW purse. If a woman has a gun in her purse, she must retain direct physical control of it at all times - but she's fighting against a lifetime's worth of habit to do so.

A purse is the least secure way to CCW. If a woman needs to carry off-body, a fanny pack is a far better choice precisely because she's not likely to set it down and forget about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2015, 09:07 AM
 
4,035 posts, read 3,859,257 times
Reputation: 5315
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch View Post
Please cite the section of the Constitution where gun owners are required to have training or a license. The founding fathers did not require any kind of proficiency with firearms, in fact they specifically said the right will not be infringed. A requirement for a licence or any kind of training would infringe upon those that didn't have a license or training.
Dude, it doesn't have to be in the Constitution. The states regulate that. For a concealed carry permit, you're required to get training by a certified trainer. I don't know what state you live in, or if you have a concealed carry permit. Did you just buy a gun and stick it in your pocket, or something? You're supposed to get a permit for that. YMMV, depending on the state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top