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.
and this is where you prove that you are not listening. nv put it pretty simply. lethal force–with any weapon–is a last resort. this "default choice" that you refer to is in the heads of criminals and hollywood movies.
if it were not, and your "default choice" was really what gun owners in general subscribed to, then every neighborhood in the united states would have weekly shootings. we'd thin the population real quick that way (eco-terrorist types might want to look into that...).
but as you mention further down, people have the capability to reason, and gun owners are people. thus, they reason.
some obviously have not; those would be criminals and psychopaths. not gun owners in general, especially not the law abiding gun owners.
fight or flight is definitely an instinct, and flight is definitely the correct answer in many hostile situations, in whatever form it may take. but you can't leave out the fight without screwing up the equation. there are times when it is not reasonable to flee or to converse, and where violence is the necessary response.
again though, your scenario where lethal force is the "default choice" does not exist in normal society. it exists in the idiots or chemically challenged; those on the fringe. gun owners rely on social contract as much as the rest of the human world.
quite rightly so.
for that reason, training, mental competency, and a general attitude of personal responsibility are very necessary for proper gun ownership, as well as home ownership, vehicle ownership, pet ownership, child-rearing and anything else. the fact that it is a serious matter that requires maturity does not mean that it is a subject that should be thrown out the window all together.
psychological warfare. works like a charm in most cases. but again, lethal force and the threat of lethal force are not a default reaction, but a reasoned response to an escalating situation.
hey, whatever works and keeps you safe. if they died laughing, no one has to know that it was at your expense. tell the cops that you are just so intimidating that they died of fright.
All very well stated. I'm certainly not going to greet every situation by whipping out an N frame SW. If things have degenerated to that point, however, rest assured it's SERIOUS business and no other action is possible. Hollywood and prime time TV have put a pretty radical spin on self defense and firearms in general. If one wishes to see the latter as reality, all we firearms owners are ready, willing and able to exact 'street justice' at every turn and have unlimited recources at our disposal to fly all over the world and hunt down our enemies with extreme predjudice. Funny, lol, I bear no likeness to Steven Seagal or Chuck Norris and my life is hardly a scene from Out for Justice or Braddock Missing in Action Part whatever. However, if some Goblin is threatening my family or myself in such a manner as I feel the need for a firearm said Goblin better reconsider their position. I;m not going to shoot to wound and I won't brandish to scare them, if things have gone to the point where my weapon comes on line, the situation is beyond hope of peaceful resolution and the threat is grave....and will be dealt with accordingly.
Hollywood and prime time TV have put a pretty radical spin on self defense and firearms in general.
As I've said in other threads, if you want a more realistic look at personal safety, chech out The Best Defense on the Outdoor Channel. There are even some short video segments from the show on the site.
They stress:
1. Situational awareness - don't get into a bad situation in the first place. Trust your gut instincts. I live a few miles south of one of the most dangerous cities in the US. Since I've been watching this show, I now stop as I'm leaving a store and survey the parking lot. I look for the closest route to my vehicle. I make a note of anyone or anything that looks out of place.
2. Get away from the threat - if someone is coming towards you, do not engage. Acknowledge their presence but keep your distance.
3. Difuse the situation - if someone is rude to you or acts like an a$$, suck up your ego and apologize even if it isn't your fault. Replying with the same attitude will only escalate the problem.
4. If it gets physical, don't let the attacker get the upper hand. Kick, scratch and bite. Go for their weak spots.
5. If the threat becomes deadly, then respond with deadly force.
Most of the time situations never go in the chronilogical order I have listed above. When a threat makes itself known it may already be at level 5. Even if you don't carry a gun, this is a great show to make you aware of different situations to avoid.
I've seen the show. They had Ayoob on as a guest once and cover training at places like Front Sight, Thunder Ranch,(Chuck Taylor) and Ayoobs own Lethal Force Institute. I lament not having been able to attend Gunsite under Jeff Cooper. Lots of good info on this program. It's on tonight I believe, Tuesday is shooting night. American Rifleman, Sighting in with Shooting USA, Best Defense.
My reply was to jimbob, not NV. He said "I don't think I know anyone who would not kill another in self defense." Well, I do.
You do what? You know people who would let their child be killed if the only way to stop it was to kill the attacker? Or their wife? Or any innocent?
Thats pretty sad.
Quote:
I drive a car every day. I trust myself to make reasoned judgments while doing so. I do not shoot a gun at a human being every day. So I do not trust myself to wave one around in the presence of people who might rub me the wrong way. I have no way of knowing if I should trust you in such a situation, either.
Nobody is advocating waving a gun around at all or useing one against agravating people. Where did that come from?
A car is harder to use safely than a gun without question. There is no law that says you need to start spraying bullets because you have a gun.
