Once again, I'll ask you to read my posts before leaping to the offense and landing with your foot in your mouth... I said: "The majority of Americans support the current government enough to put them in power, where would be the benefit in shooting supporters?" Obviously this is true given that the current administration won by popular vote. eh? (still not sure why you end every sentence with this two-letter question...)
I stand corrected, I did put my foot in my mouth and misunderstand your comment. My apologies. I don't end EVERY sentence with eh and frankly its a first amendment right...eh
GOOD GOD your defending this, have you any sensibility? i haven't heard,about a plague of gangs of criminal gun wielding pregnant lady's, children and granny's on the street, now, so do we really have to worry about training our officers to gun down children, elderly, and pregnant lady's without hesitation? wonder if the downside to training police officers with these "no hesitation" targets might be, ohh i don't know, like maybe an inclination toward gunning down children, elderly, and pregnant lady's "without hesitation"..by accident? (and.... Vietnam was a war zone, and a soldier is not a police officer. are you saying that the police should start acting like soldiers, and treating america as a war zone?) and training a policeman shoot a target of a child, who looks as old as my 9 year old daughter, and calling it a "no hesitation target" is rather chilling to me, and not at all what i would call, effective police training. what if the child is holding a doll, or stick, or a toy gun, "no hesitation" right? what if the officer is responding to a call about an armed intruder, entering an elderly persons house, and that elderly person chased the intruder off with a gun, and thought the officer was the offender coming back, "no hesitation" right. and do i even want an officer on the street, who has been so desensitized, that he will "without hesitation" feel free to shoot a pregnant woman under any circumstances. this is just stupid! i'm not sure any legitimate self defense training school would ever use such a target. maybe its just stupidity on the part of a government agency, which is also a problem. since that government agency seems to be armed for war. bureaucratic arrogance, stupidity, and lots of guns are not in my mind a good combination. which evidently,in your mind means so deadening any sense of humanity in a policed officer, that like an automaton, they will "without hesitation", shoot down a little girl. do we want a police force like this on the streets of america? we have psychologists attached to police forces to handle just this sort of tragedy should it ever happen. i'm not sure desensitising our police professionals so they don't "care" if they shoot a child, mother, pregnant lady, or granny is good therapy at all. training them toward a tendency to do it by accident? even worse. maybe not, but, evidently this government may want to shoot the minority who do not support them, and has identified that minority as being. children, the elderly, moms, and pregnant mothers, and has instituted the means by which it can be done. this administration, and government owes you a debt of gratitude logician, evidently, there is no idiocy so ridiculous, or stupidity so obvious, as long as your government has proposed it you will defend to the end.
There is a difference between a fight and combat. In a fight, participants typically get superficial injuries and work out some aggression before going their seperate ways. In combat people die. As a proponent for enabling more fights to be escalated into combat, you should open your eyes to the side effects. Are you seriously saying that police responding to a school shooting should hesitate to fire on the shooter? Are you saying that a criminal who happens to be a pregnant woman shouldn't be fired on if pointing a weapon at the police? I've read a lot on these boards about guns being "the great equalizer" because they make a person who would otherwise be weak into a person who has a combat advantage (or at least equal footing). This is the result of that mentality. A child, pregnant woman or senior citizen can now be a real threat - and potentially an attacker. Police have to be psychologically prepared to deal with this cr@ppy situation, not just counseled after the fact. If they're not prepared, there may not be an "after" for them. Welcome to the world created by gun culture. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...k-to-rob-own-mother-of-diamond-ring-cops-say/
Will be going to a gun show this weekend hoping to come out with more 30 round magazines for my son and daughter. The culture of the family is wonderful in my world. With both my son and daughter exposure and training started early in life. The wife has 26 guns in her collection alone and throws hen parties twice a year with guns as the topic and then at about 1400 they head over to the gun show or range. I get pushed into the kitchen to cook food and grill for the hen party with other friends. I am a very lucky man indeed. Cant wait for the grandchildren......We are the gun culture.
Dear total stranger whose lifestyle I'm apparently supposed to be interested in for some reason, I don't see how this is relevent to any of the previous posts... but congratulations on your blissful existence.
