I just read this article a felt it may pertain to some of us.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25630796
I'm not wanting to get a flaming war going as I know there are some sted fast opposing opinions on this, but I thought it might be good info for some of us.
But my guess is that in your coach, you are still in your "house". (??)
I think everyone knows where I stand on these issues. To spare everyone from my soapbox, I will go clean a gun. 8)
Interesting how some judge/ predict future actions of law abiding citizens based on past actions of law breakers. . . . .
Yeah, it's a shame that a few can ruin it for the many. But then, that's the way it is in every facit of this great country.
I don't know about you, but if I go hiking in the wilds, I'm carrying no smaller than a .357 magnum for defense from wild things (anything smaller will just get a bear pissed at you). There are stupid people that do stupid things with guns that ruin it for other-like firing a gun into the air in a crowded campground. But there are stupid people everywhere-so do you just prevent carrying guns everywhere?
I think a taser might be a good answer for protection from the 2 legged wild things. Good Luck, TomC
Ya know,
The 2nd amendment is fine, along with the rest of the Constitution, however, my personal opinion is that the government wants to take away all initiative, rights and abilities by private citizens. This is evidenced by the no child left behind act, the brady bill, lack of response to welfare laws that keep families on the rolls by punishing them if they take a job or displease the state in some other way.
Now I am not inducing the membership to do anything, except to read a document that is a bit higher in the spirit of our young country.. "Young" that is as compared to many of the European nations, but then again, no nation has had the same type of government longer than the USA.
The document I speak of is the Declaration of Independence and speaks directly to the problems at hand, specifically the preamble, or parts thereof:
""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.""
Thomas Jefferson, who never drove a bus, also wrote that, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." I really can't say that I miss not having revolutions though. I suppose one could say that we have had a "political revolution" every twenty years or so. Apropos of nothing but the time span of 20 years, up until and including Kennedy, a president has died in office every 20 years. We have now gone almost 50 without it.
Some idiot gets drunk/stoned and fires a gun in the air. So everybody should give up thier guns?? I can see where that person should be forced to give it up. If some idiot gets drunk/stoned or just is plain stupid, speeds and evades police in his car, should we all have to give up our cars?? If tragicly a child rams thier bicycle into something and dies, should bikes be banned? If a person on skis, slams into a tree and dies should skis be outlawed? Or should airbags be installed on trees at slopes?
When I look at the stupidity that goes on in this country, I find it hard to belive it is the best system in the world!
Thanks for posting I have a bad memory and forget to unload mine and lock it away ;D
See below Jim
Laws for our protection fall into two groups. Those that protect us from others, and those that protect us from our ownselves. As far as our ownselves go, I feel the gov't should have very little say in this (except perhaps for children and those judged mentally incapable) If some guy wants to ride his motorcycle without a helmet, I'm okay with that (so long as it doesn't impact everyone else's insurance rates when he smears himself on a stretch of asphalt). Same goes for not wearing seatbelts. I wear mine, but if the other guy wants to take on the risk of not wearing his, fine.
Laws that protect us from others are a different story. Let's face it, today's society is different from Colonial times and a different set of rules are needed to play by. I have tremendous respect for Jefferson and our founding fathers, but did they truely anticipate the day would come when our youth would be fed a steady diet of television violence and then given video games to practice on for hours each day? Did they envision the incredible firepower that one could be purchase at your local WalMart? Without more restrictions on the guns, it is simply a recipe for disaster.
Just two weeks ago, I had my GMC4104 on the campus of Virginia Tech where I went to school. We took the opportunity to stop by the memorial markers for the 32 students who were slain there. I wish I had the wisdom of Jefferson to try to make sense of it all. Jefferson had a special appreciation for colleges, (he founded the University of Virginia) and I wonder what his thoughts on this tragedy would be? Would he view the 32 markers and defend statements that the right to bear arms still applies in the same way today? Would he visualize a world with classrooms full of students each "packing heat" for their own protection?