Quote:
But I sure wouldn't trust jimbob. He stated that he would kill like an animal, not flee or rationalize, in a situation if his life was threatened. I don't know if you mean to put him in the category of psychopaths or not.
I put you in the catagory of alarmist fool for that one.
Jimbob simply freely admitted what you wont. That he is prepared to take a life to save his. You or anybody can say you are not prepared to do likewise & thats why you dont need a gun, but if push comes to shove you can take a life & you will try. The difference most likely is that Jimbobs life or the life he is trying to save will likely be saved, while you or whoever you were trying to save would likely be dead.
Quote:
"for that reason, training, mental competency, and a general attitude of personal responsibility are very necessary for proper gun ownership."
Can I take it, then, that no civilian should be allowed to own a gun until those three criteria are satisfied and demonstrated to the public, whose safety depends on them?
The publics saftey doesn't depend on gun owners, but to make you happy in all but two states those three & a bunch more are satisfied before a permit to carry is issued. Owning a gun & carrying it are not the same so these things are not needed to buy a gun.
If you guys want Congress to pass a bill to allow you to carry loaded guns in Yellowstone Park or Fenway Park, why don't you just be a man and ask a congressman to introduce a bill to do that, and let the citizenry knowledgeably and openly advise and consent on it. Instead of sneakily attaching it to the Credit Card bill? If the gun lobby wants to be sneaky bastrads, I will call them sneaky batsards. And I will regard everything you ever propose or say as being an example of this kind of underhanded sneakiness that you are so good at and so willing to partake in. You say ylu have a majority on your side. OK, then, introduce the bill in broad daylight, the people will pass it, and everybody has what they want. No sneaky batsrads.
If you guys want Congress to pass a bill to allow you to carry loaded guns in Yellowstone Park or Fenway Park, why don't you just be a man and ask a congressman to introduce a bill to do that, and let the citizenry knowledgeably and openly advise and consent on it. Instead of sneakily attaching it to the Credit Card bill? If the gun lobby wants to be sneaky bastrads, I will regard them as sneaky batsards. And I will regard everything you ever propose or say as being an example of this kind of underhanded sneakiness that you are so good at and so willing to partake in.
Whats sneaky about useing common Liberal tactics? How about this, if you guys want to eliminate a right from the constitution why not ask your representatives to draft a bill repealing the second amendment instead of being sneaky sniveling cowards & trying to hide your scheme behind emotional drivel?
We will carry on National Parkland anyway, as it should be, federally protected rights being respected on federal land is simple common sense.
Get over it.
Quote:
Gun Owners Are On The Verge Of A Huge, Legislative Victory
-- The next few days could see the end of the pernicious gun ban on NPS
lands
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Get ready to pinch yourself.
After eight years of clashing with anti-gun bureaucrats and
congressional leadership hostile to gun rights, we have never been
closer to victory in the battle to repeal the National Park Service
(NPS) gun ban.
As you are by now undoubtedly aware, NPS land is subject to a blanket
gun ban. A Bush administration regulation partially reversing the ban
was singlehandedly negated recently by an activist judge in Washington,
D.C.
Gun Owners of America reported last week about an amendment to repeal
the gun ban, sponsored by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), that passed by an
overwhelming 67-29 vote. Senator Coburn attached his amendment to a
fast-moving "must pass bill," H.R. 627, dealing with credit card
industry reform.
The Coburn amendment simply allows for state law -- not unelected
bureaucrats and activist judges -- to govern the carrying of firearms on
NPS land.
"Visitors to national parks also should have the right to defend
themselves in accordance with the laws of their states," Sen. Coburn
said.
The Senate wrapped up business on the underlying bill today, while the
House passed its version of the bill several weeks ago. The measure now
heads back to the House to be "reconciled" with the Senate bill.
The problem for anti-gun House leaders is that their priority bill, H.R.
627, now contains a pro-gun amendment. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is forced
to either delay the entire bill in order to try to strip the popular
pro-gun amendment out later in the year, or allow the underlying bill to
move through the House before Memorial Day with the Coburn amendment
intact.
Sources close to the situation tell GOA that the Democrat leadership,
which has opposed the NPS gun ban repeal at every turn, may have finally
run out of options. The enormous outpouring of grassroots activism from
GOA supporters may have at last convinced congressional leaders that if
they bury this measure yet again, the repercussions will reverberate
into the next election.
President Obama wants to sign this credit card legislation before
Memorial Day. So it is possible that there will be just one more vote
on this issue in the House this week. As of today, it appears the
leadership plans to bring the underlying bill to the floor in two pieces
for two separate votes -- one on the main bill and one on the Coburn
amendment.
If both pieces pass the House, then they can be combined together as one
bill and sent directly to the President without going to a House-Senate
conference committee. (There would be no need to iron out differences
in conference committee since the Senate would have already passed the
exact same version of the bill.)
