... and the SWAT team will likely wait outside until they're sure of the tactical situation like they did at Columbine.
Good vid by the Nuge. Warning ... contains point blank language.
Also Penn & Teller:
Also Penn & Teller:
Last edited by Stingray24 (2008-02-22 11:17:43)
what your country needs is true family values......
Last edited by Sgt. Sergio Bennet 3rd (2008-02-22 11:30:34)
I can't really argue with that at all.Sgt. Sergio Bennet 3rd wrote:
what your country needs si true family values......
True, but Mormon principles can only be spread one person/family at a time.Sgt. Sergio Bennet 3rd wrote:
what your country needs is true family values......
Ted apparently only likes drugs that are socially acceptable (alcohol).blisteringsilence wrote:
Again, only a fool brings anything other than a gun to a gun fight. Tasers have limited range. And are expensive. EXPENSIVE. Much more than the avgerage college student can afford.Turquoise wrote:
I support all college campuses allowing air tasers on school grounds. I think allowing guns would be a bit much, but air tasers serve as excellent defensive weapons.He abstains from drugs, but that man could drink you and I under a table. Matching us 2 for 1.DBBrinson1 wrote:
I dunno man. I remember seeing a BIO about him on tv. They interviewed his band mates or people close to him and they all said he was a straight edge.Turquoise wrote:
Ted makes a lot of sense about guns, but he's pretty incoherent on most other things -- like drug policy. He claims to never have done any drugs, but the cover of one of his albums has paraphernalia on it.
As for the taser thing, you make a good point about how expensive they are. Still, I have to reiterate that a situation where a gunman opens fire and then everyone around him draws a weapon is a scary thing when you consider that people may accidentally shoot each other instead of the gunman if they don't correctly identify who the gunman is.
Well, you should definately have training to get a permit to carry concealed, and most states do require it. Second, if anyone is in the immediate area, they will know who the target is. Third, responsibility dictates that you have to evaluate a situation before simply just "spraying and praying" as some seem to assume will happen. That evaluation may take only an instant, but you can get a pretty good idea of what is going on in that time. After all, if someone is taking down a person gone 'postal,' then that person would not shoot at anyone ELSE, would he? So, latecomers arriving on scene would not have cause to mistake him for anyone else.Turquoise wrote:
Ted apparently only likes drugs that are socially acceptable (alcohol).blisteringsilence wrote:
Again, only a fool brings anything other than a gun to a gun fight. Tasers have limited range. And are expensive. EXPENSIVE. Much more than the avgerage college student can afford.Turquoise wrote:
I support all college campuses allowing air tasers on school grounds. I think allowing guns would be a bit much, but air tasers serve as excellent defensive weapons.He abstains from drugs, but that man could drink you and I under a table. Matching us 2 for 1.DBBrinson1 wrote:
I dunno man. I remember seeing a BIO about him on tv. They interviewed his band mates or people close to him and they all said he was a straight edge.
As for the taser thing, you make a good point about how expensive they are. Still, I have to reiterate that a situation where a gunman opens fire and then everyone around him draws a weapon is a scary thing when you consider that people may accidentally shoot each other instead of the gunman if they don't correctly identify who the gunman is.
I think that argument is spurious. It sounds plausible to people though, so it is the one that is harped on. I do not think it would be that serious of a problem, especially if responders are aware of the possibility of armed bystanders. That simple warning will keep the police or other responders from shooting first (and asking questions later).
Well, honestly, I do prefer the Univ. of Utah's policy over just letting the status quo continue. I'm just pointing out that even the best policies have their drawbacks.imortal wrote:
Well, you should definately have training to get a permit to carry concealed, and most states do require it. Second, if anyone is in the immediate area, they will know who the target is. Third, responsibility dictates that you have to evaluate a situation before simply just "spraying and praying" as some seem to assume will happen. That evaluation may take only an instant, but you can get a pretty good idea of what is going on in that time. After all, if someone is taking down a person gone 'postal,' then that person would not shoot at anyone ELSE, would he? So, latecomers arriving on scene would not have cause to mistake him for anyone else.
I think that argument is spurious. It sounds plausible to people though, so it is the one that is harped on. I do not think it would be that serious of a problem, especially if responders are aware of the possibility of armed bystanders. That simple warning will keep the police or other responders from shooting first (and asking questions later).
In theory, I would say you are correct, but in practice, I could see a lot going wrong. Granted, a situation like this gone wrong isn't really any worse than the situations we've already seen with a lack of guns.
I guess we have to be willing to accept a certain amount of death on campuses as a fact of reality, and I think one thing you and I can agree on is that it's better to die with the option of self-defense than without it....
I still (personally) think that guns are not necessary for self-defence, and it would be best if they were in the hands of the level-headed only, but that's just wishful thinking.
America has been based on a culture that has no qualms about guns and has been so for several centuries. Changing it would stupid and pointless, and I think people need to realise this.