On the National Park issue, let me mention that I occasionally backpack in remote areas and have encountered my share of bears and even a moose. I have not given the thought of carrying a weapon a minute's consideration. In the illustrious words of Col. Benjamin Franklin Pierce:
I'll carry your books, I'll carry a torch, I'll carry a tune, I'll carry on, carry over, carry forward, Cary Grant, cash and carry, carry me back to Old Virginia, I'll even 'hari-kari' if you show me how, but I will not carry a gun.
So if I'm out strolling our National Parks I'll take my chances with the bears, rather than the drunk/stoned idiot who has not yet been asked to give it up because he hasn't fired it into the air ...... yet. Even if that guy represents less than 1% of the gun toting population.
Great posts everyone. No point in me adding anything. Time to go wash my "Thunderwear". He he he. :) :) :)
Well...great posts except for WEC4104's, which I do not aggree with. :) :) :)
Quote from: HB of CJ on July 24, 2008, 02:44:17 PM
Well...great posts except for WEC4104's, which I do not agree with. :) :) :)
Right on!!!
Richard
Quote from: HB of CJ on July 24, 2008, 02:44:17 PM
Well...great posts except for WEC4104's, which I do not aggree with. :) :) :)
I may not agree with his statements, but I will defend his right to hold those opinions.
Different people have different ideas and different upbringings. These make for differing outlooks on the world. Without these differing opinions and outlooks this would probably be a pretty boring place.
My sister is a rabid and vociferous pacifist, I doubt if she would touch a gun even if it meant the lives of her or her loved ones.
I, on the other hand believe in self defense at all costs.
Does that make her a bad person? not in my book, it just makes her human, like most of the rest of us here are.
(There, Were those short enough sentences and paragraphs?) ;)
Dallas
Quote from: Dallas on July 24, 2008, 03:38:36 PM
Quote from: HB of CJ on July 24, 2008, 02:44:17 PM
Well...great posts except for WEC4104's, which I do not aggree with. :) :) :)
I may not agree with his statements, but I will defend his right to hold those opinions.
Different people have different ideas and different upbringings. These make for differing outlooks on the world. Without these differing opinions and outlooks this would probably be a pretty boring place.
My sister is a rabid and vociferous pacifist, I doubt if she would touch a gun even if it meant the lives of her or her loved ones.
I, on the other hand believe in self defense at all costs.
Does that make her a bad person? not in my book, it just makes her human, like most of the rest of us here are.
(There, Were those short enough sentences and paragraphs?) ;)
Dallas
Hopefully everyone on the board agrees with your statement Dallas.
Richard
There are extreme and foolish positions on both sides of the gun control issue. As I understand it, you can have the weapon in your RV. It should just be unloaded and locked away. A semi auto with the magazine released is unloaded and can be ready for use very quickly. Most of the time, those pushing a particular point of view on these issues support their arguments with statistics. There may be ample urban crime and burglary statistics to support being armed in some places, but from the response from the park rangers, it seems that the national parks do not qualify. After all, in this instance, the push is to change an existing rule. Those that wish for this change should be able to show why it is necessary.
I am sure that the retired rangers that are taking a stand on this are not doing so because they are merely rabidly anti-gun. I would actually assume that their prime purpose is for the safety of park visitors and themselves. I would go with those that have the most practical experience here, not those that have a simple philosophical agenda. Constitutional rights are not absolute anyway. You have religious freedom yet polygamy is illegal, and Muslims are not allowed to castrate their daughters nor murder them for "dishonoring" the family (funny how dating is a dishonor to the family, but murder is not). You have freedom of speech, but try making bomb or hijack jokes in an airport. We live in a complex and often crowded society. There are compromises necessary to make it work the best it can. Does it make any sense for an expert driver in a Ferrari and an octogenarian in a old VW Beetle to be governed by the same speed laws? Yes, it does because, even if silly in terms of technology, ability, risk and danger, we accept it as a reasonable accommodation to the logistics of creating the orderly, enforcible rules needed to make the roads survivable. Of course, bus conversion people, especially us, should be exempt from everything.