not sure what the point of this blather is, poorly written, and doesn't make much sense cops don't have fist fights with perps, to settle points of the law then go there separate ways after working their mutual aggression. and law enforcement is not combat. proponent of what????? please don't put words in my keyboard, its bad debate style, and makes you look stupid, and again, law enforcement is not combat, police officers are not soldiers. and i think the reasonable people here know who is blind to side effects "wonder if the downside to training police officers with these "no hesitation" targets might be, ohh i don't know, like maybe an inclination toward gunning down children, elderly, and pregnant lady's "without hesitation"..by accident?" are you saying you would not have screamed bloody murder, if one of the targets, was a dashiki wearing gun wielding community collage liberal arts teacher?. "wonder if the downside to training police officers with these "no hesitation" targets might be, ohh i don't know, like maybe an inclination toward gunning down children, elderly, and pregnant lady's "without hesitation"..by accident?" umm and how long have guns been around now, and where are the hoards of gun wielding little girls, pregnant lady's, and elderly people? maybe a handful of cases, over the years. but haven't seen it much in the news about this, and i'm pretty sure "9 year old desperado, and pregnant mother in gun battle with old lady", would be a lead story; (and i repeat) "wonder if the downside to training police officers with these "no hesitation" targets might be, ohh i don't know, like maybe an inclination toward gunning down children, elderly, and pregnant lady's "without hesitation"..by accident?" umm, stun gun culture? (stupid, no where in the article does it say the lady had a gun. closest thing was her "accomplice" had a stun gun) and evidently, no shoot out when they arrested her a month later, no mention of her having a gun either. go figure. think this belongs on the stun gun control discussion. and before i forget, on unintended consequences. "wonder if the downside to training police officers with these "no hesitation" targets might be, ohh i don't know, like maybe an inclination toward gunning down children, elderly, and pregnant lady's "without hesitation"..by accident?" and yes, i know now that you are completely without sensibility
Speaking of "poorly written", your post is so disjointed as to be unintelligible. I'll try to address the "points" you raised, despite the lack of coherence: - As defined above, any conflict that results in one opponent taking intentional action to kill another in a physical conflict is "combat". The difference between a fight and combat is a function of lethality. - As you are a proponent of increasing the lethal force used by the average person. This obviously escalates "fights" into "combat" by ensuring there will be a greater number of conflicts resulting in lethal action. Not getting these basic concepts makes you sound stupid. - The idea that additional training will somehow create additional accidents is moronic. - The point of the link I provided was to illustrate that pregnant females can also be violent criminals that police may have to deal with. Overlooking this simple fact makes you look insensible. I don't know if I can make it any clearer; so if you still don't get it, you're either choosing to remain ignorant or it's not a choice...
What a crock.... Combat and fighting can carry exactly the same connotations, your on the edge of preposterous when you flirt with trivial definitions. You know as well as I combat operations can end peacefully and fighting can end up being deadly, is there some magic ball a person can use to tell what the outcome may be. Come on your better than that eh? As to your last statement you misinterpet...we don't choose to escalate anything, the badguy does the choosing....but thanks for trying to blame the people who just want to defend themselves. More information please any one who points a weapon at anyone else with a bad intent is asking to be fire upon eh? So what is your point. It is a fact that the gun makes the weak equal to the strong and the strong equal to the weak when they have a gun.....given your tear jerk circumstances (typical gun control diatribe) it makes no difference what the condition/age/sex/or race of the criminal is, their actions determine the outcome of the situation eh? Bull dookie once again, Cops and soldiers have PTSD for a reason....you just can't prepare for taking a life and no one is pretending it would be easy for anyone. I got a hint for you, many "citizens" prepare as well as any LEO or cop and my bet is they would be affected the same way, however if they are prepared when Joe bad guy comes knocking there actually would be an "after" for them. That's a good thing eh? Welcome to the world of victimization eh?
Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you'd only use your guns against a criminal if they were similarly armed... You need more information to determine whether police are justified in shooting someone who is killing kids in a school, but you want teachers to be armed for exactly that scenario? Seriously? Pointing a gun at police who are responding to a crime scene is a little different to pointing a gun at "anyone". There are very few circumstances that justify/require the use of force you are describing, and the police are the most likely to deal with them since that's what they do for a living. Basically, if everyone is equal when they carry a gun (which you outlined as a benefit previously), then they should be treated equally. You're making a hasty generalization here that cops and soldiers have PTSD... Some will, many don't. The way to minimize it is to prepare through training. Do you believe that you would instantly become a victim if the type of gun control I've discussed (ie: more training, more secure storage of weapons) was implemented? Most of the victims I see have been shot by criminals who had an easier time getting their hands on a gun in the US than they would have in any other comparable country.