America has been based on a culture that has no qualms about guns and has been so for several centuries. Changing it would stupid and pointless, and I think people need to realise this.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
here's a easy one, disregard "no gun on site" places. Just walk in packin'..screw the laws. IF some nut goes haywire ina gun-free mall or school, and I may be packin with CCW in a gun-free zone. After I dispatch the loser, I doubt there will be much backlash against me.
Parker wrote:
yes, yes and yes.
I wouldn't call 232 years several centuries.Spark wrote:
America has been based on a culture that has no qualms about guns and has been so for several centuries.
In fact, the second amendment wasn't ratified until 1791.
Last edited by geNius (2008-02-22 16:55:43)
This is kind of stretching it, but maybe he's referring to the readily available arms that were present during colonial times.geNius wrote:
Parker wrote:
yes, yes and yes.I wouldn't call 232 years several centuries.Spark wrote:
America has been based on a culture that has no qualms about guns and has been so for several centuries.
In fact, the second amendment wasn't ratified until 1791.
how many gun related crimes were commited where you live in the last week?Spark wrote:
I still (personally) think that guns are not necessary for self-defence
My guess is 0Parker wrote:
how many gun related crimes were commited where you live in the last week?Spark wrote:
I still (personally) think that guns are not necessary for self-defence
exactly my point.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
My guess is 0Parker wrote:
how many gun related crimes were commited where you live in the last week?Spark wrote:
I still (personally) think that guns are not necessary for self-defence
its real easy to have that opinion when you dont have to worry about it.
We dont have to wprry about it cuz we have strict gun laws.Parker wrote:
exactly my point.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
My guess is 0Parker wrote:
how many gun related crimes were commited where you live in the last week?
its real easy to have that opinion when you dont have to worry about it.
good for you, thats not news to me.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
We dont have to wprry about it cuz we have strict gun laws.Parker wrote:
exactly my point.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
My guess is 0
its real easy to have that opinion when you dont have to worry about it.
as i said before, i have still yet to see a way to make that happen in the US.
sssoooooo, anytime anyone wants to propose some plan, let me know.
i will be more than happy to tell you why it wont work.
Impose martial law send the army around to every building in the country take all the guns and make the owners re apply with stricter rules dammit i see holes in my planParker wrote:
good for you, thats not news to me.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
We dont have to wprry about it cuz we have strict gun laws.Parker wrote:
exactly my point.
its real easy to have that opinion when you dont have to worry about it.
as i said before, i have still yet to see a way to make that happen in the US.
sssoooooo, anytime anyone wants to propose some plan, let me know.
i will be more than happy to tell you why it wont work.
Seeing that the best counter-argument to everyone being allowed to carry all the time is what if they shoot someone else by accident? And of course that will happen, but we cant make a world where no accidents happen, and nobody gets murdered and we all live in candy houses. Life is unfair, and everyone will die. Small sacrifices need to be made for the good of the whole and im tired of all this bullshit about giving concessions to minority problems, when its the big picture we should worry about. So on the whole, a totally armed populace would decrease criminal shootings, but accidents will increase but teaching people to be careful is a whole lot easier than watching 10 people get shot while you are helpless.
Who is advocating that EVERYONE be armed?...certainly not me.
I wouldn't trust some of my friends to carry. They also don't trust themselves, so it is fairly self-regulating, in this case.
Also, the average defense shooting involves 3 rounds. LEOs often expend 2 or 3 magazines for the same number of hits. I'd actually trust the CCW holder to be more accurate in shooting at an attacker.
I wouldn't trust some of my friends to carry. They also don't trust themselves, so it is fairly self-regulating, in this case.
What do you suggest? Single-shot tazers have a maximum range of about 21ft (usually less). Kimber's high-powered 2-shot mace has a similar range. I have heard people suggest hat-pins (sadly, I'm being serious). I know of no tool better able to do the job of stopping an attacker. 12 rounds of .45ACP can stop several attackers, whereas, you are screwed with the tazer.Spark wrote:
I still (personally) think that guns are not necessary for self-defence
Also, the average defense shooting involves 3 rounds. LEOs often expend 2 or 3 magazines for the same number of hits. I'd actually trust the CCW holder to be more accurate in shooting at an attacker.
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2008-02-22 18:53:52)
That might have something to do with the fact that anyone who takes the time to acquire a CHL is going to be a person who can be termed a "gun enthusist." I would fall under that category.RAIMIUS wrote:
Who is advocating that EVERYONE be armed?...certainly not me.
I wouldn't trust some of my friends to carry. They also don't trust themselves, so it is fairly self-regulating, in this case.What do you suggest? Single-shot tazers have a maximum range of about 21ft (usually less). Kimber's high-powered 2-shot mace has a similar range. I have heard people suggest hat-pins (sadly, I'm being serious). I know of no tool better able to do the job of stopping an attacker. 12 rounds of .45ACP can stop several attackers, whereas, you are screwed with the tazer.Spark wrote:
I still (personally) think that guns are not necessary for self-defence
Also, the average defense shooting involves 3 rounds. LEOs often expend 2 or 3 magazines for the same number of hits. I'd actually trust the CCW holder to be more accurate in shooting at an attacker.
I practice with my carry weapon about once a week. Sometimes more.