QuoteTime to go wash my "Thunderwear".
"Thunderwear" and its competitor "Smartcarry" make some the most comfortable deep concealment holsters there are. If you carry, you probably already know that.
http://www.thunderwear.com/
http://www.smartcarry.com/
For those interested, and who would like some shooting fun, try some tannerite.
It takes this guy a dozen shots before he hits it, but when he does............. :o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkwzWw1ciqc
Where to get it:
http://www.tannerite.com/
http://www.tannerite.com/she_exploding_targets.html
It's probably people like me who are causing all the problems. ;D
Oh, one more thing: Yes, it's legal. ;)
Quote from: WEC4104 on July 24, 2008, 02:41:00 PM
Just two weeks ago, I had my GMC4104 on the campus of Virginia Tech where I went to school. We took the opportunity to stop by the memorial markers for the 32 students who were slain there. I wish I had the wisdom of Jefferson to try to make sense of it all. Jefferson had a special appreciation for colleges, (he founded the University of Virginia) and I wonder what his thoughts on this tragedy would be? Would he view the 32 markers and defend statements that the right to bear arms still applies in the same way today? Would he visualize a world with classrooms full of students each "packing heat" for their own protection?
This may be pointing out the obvious but these things really are not that complicated.
Just how many of the dead students do you think were armed as they were being shot to death by this maniac?
What in Jefferson's character would make any logical and intelligent person believe that he would not have wanted these students to have the privilege to bear arms and protect themselves at their option (and not the governments option)?
I would guess that all of these students would not be armed even if they were not denied their constitutional right by the government and it is extremist thinking to suggest that a classroom of students would all be packing heat. How many do you think would be alive today if even one of these students had been allowed their constitutional right?
I don't know if a maniac like that fellow would have been at all deterred with the idea that someone at that school might be armed but, I would say that not having to worry about that probably gave him more confidence.
If you were in that school and you were standing there while the fellow shot several students nearby would it be your instinct to protect you and others or would you be the kind of fellow that would run away and hide while people died around you?
And what would you do if you had a concealed handgun? Would you run and hide still or would you exercise your constitutional right to protect life and limb?
I wonder how many of the dead kids wished for a handgun as they all died?
Can responsible and sane citizens protect themselves when threatened as these students were or are we as a people no longer capable as were our forefathers who were so wise and brave? Do you really believe a video game is the problem? Did the muderer have a history of video game abuse that drove him to murder all of these unarmed citizens that did not have the rights that Jefferson intended?
I think Jefferson and all of the forefathers had it right and they came about their opinions honestly. We loose this right and the other rights that they fought so hard for and we end up being exactly what they were before they revolted. I choose to stand by those gentlemen and live by their words and intentions. The constitution does not need to be changed from it's original wording (and I mean non of the changes). What needs to change is people need to stop being passive and expecting the government to fix the problems that they themselves should be correcting. Take responsibility for your kids and stop letting the system do it. Look at the prisons and see who is there and why and then see what there family life was like for the murderers that are there. I promise you it is not full of our finest sons but generally these people are abandoned children and children with little or no parental support and attention. And you want to take the good citizens guns away because of these people's actions? Exactly the opposite would be my instinct. What do you think Jefferson would think? Well, that is my opinion anyway!
Quote from: Greg Roberts on July 24, 2008, 09:15:58 PM
This may be pointing out the obvious but these things really are not that complicated.
Actually, I do see things as quite a bit more complicated.
I think the overly simplistic answer is "If students were permitted to carry guns, there might have been someone in the classroom to offer resistance, thereby reducing the loss of life."