Bottom line: we just need to make certain that the gun ban repeal
amendment passes in the House, after which it will be joined back up
with the main bill and signed into law. That's why the action item
below -- asking you to urge your Representative to vote for repealing
the NPS gun ban -- is so crucial.
This could be the last strike in a long battle, but even on the cusp of
winning GOA has also learned that some -- supposedly on the pro-gun side
-- are willing to compromise away this victory. Please be absolutely
sure to take the action below, and then forward this email to your
pro-gun friends.
And remember, the progress we have made on this issue would not be
possible without your support. GOA has been the lone voice fighting for
this gun ban repeal on Capitol Hill.
Action: Contact your Representative and urge that the Coburn amendment
remain attached to H.R. 627. The vote is scheduled to occur this week!
Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Rep. the pre-written
e-mail message below.
----- Pre-written letter -----
Dear Representative,
Last week, an amendment to repeal the National Park Service (NPS) gun
ban passed overwhelmingly in the Senate by a vote of 67-29 as part of
the credit card reform bill.
NPS land is subject to a blanket gun ban. Although a Bush
administration regulation partially reversed the ban, that reversal was
singlehandedly negated by an activist judge in Washington, D.C.
The pro-gun amendment, sponsored by Sen. Tom Coburn, prevents unelected
bureaucrats and activist judges from stripping me of my Second Amendment
rights on NPS land.
It appears that the leadership plans to bring the underlying bill to the
floor in two pieces for two separate votes -- one on the main bill and
one on the Coburn amendment.
I urge you to stand up for my Second Amendment rights and to support the
effort to keep the Coburn amendment attached to the underlying bill,
H.R. 627.
Gun Owners of America will score this vote in its congressional rating,
and will inform me of how you vote.
****************************
What's Your Current GOA Status?
Obviously, we now face years of invigorated attacks on our gun rights.
Shutting down gun shows, prohibitions on specific calibers, another
semi-auto ban, and the anti-gun extremists' Holy Grail of mandatory
federal licensing and registration of all gun owners -- these are just
some of the horrors that we already know we'll have to defeat head-on.
Meanwhile, we'll take every opportunity to go on offense and advance the
Second Amendment.
It can't be done without every single voice being counted. That's why we
are asking you to consider making the commitment of becoming a Gun
Owners of America Life Member. By doing so, you put the politicians on
notice that neither you nor GOA is going away -- that no matter who's in
the White House, there is always going to be a solid wall of resistance.
Now is a perfect time to become a Life Member. And if you aren't a GOA
member at all, isn't it time you became one?
If you guys want Congress to pass a bill to allow you to carry loaded guns in Yellowstone Park or Fenway Park, why don't you just be a man and ask a congressman to introduce a bill to do that, and let the citizenry knowledgeably and openly advise and consent on it. Instead of sneakily attaching it to the Credit Card bill? If the gun lobby wants to be sneaky bastrads, I will call them sneaky batsards. And I will regard everything you ever propose or say as being an example of this kind of underhanded sneakiness that you are so good at and so willing to partake in. You say ylu have a majority on your side. OK, then, introduce the bill in broad daylight, the people will pass it, and everybody has what they want. No sneaky batsrads.
LMAO, you slay me man. Sneaky aye? Like all the anti second amendment garbage that was slipped into Clintons 'Omnibus Crime bill'? Lol, sneaky tactics. Oh MY! The darlings that they are , types like, Feinstein, Boxer, Reid, Pelosi, and to many others to list have tried to insert gun bans into to much unrelated legislaton to list. Gimme a break! One can go back and find all kinds of these 'sneaky tactics' that have been tried in attempts to restrict firearms owners from execising our rights. Pot and kettle once again. By the way , your falling into rants again. I thought you wanted reasonable discussion.. Your haste in leaping to the attack is apparent in your spellings. Or were you just trying to stay within the TOS on the curse words?
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,764,983 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
But I sure wouldn't trust jimbob. He stated that he would kill like an animal, not flee or rationalize, in a situation if his life was threatened. I don't know if you mean to put him in the category of psychopaths or not.
Oh wow.
I don't know about you but I actually take threats to my life fairly seriously. Fleeing is great. If I can extricate myself from a situation with my legs or a set of wheels, that is obviously a pretty darned good option. If that option is unavailable, I would much rather have a gun than a "rationalization".
Back to animals for a bit...
If you try to catch a goose in an open field, sure the goose flees. If you try to push a goose off of its nest to steal its eggs, what happens? I'll give you a hint, the goose doesn't flee.
Last edited by jimboburnsy; 05-19-2009 at 04:37 PM..
If you try to catch a goose in an open field, sure the goose flees. If you try to push a goose off of its nest to steal its eggs, what happens? I'll give you a hint, the goose doesn't flee.
i mentioned nv not because i thought that you were responding to him, but because he gave you a fairly thorough explanation that you seemed to miss or ignore.