Most police officers practice in the week that leads up to their requalification. In other words, twice a year.
I'm a medic. I serve as TEC (tail end charlie) on our SWAT team. WE only get to practice, on government funds, once a month. And from what I've learned from conferences, that's about average for SWAT outside of huge cities that have fulltime SWAT units.
So very true!blisteringsilence wrote:
That might have something to do with the fact that anyone who takes the time to acquire a CHL is going to be a person who can be termed a "gun enthusist." I would fall under that category.
I practice with my carry weapon about once a week. Sometimes more.
Most police officers practice in the week that leads up to their requalification. In other words, twice a year.
I'm a medic. I serve as TEC (tail end charlie) on our SWAT team. WE only get to practice, on government funds, once a month. And from what I've learned from conferences, that's about average for SWAT outside of huge cities that have fulltime SWAT units.
Being an Air Force Cadet, many of my friends back home think I get a lot of range time. In reality, I'd be lucky to get 1-2 range sessions per year, as official training. Up until recently, cadets could not use the base's range, except for those official times...whereas I know a lot of civilians who practice MUCH more often than I do.
oh boy liberals
i might be a stoner
i might be a drinker
i might get shit grades
but if theres one thing i do have its common sense, i have lots of guns personal i have 4 shot guns 5 rifles and 2 pistols have i killed anyone nope...
Ok lets take all the guns away from all the law abiding citizens (registered guns btw all of my guns are registered and have gun locks on them) there will still be guns in the world that would be used to kill people
the US made Marijuana Illegal right...joke i can find weed in about 30 seconds i could find it when ever
heroin is illegal i can still find it when ever back int he day when i used to shoot up last year it didnt take me long to get my fix ( that me is long gone btw 14 months clean baby)
my point is guns are going to be around regardless of what ever laws are put in you think some gang bang bro down on the corner of down town got his gun legaly probably not, you can put laws in you can put a ban on it you could do a house to house sweep across America and you would still have guns might nt be that day or the next but they will cme back
so stop bitching about my god given right and fuck off
i might be a stoner
i might be a drinker
i might get shit grades
but if theres one thing i do have its common sense, i have lots of guns personal i have 4 shot guns 5 rifles and 2 pistols have i killed anyone nope...
Ok lets take all the guns away from all the law abiding citizens (registered guns btw all of my guns are registered and have gun locks on them) there will still be guns in the world that would be used to kill people
the US made Marijuana Illegal right...joke i can find weed in about 30 seconds i could find it when ever
heroin is illegal i can still find it when ever back int he day when i used to shoot up last year it didnt take me long to get my fix ( that me is long gone btw 14 months clean baby)
my point is guns are going to be around regardless of what ever laws are put in you think some gang bang bro down on the corner of down town got his gun legaly probably not, you can put laws in you can put a ban on it you could do a house to house sweep across America and you would still have guns might nt be that day or the next but they will cme back
so stop bitching about my god given right and fuck off
Heavy metal/wooden object will do nicely. The space in my house is such that you can never be further than 3 metres away while still being in sight.RAIMIUS wrote:
Who is advocating that EVERYONE be armed?...certainly not me.
I wouldn't trust some of my friends to carry. They also don't trust themselves, so it is fairly self-regulating, in this case.What do you suggest? Single-shot tazers have a maximum range of about 21ft (usually less). Kimber's high-powered 2-shot mace has a similar range. I have heard people suggest hat-pins (sadly, I'm being serious). I know of no tool better able to do the job of stopping an attacker. 12 rounds of .45ACP can stop several attackers, whereas, you are screwed with the tazer.Spark wrote:
I still (personally) think that guns are not necessary for self-defence
Also, the average defense shooting involves 3 rounds. LEOs often expend 2 or 3 magazines for the same number of hits. I'd actually trust the CCW holder to be more accurate in shooting at an attacker.
In any case guns aren't exactly a common commodity here.
One thing: Which 'God' explicitly gave you the right to use guns?
Last edited by Spark (2008-02-23 22:18:21)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Kratos. What he's a god now.Spark wrote:
Heavy metal/wooden object will do nicely. The space in my house is such that you can never be further than 3 metres away while still being in sight.RAIMIUS wrote:
Who is advocating that EVERYONE be armed?...certainly not me.
I wouldn't trust some of my friends to carry. They also don't trust themselves, so it is fairly self-regulating, in this case.What do you suggest? Single-shot tazers have a maximum range of about 21ft (usually less). Kimber's high-powered 2-shot mace has a similar range. I have heard people suggest hat-pins (sadly, I'm being serious). I know of no tool better able to do the job of stopping an attacker. 12 rounds of .45ACP can stop several attackers, whereas, you are screwed with the tazer.Spark wrote:
I still (personally) think that guns are not necessary for self-defence
Also, the average defense shooting involves 3 rounds. LEOs often expend 2 or 3 magazines for the same number of hits. I'd actually trust the CCW holder to be more accurate in shooting at an attacker.
In any case guns aren't exactly a common commodity here.
One thing: Which 'God' explicitly gave you the right to use guns?