It is an answer which poses a quick fix for the events of that particular day, but misses the bigger picture. Virginia Tech has approximately 25,000 students. For simple math, let's say the average class size is 25 students and if the gun restrictions were lifted there would have been at least two gun carrying students in the class that morning. The horrid events that April took place between 8:00 and 9:00 am on a Monday morning, hardly a time when most kids would have felt a need to carry their weapon. Only the true 24/7 hard core gun toters would be carrying. The casual carriers would have left theirs back at the dorm. By my conservative estimate, there would need to have been 5,000 total guns on campus to reasonably ensure a chance that there would be one or two in the classroom at the correct time and place that day. Now apply similar estimates to colleges nationwide. Heaven help us, you are talking about hundreds of thousands of stressed-out, hormone-raging, hung-over college students (with minimal firearms training) taking guns to class. How many kids do you think will be injured or killed by accidental discharges alone? ...and I am not going anywhere near a Frat party.
Sorry, but I don't see this as Jefferson's master plan. I believe Jefferson and the rest of the forefathers stressed the right to bear arms so that people could defend themselves from the tyranny of an overly powerful government. Kinda doubt his intent was to make it a status symbol for kids at the local Hip Hop club.
---
Lastly let me stress that I am not completely one-sided on the gun issues, nor do I have some deep rooted gun phobia lurking within.
- Take me to a target range, or fling some clay pigeons for me to blast, and I'll buy the beer afterward.
- I once had a roomate who was ranked 4th in the state in high powered long range marksmanship. I helped him prepare his custom loaded shells.
- No, you'll never find me out in the woods in my camos during hunting season, but I don't have a problem with those that choose to do so (just bring me back some nice venison for my freezer).
But where my opinions DO differ is with respect to certain gun control issues. I believe today's society requires that we impose stronger limitations to offset things that are getting way out of control. We already know that the right to bear arms does not apply to people flying on commercial aircraft (crew excluded), entering court rooms, or attending public high schools. I wouldn't be opposed to broadening that further, and that includes keeping National Parks that way. Last I checked, my tax dollars were supporting those parks so I think that at least entitles me to an opinion.
Those of you who want to safely and sanely keep guns in your home for the protection of your family, or for legitimate hunting, I have no bone to pick with you. A hundred years ago that would have been +99% of the civilian gun owning population. (non-military, non-law enforcement/security) Today, I don't even want to guess at the percentage of guns in the hands of unstable folks under the age of 25. As stated in my earlier post, these are all kids raised watching hours and hours of TV in which the show featured a murder that was committed and the crimal is the focus of everyone's attention.
To those of you who hold differing opinions, sorry if this wasn't one of the "good" posts. ;D
Of course, bus conversion people, especially us, should be exempt from everything.
Lin for President!
Quote from: WEC4104 on July 24, 2008, 02:41:00 PM
Just two weeks ago, I had my GMC4104 on the campus of Virginia Tech where I went to school. We took the opportunity to stop by the memorial markers for the 32 students who were slain there. I wish I had the wisdom of Jefferson to try to make sense of it all. Jefferson had a special appreciation for colleges, (he founded the University of Virginia) and I wonder what his thoughts on this tragedy would be? Would he view the 32 markers and defend statements that the right to bear arms still applies in the same way today? Would he visualize a world with classrooms full of students each "packing heat" for their own protection?
There's another aspect to this that just seems blindingly obvious to me but genuinely seems not to occur to gun-nuts:- it is an unfortunate aspect of society there will always be the occasional maniac with murderous intent amongst us, but it is the easy access to guns that allows such maniacs to create a tragedy such as that which occured at Virgina Tech and other places. What's the worse the guy could have done without a gun? Maybe stabbed two or three people in a crowd before the rest got out of range. That's bad enough but it doesn't compare to 32 young people dead. If the 'cost' of preventing things like this from happening (and all the robberies and muggings etc involving guns) is for the general public to lose the right to carry hand guns then I really do not believe any right-thinking person can deny that cost as being worth paying. It's not about 'liberty' or 'constitutional rights', it's about common sense and basic intelligence. Those people who try to deny the arguement by extending the logic to include anything else that can potentially kill (cars etc) merely reveal the fact that they haven't undertood the fundamental point - cars, knives, even rifles and shotguns all have a legimate application in certain circumstances. Hand guns are a special case simply because that have no purpose other than to kill human beings.