You really like drama eh? You are gonna have to clarify what you mean by this statement and you might want to wait till you are sober before you explain it eh? Just as a primer though, there are two outcomes to a fight for your life, you win or you lose. You fight how you want, I fight to win. Hope that helps. Now I get where you are going.....your cryptic comments while intentionally vague tend toward the drama queen side of things so you will pardon my confusion, OK Yes I want teachers who are armed shooting at any bad person shooting at them, it works very well in non gun free zones. Why should schools be any different eh? I call it the 12 6 rule. Good gosh you do like to introduce drama eh, pointing a weapon as I said at someone who has bad intent is not the same as pointing a weapon at an LEO eh? Like other gun control persons you do like to focus in a narrow way. You and I disagree greatly given the crime statistics of the US that there are "few circumstances that justify/require the use of force you are describing" I think there many many reasons to justify using force in that manner. Finally as an ex LEO when the police get involved it is way more likely that they will deal with the situation AFTER the fact than while it is happening. Equally to what? You are making an intellectually dishonest discussion, like cops and soldiers citizens do train and do prepare and like cops they will have the same symptoms and require the same treatments. They are all the same and your attempt to divide them is the same MSM talking points as MSNBC, carry on soldier I believe the second amendment doesn't require the type of gun control you preach, I believe training and more secure weapons are a detriment to self defense of self and family to make gun control advocates feel better about themselves with no appreciable results and is a precurser to more control in the future. I believe it is a fact that armed citizens are able to defend themselves and the unarmed are not. I believe gun free zones invite the loons to partake and that gun intense zones repel the loons. I know that thise citizens who have guns in their possesion who are allowed to have them on themselves use them everyday to ward off the criminal element. That's what I know eh
You mentioned that you, as a gun owner, would not escalate a conflict to the point of lethality... Shooting someone without verifying if they are armed is escalating a conflict to the point of lethality. Are you really going to check to see if a criminal is armed before using a firearm to defend yourself? By the way, as I previously outlined, a "fight for your life" is combat as per the provided definition. Not every fight needs to be escalated into a "fight for your life". I'm not as old as some folks on here, but am old enough to remember when a fistfight was just a fistfight. Right, so teachers should be able to shoot kids performing school shootings, but police shouldn't. Nice. What I am trying to say (not sure why you REFUSE to understand) is this: Scenario 1: A gun owner hears a noise outside their house at night, investigates, and points a firearm at a random person that's looking around the area. Scenario 2: A gun owner hears a noise outside their house at night, investigates, and points a firearm at a cop that's looking around the area. I believe these two scenarios are completely different, and that pointing a gun at a cop (who is generally not a threat to the average law-abiding citizen) is different to pointing a gun at a random person (who you might have reason to suspect IS a threat). Wow... If all armed people are an equal threat, they need to be treated equally TO EACH OTHER. I understand that "intellectually dishonest" is your favorite buzzword, but it does not apply to any situation you happen to disagree with. Grow up. Having been enlisted, and having been a civilian, I guarantee you that the average civilian does NOT train the way warfighters are trained. Actually, SCOTUS has said in District of Columbia v Heller (2008 ) that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Feel free to educate yourself: http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/...judicial-power/district-of-columbia-v-heller/
Nice "nose-pick" argument but it is unrevealing. The argument you note was in the second paragraph of the decision supporting the Courts caveat; "The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms". The decision, while it had far reaching implications actually had a narrow scope addressed thus in the Courts decision. " The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster". The high courts first argument in it's decision is noteworthy here. "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home". Note that their example, "such as self-defense within the home" was just that, an example and not an indictment against concealed carry by lawful citizens. I would however agree with the courts argument, (you quoted above). There is no need for a citizen to carry a LAW rocket, RPG or automatic weapon for self defense, which should not be construed to mean there is no reason for a citizen to own and use automatic weapons. The only necessary restriction to owning "common types of firearms held by civilians" is in their criminal use and to that end punishments should be severe.
LOL While teaching a CCL class this weekend I got to listen to two women talking about the merits of a 15 roung magazine for a 9 mm, I thought that was very sexy
Your critical thinking skills do not impress. Let's go back to the OP. A typical situation, a 120 lb college girl is being threatened by a typical 170 lb male on campus. The male has twice the fighting strength of the female. Even in dim light, basic human survival instincts tell the female she is going to be raped. In other posts, you have formulated some rubbish about the attacker and victim needing to be "equally armed." If this female had a gun, would she be within her rights to shoot a violent, preditory rapist? What actions, based on your pseudo-legalistic knowledge, would the attacker have to take before the victim would be in "her right" to use defensive force? Perhaps you feel this kind of rape is no big deal, and might actually be "good" for the victim. Anyway, if convicted for this kind of violent rape, what punishment would you want for these rapists, if you made the laws?
Gentlemen, you are fighting in a burning house. You cannot reason with someone who would leave their wife and children to suffer the ravages of a felonious assault/rape rather than have a pistol at hand to dispatch the intruders. I'm quite sure that he believes that he can simply tell them that they are breaking the law and they will leave and mend their ways. I wish him good luck with that!
Au contraire, the notion that the police who are prohibited from doing anything until after a crime has been committed will adequately protect you is simple minded and frankly idiotic. Furthermore, you lend credence to the argument that making guns illegal will ensure that only criminals have guns with your comment abour rapists above.
Actions are not the sole determining factor, the level of the perceived threat is also a consideration. If a 170lb man was trying to rape a woman, no jury anywhere (except maybe a psychotic blue state) would convict her for shooting him. BTW, I wouldn't throw stones from that glass house trailer you are in if I were you, your critical thinking skills are poor.