Quote:
He said "I don't think I know anyone who would not kill another in self defense." Well, I do.
Quote:
I drive a car every day. I trust myself to make reasoned judgments while doing so.
great, so you know what we are talking about.
Quote:
I do not shoot a gun at a human being every
so, you are in the same club as 99% of the gun owners out there then.
Quote:
and I hope you and jimbob and nv don't either.
this goes back to what we were talking about earlier: your "default choice" that doesn't exist except in the criminal and psychotic fringe. none of us legal gun owners ever hope to have it happen either. that doesn't mean that we won't prepare for it. i hope i never need my liability car insurance, but i still pay for it (and would even if it weren't mandatory).
Quote:
So I do not trust myself to wave one around in the presence of people who might rub me the wrong way.
why the hell would you be 'waving it around?'
this is the inexperienced, dangerous attitude that i mentioned at the top of my last post. you don't wave your guns around at people that **** you off. you don't even draw them when 'someone pisses you off.'
for crying out loud, you don't even wave them around when things have escalated to deadly force. your weaver and isosceles stances are taught to you with the specific purpose of not waving it around.
i would find it amusing (if it weren't so exasperating) that it is always the gun control fetishists that do crap like that (anyone remember the feinstein pic where she's flagging the entire crowd with her finger on the trigger?), but nah. it is really more annoying than anything.
good grief.
Quote:
I have no way of knowing if I should trust you in such a situation, either.
great. i have no way of knowing if the idiot in front of me is actually turning, even when his blinker says that he is going to. therefore, i wait until he passes me before i turn (this has saved me an accident or two already since i started doing it). but i'm not gonna try to take away his car because i don't trust his turn signal.
Quote:
But I sure wouldn't trust jimbob. He stated that he would kill like an animal, not flee or rationalize, in a situation if his life was threatened. I don't know if you mean to put him in the category of psychopaths or not.
for some reason, i have the sneaking suspicion that you are purposefully taking his quote out of context. if i tell you that deadly force is a last resort, but that i would be willing to engage another human being if that situation came to be, are you going to misquote me by saying that stycotl says he wants to engage someone in deadly force?
i read jimbob's post–and i could be wrong, so if he wants to, he can correct me–to say the same thing that i just did: that deadly force is an action that i am willing to take if the scenario comes to that.
if someone threatens me or my family, and we have already escalated beyond reasonable use of intimidation, persuasion, fleeing, etc, then yes, i will use deadly force.
does that sound unreasonable to you?
if it does, then i can live with that, and i would reiterate what i said earlier. it is not my place to tell you how to protect yourself and your loved ones. but it is not yours to manage the protection of my loved ones either.
Quote:
Quote:
"for that reason, training, mental competency, and a general attitude of personal responsibility are very necessary for proper gun ownership."
Can I take it, then, that no civilian should be allowed to own a gun until those three criteria are satisfied and demonstrated to the public, whose safety depends on them?
i would love it if we could agree on a constructive, *objective* solution that would fix this problem. till then, we are gonna have to trust some people.
Quote:
Your bottom two quotes are not mine. I don't know whom you are responding to there.
yeah, i tacked them on; they belong to jacq63.
Quote:
If you guys want Congress to pass a bill to allow you to carry loaded guns in Yellowstone Park or Fenway Park, why don't you just be a man and ask a congressman to introduce a bill to do that, and let the citizenry knowledgeably and openly advise and consent on it. Instead of sneakily attaching it to the Credit Card bill?
wow.
this is where i get to rant and rave, because i hate both parties. i think that they are both corrupt and ignorant. i can't stand those stupid bills with their sneaky little corporate and activist-paid cling-ons.
but if you want anyone to believe that the republicans are the sole transgressors here, you are only showing yourself to be a religiously fanatic politician, the kind that points out every mistake made by the opposition while summarily ignoring the same mistakes in the family.
anyway, nice distraction. back to the topic.
Quote:
But sheep do.
i disagree with you there, tin. even sheep can be aggressive. i've been head-butted enough times to know that now. sheeple on the other hand...
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.
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.
. Lots of good info on this program. It's on tonight I believe, Tuesday is shooting night. American Rifleman, Sighting in with Shooting USA, Best Defense.
. Oh MY! The darlings that they are , types like, Feinstein, Boxer, Reid, Pelosi, and to many others to list have tried to insert gun bans into to much unrelated legislaton to list. Gimme a break! One can go back and find all kinds of these 'sneaky tactics' that have been tried in attempts to restrict firearms owners from execising our rights. Pot and kettle once again. By the way , your falling into rants again. I thought you wanted reasonable discussion.
. Your haste in leaping to the attack is apparent in your spellings. Or were you just trying to stay within the TOS on the curse words?