Jeremy
Banning hand guns would be OK IF they could guarantee that absolutely no one would have a handgun including those who would use the gun for evil purposes. Unfortunately it seems criminals have no problems obtaining guns (many obtained illegally). Just my feelings Jack
Banning, for a moment I thought the commander of redistribution to be was speaking. Either You want to be free or not. All i hear on the tube is this clown who wants to redistribute the wealth and take guns. If the laws that currently are on the books had been followed the foreign dirt bag would not have been able to get or posses a gun to start with. I beleive any half baked idiot could cut the stock off of a hunting shotgun,cut the barrel short and have done a lot more damage than He did! P{erhaps I think differently having spent more than 20 years of My life in the military most being in countrys that have noe right to have guns. They were dragged from their homes,beat murdered and eliminated on a regular basis,generaly by the police. I sure as hell would not feel safe if only the common thugs called police had guns. No thanks on gun control. John
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear a Flintlock or Blunderbus, shall not be infringed.
Quote from: WEC4104 on July 24, 2008, 11:37:04 PM
. . . . Heaven help us, you are talking about hundreds of thousands of stressed-out, hormone-raging, hung-over college students (with minimal firearms training) taking guns to class. . . . .
Me thinks you have missed the pro gut point entirely.
It is about PROPERLY TRAINED people carrying concealed weapons. I"m not endorsing "anyone" can carry, but I think that if you are a responsible member of society & have shown proficiency in firearms . . . .
BTW, when I was in college, the ones prone to drinking wouldn't dare waste any $$ on something you couldn't drink & the ones with hormones raging wouldn't dare waste any $$ on something you couldn't ****. :o
The point is not "if there had been a person with good intentions with a gun in their possession in that room, they could have stopped this tragedy" BUT RATHER "If that had been an option, the criminals wouldn't be the only people with guns".
As for me, I'd feel safer if concealed weapons were allowed in banks & etc, then the robbers would have more to consider before the holdup.
I usually don't respond to gun issues. In the woods is where I'll address my coments.
In the woods most are better off with bear pepper spray than slinging lead.
In the old days....I knew a pro hunter that would dispose of bears using a 22.
reasons:
1. It would do the job
2. It wouldn't get the bears adrenilen raging. (which is worse than a drugy on pcp)
3. It forced him to make sure of his shot before pulling the trigger.
As a general rule Grizzlies don't want us for food whereas browns do.
I have a hunch that a lot of you don't regularly practice. :-X
Almost monthly for me but then I have targets out my back deck at 50yds and 100yds. ;)
Skip
;D ;D ;D left click on picture to enlarge
If you want to get literal about what the Founding Fathers intended on the right to keep and bear arms, the intent was for the citizens to have at hand the weaponry necessary to overthrow the govt. if need be. Their goal was that the citizens would never be outgunned by the military. Which would be interesting to contemplate in modern times... What kind of gas mileage does a tank get, anyway? But they also did NOT intend for that to be the only purpose for personal weapons. At that time, it was still generally acceptable for gentlemen to resolve personal insults on the dueling ground. In fact, many of the Founding Fathers had participated in duels. My bet would be that Thomas Jefferson would be appalled regarding the VT incident for many reasons, one of which being that the perp was not dead from multiple gunshots from multiple sources within the first couple of minutes. Another thing that would bewilder him is the notion that we teach our children to cower under their desks instead of giving them the training and means to take personal responsibility for their own safety and the safety of those around them.
By the way, for the history and constitutional buffs, I think that you will find that the country's founders and most colonials did not carry guns normally. I would think that concealed carry was very rare indeed. Further, there is a greater percentage of the population today that own guns than there was all the way up to the Civil War. The Civil War basically created the arms industry in America which made weapons much more available. This is not to say the weapons should be banned, but rather even the historical examples used are not that plain. While working in state parole, we were able to carry concealed weapons any time. Most agents carried while on the job. Some didn't even though they were spending their days visiting pure felons. It was rare, however, to speak to an agent that regularly carried off duty even though they could reasonably expect to bump into someone that they had personally arrested in the past. Most, if they would ever carry off duty, would do so only if they were going somewhere that they felt warranted it.
I tend to think that the professionals are usually pretty responsible. Hence, I would defer to the rangers on the parks issue. I did once however see a cop who, while warning a classroom of elementary school kids about gun safety, discharge his weapon by accident. He was obviously not a busnut.
Our forefathers are deeply ashamed of us!
There is a higher percentage of people that own guns today becuse the people of that era did not have the wealth to afford weapons.
They did not carry concealed weapons because most of the weapons of that era were impossible to conceal. Anyone that has ever been to a museum can understand that.
You are right historicle examples are not all that plain ;D ??? ;D
Quote from: Lin on July 25, 2008, 07:49:47 AM
By the way, for the history and constitutional buffs, I think that you will find that the country's founders and most colonials did not carry guns normally. I would think that concealed carry was very rare indeed.
Given that flintlock muzzle loaders weren't easy to carry concealed, probably right. But there also doesn't appear that there was any shortage of guns in colonial America. Based on the realities of the time and the strong independence of the founders, I suspect that if handguns would have been more practical at the time, they would have carried, concealed or openly.
1805 Harpers Ferry Flintlock Pistol
Quote from: kyle4501 on July 25, 2008, 06:34:56 AM
Me thinks you have missed the pro gut point entirely.
It is about PROPERLY TRAINED people carrying concealed weapons. I"m not endorsing "anyone" can carry, but I think that if you are a responsible member of society & have shown proficiency in firearms . . . .
BTW, when I was in college, the ones prone to drinking wouldn't dare waste any $$ on something you couldn't drink & the ones with hormones raging wouldn't dare waste any $$ on something you couldn't ****. :o
This runs contrary to my own personal experience. While in school, I had friends who were into guns on many different levels. Some guys were from rural parts of western Virginia and hunting was second nature to them. One guy with a particular interest in hand guns went on to a career with the FBI. One guy was purely a collector, and I never heard of him ever firing anything he owned. Let me assure you, none of them viewed the cost of gun ownership as having an impact on drinking or extra-curricular activities. (I'll spare you the colorful stories until another day.) :D
The PROPERLY TRAINED sounds good on paper, but I maintain serious doubts about how feasible this truely is. In college, just about everybody I knew was a licensed driver. Most had attended formal driver training programs, which included classroom instruction as well as behind-the-wheel training from a certified teacher. This was supplemented by additional one-on-one instruction, often by a parent or legal guardian. There was a mandatory waiting period from the time you started driving, until you could obtain a full driver's license. They were required to pass a written safety exam, and demonstrate proficiency at a state run testing facility. By every measure I can think of, these folks were PROPERLY TRAINED. Nevertheless, the bonehead things I saw some folks do would raise the hair on the back of your neck. Trained or not, poor judgement was frequently exercised. coupled with a healthy dose of sheer stupidity. I witnessed close calls, accidents, and people getting injured.
No, of course I am not saying pull the kids and their cars off the road. The need for personal transportation requires that we assume some of the risks of having young drivers. But as far as this same population carrying concealed hand guns in the classroom, you have a long way to go to convince me that their right to personal protection outweighs the inherent risks to the public.
Yesterday's news carried a story from a college campus in Phoenix. A student had been having run-ins with another guy on campus. He pulled out his gun and shot him. Two bystanders were also hit, and are in the hospital. Of course somebody is going to say: "If one of the bystanders had a gun of their own, maybe they could have shot back." Yep, that's the solution: More guns! Stop the insanity.
I would like to point out that I am the only one trying to keep this topic bus-related.
Quoteyou have a long way to go to convince me that their right to personal protection outweighs the inherent risks to the public
http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/224858 (http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/224858)
http://www.abc15.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=b619dc9c-6734-4215-8eb0-74aed1b316e5 (http://www.abc15.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=b619dc9c-6734-4215-8eb0-74aed1b316e5)
http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=60425&provider=rss (http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=60425&provider=rss)
Here are three news items from this month, there are many of similar events that happen daily but do not make the news. Explain your personal protection logic to them. Me, I'll stick with carrying my pistol wherever I go. Especially in my BUS travels.
Quote from: Lin on July 25, 2008, 08:47:58 AM
I would like to point out that I am the only one trying to keep this topic bus-related.
Absolutely right! But at least I did mention my GMC4104 and it's recent trip to Virginia Tech in one post!
Finally, let me say that I do respect the points made from the other perspective. The fact that we were each able to make our points for both views without it getting ugly or personal is a testimony to the character of the folks here. My apologies to those who tolerated our OT ramblings.
Now back to your regularly scheduled programming ......
Really this is an off topic, off topic post. It started about the possible change of regulations in the National Parks which, in some ways could even be on topic in our often nomadic community. That is a much easier example to deal with than gun control in general with its vast amount of nuances.
I was planning on not making a second reply on this thread,
It is too emotional for most people that either approve of personal protection or don't.
However, I have been in Ohio for the last 4 1/2 months, in that time I have seen news stories of "unruly" drunks being tazered to death by the police.. one was hit over 21 times, the investigation found the officers not at fault. In my mind, "investigation" by the same authorities that caused the problem in the first place is like having the coyote count the chickens in the hen house.
In the last 4 and 1/2 months, there is not a day that goes by without news on either the Dayton or the Cincinnati TV channels that doesn't list at least 2 and normally 4 or more shootings. ( a side point: both cities are claiming at least a 30% reduction in shootings in the last 12 months.).
I was brought up to believe in the police and their benevolence toward the public. I have even been a police officer and tried to live up to the standard I was taught. But I have also been slammed against the side of my car... after giving the officer my License, Registration and Insurance.. I was told at the time, "You look like someone I need to search".
What happened to probable cause?
I was also pulled out of my OTR semi 3 times, because I would not unlock my door and allow the officer to see if I had a seatbelt on.
I was also given a speeding ticket for 57mph in a 55 zone... in Ohio in the late 1980's. I don't dispute the ticket or the reason given... truck speedometers are set to a particular size of tire, I may have been going 57, who knows? What pisssssssssed me off was the ability of the officer to call in the drug dogs and search my truck for "probable Cause" Moooo Poopy.
All of this was while I sat in handcuffs in the back of a police car.
Yesterday's news carried a story from a college campus in Phoenix. A student had been having run-ins with another guy on campus. He pulled out his gun and shot him. Two bystanders were also hit, and are in the hospital. Of course somebody is going to say: "If one of the bystanders had a gun of their own, maybe they could have shot back." Yep, that's the solution: More guns! Stop the insanity.
I don't think the correct statement should be "If one of the bystanders had a gun of their own, maybe they could have shot back." Yep, that's the solution: More guns! Stop the insanity." It should focus more on the idiot that had no business in the first place owning a gun, or a slingshot or even a feather duster.
Obviously, this guy didn't have the first inkling of what the term "Gun Control" actually means.
The humorous answer to what gun control means is 12 rounds in a 1 1/2" circle at 30 meters.
the more real to life answer is knowing when deadly force is called for and using it efficiently. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to hit a bystander. I believe that if the guy that fired the gun had been trained, CORRECTLY, this wouldn't have happened.
I am a bit different,
I believe that each person is in charge of their own protection and survival, if they are not capable of that, natural selection will do the job one way or the other. There is nothing in the bill of human rights that says you have a right to be stupid, only that you have a right to compete with others of your species.
Sure, I would be royally pisssed if my son or daughter were to be killed by a random drive by, or eaten by a bear, or run over by a bus, or, or, or, or, or....
If you aren't smart enough to survive, you shouldn't survive. This has nothing to do with population density, it has to do the ability to survive. It has been shown that cultures that allow or require citizens to carry and use personal protection also have much more polite society. If you know that you could be called out for a duel due to your words, maybe you would think twice before using those words. When was the last time you made a hateful statement to the bank teller or the convenience store clerk or the guy down at the car wash.......would you make that same statement if you knew they were armed and willing to call you out on it?
On to Skip's post about bears, I have to agree,
I was a contractor in Yellowstone and in Teton National Park.
My job was to remove "Hazard" tree's so that campers would be safe from trees falling due to high wind or rot.
In the 2 years that I did that contract, I had to shoot four bears, (Hayden Valley), 1 was a Grizzley, who really looked like she was attacking the tree rather than me, at that time they didn't bother testing for rabies, Tuleremia or anything else, 3 bears were Browns who just had a bad attitude. I guess I looked tasty, dunno why, my wife tells me all the time that I'm a dredge on society.
My weapon of choice was a MK IV Ruger target pistol until it was broken, then I used a H&R .22 LR revolver... The point here is that I learned to hit what I was aiming at.
a .22 has taken more deer than any other caliber in the world. No matter what kind or caliber of gun you have, if you don't know how to use it, it's gonna be dangerous. Owning something as powerful and life altering as a gun can be requires that you have some basic training.
I got my learning in the beautiful forests of South Vietnam, I had previous schooling learning to hit what I aimed at... my step dad bought me a Sears single shot .22LR and that is what I killed my first deer and Elk with. There is a moment after you fire the weapon and you watch the live target go down, kicking, screaming and bellowing.. You understand about death.
Me, I live with some of the things I've done, some others I have dreams about.
Dallas
PROPERLY TRAINED means just what it says.
It is a sad thing when some think a bureaucratic gauntlet of paperwork is an acceptable substitute for proper training. :o
Also, suitable & appropriate consequences should await those who violate the intent of self preservation in an effort to conquer others for the purpose of pillaging.
As this pertains to buses,
I think we (including bus owners) should have a choice as to what we have at our disposal as a suitable means to protect ourselves.
The most effective tool being our brain & using it to avoid ending up in a position where more protection is required. But, being a good Boy Scout, I do like being prepared for the unexpected.
I also think there should at least be a proof of knowledge test before ANYONE is allowed to drive something 8' wide, 10'+ tall, & 30'+ long . . . .
But, then there is no cure for stupid. . . . ;D :P
Quote from: Dallas on July 25, 2008, 10:17:59 AM
There is a moment after you fire the weapon and you watch the live target go down, kicking, screaming and bellowing.. You understand about death.
Indeed, one of the most profound truths ever printed. A moment that those who have experienced it don't often talk about and those that haven't don't really know about.
Dallas,
Great post...really :)
KT,
I am with you on that. I do most certainly fear the police are a potentially greater threat. Additionally, having many friends that are cops and other types of law enforcement.....I would risk it all to come to their aid. Mostly, it isn't the ones I know or have known that give me great pause....mostly.
Thanks top all for enlightening and enlivening posts,
John
Thanks jjrbus,
I LMAO!
QuoteI did once however see a cop who, while warning a classroom of elementary school kids about gun safety, discharge his weapon by accident.
Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-Qdx6vky0
I wonder how many people who are anti gun, have been the victim of violent crime? Not the, my cousin was killed by a randomly fired bullet or my brother was killed by a criminal with a gun. But personally been the victim?