Heath Ledger dies at 28...

Any topic is game... you can discuss it here! Just keep it clean, OK?

Moderators: malletphreak, Hostrauser

Ryan H. Turner
Grand PooBah
Grand PooBah
Posts: 3160
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 4:24 pm
Location: Brea, California
Contact:

Post by Ryan H. Turner » Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:33 pm

Gonzofoto wrote:
IsnipeWithAknife wrote:... and hopefully as a society we can and should try to resolve conflicts through appropriate conflict-resolution techniques (and a properly functioning justice system), and not by the threat of immediate and instinctive on-the-spot retaliatory violence.
You can hope until you turn blue in the face brother, but as for me, well...my conflict resolution when faced with the possibility of me or my family dying because of someone ELSE with a gun will be based on MY gun being A WHOLE LOT BIGGER THAN THE OTHER GUY'S GUN. You see, when comments like this pop up, especially the milque toast "conflict resolution" type, I laugh myself silly. What would you expect to do when you're in a mall, say, in Minnesota and some guy decides it's time for you to die? Hmmmm??? Talk it out???? No...YOU KILL THE PERPETRATOR and keep him from killing others.

GUN CONTROL, in ANY form, will keep me, a person who is NOT "psychologically affected" by having a gun, from being able to protect myself, my family, and others. GUN CONTROL, in ANY form, is the next dangerous step down a road this country is ALREADY LONG DOWN. And personally, I would rather have the ability to say the Pledge of Allegiance without tacking on a "Ziech Heil" at the end of it, if you get my drift.

GUN CONTROL is dangerous. GUN CONTROL kills people.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go sit on my porch, tune up my banjo, and play some songs...

User avatar
Hostrauser
Support Staff
Support Staff
Posts: 7984
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 6:46 am
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Contact:

Post by Hostrauser » Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:52 pm

Ryan H. Turner wrote:What would you expect to do when you're in a mall, say, in Minnesota and some guy decides it's time for you to die? Hmmmm??? Talk it out???? No...YOU KILL THE PERPETRATOR and keep him from killing others.
Oh, it's that easy? Then how come that exact scenario doesn't happen more often?

Probably because you have to realize a crisis is going on, locate the source of the mayhem (not easy in a big place like a mall where loud sounds bounce and echo all over the place), draw your weapon, target the shooter and kill him. While you're doing all that, even if it only takes 5-10 seconds, he's already got his gun out and is already shooting. The odds are stacked against you.
Ryan H. Turner wrote:GUN CONTROL, in ANY form, is the next dangerous step down a road this country is ALREADY LONG DOWN. And personally, I would rather have the ability to say the Pledge of Allegiance without tacking on a "Ziech Heil" at the end of it, if you get my drift.
Not really. The Nazis did not institute gun control in Germany. The Weimar Republic instituted gun control to keep the Nazis from staging an armed coup of the government (they succeeded: the Nazis came to power due to Hitler's silken tongue more than any other reason). The Nazis merely extended the law once they came to power and had all the guns.
Ryan H. Turner wrote:GUN CONTROL is dangerous. GUN CONTROL kills people.
The Brits (indeed, most of Europe) would disagree.

But you continue on with your Rambo and Die Hard fantasies. That illusion that as long as you have a gun, you're safe. It's seductive because no one likes to feel powerless in a situation, but that doesn't make it true.

And this is long overdue, but:
:ot:

User avatar
Ex Nihilo
Drum Major
Drum Major
Posts: 1820
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:12 am

Post by Ex Nihilo » Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:53 pm

guns kill people like spoons eat cereal.


end of discussion.

User avatar
The Aceman
Support Staff
Support Staff
Posts: 3599
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 12:58 pm
Location: Escondido, Ca
Contact:

Post by The Aceman » Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:02 am

If guns kill people I can blame misspelled words on my pencil.
Go read "Ishmael" a novel by Daniel Quinn. It will literally change your life.
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
Image

User avatar
LoyalTubist
Section Leader
Section Leader
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:11 am
Location: Needles, California
Contact:

Post by LoyalTubist » Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:04 am

Let's get back on the topic:

It's extremely sad when anyone dies. Even though it's only the third week of January, we've had several famous people die in 2008.

Forget the arguments... A great talent died at the tender age of 28... Maybe he wasn't my favorite actor, but the guy had talent... Many of his works in process haven't even been released yet...

Don't forget about Chris Bowman, Brad Renfro, Suzanne Pleshette, Allan Melvin, Sir Edmund Hillary, and Bobby Fischer...

I am mourning them all...

:(

User avatar
IsnipeWithAknife
Drum Major
Drum Major
Posts: 2858
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 1:38 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by IsnipeWithAknife » Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:57 am

http://www.deadoraliveinfo.com/dead.nsf ... tsixmonths
famous people who have died in the past 6 months
Hostrauser wrote:
Ryan H. Turner wrote:What would you expect to do when you're in a mall, say, in Minnesota and some guy decides it's time for you to die? Hmmmm??? Talk it out???? No...YOU KILL THE PERPETRATOR and keep him from killing others.
Oh, it's that easy? Then how come that exact scenario doesn't happen more often?
It does but the media doesnt report it. The media makes all the sheep believe that its the guns fault but in reality its just an inanimate object! Like I've been saying, if Heath Ledger shot himself the media would portray it as preventable.

There is a reason why 39 states offer concealed carry permits. In Florida, which first introduced "shall-issue" concealed carry laws, crimes committed against residents dropped markedly upon the general issuance of concealed-carry licenses, which had the unintended consequence of putting tourists in Florida driving marked rental cars at risk from criminals (since tourists may be readily presumed unarmed.) Florida responded by enacting laws prohibiting the obvious marking of rental cars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre

On October 16, 1991, Hennard drove his 1987 Ford Ranger pickup truck through the front window of a Luby's Cafeteria at 1705 East Central Texas Expressway in Killeen, yelled "This is what Bell County has done to me!", then opened fire on the restaurant's patrons and staff with a Glock 17 pistol and later a Ruger P89. About 80 people were in the restaurant at the time. He stalked, shot, and killed 23 people and wounded another 20 before committing suicide. During the shooting, he approached Suzanna Gratia Hupp and her parents. Hupp had actually brought a handgun to the Luby's Cafeteria that day, but had left it in her vehicle due to the laws in force at the time, forbidding citizens from carrying firearms. According to her later testimony in favor of Missouri's HB-1720 bill[1] and in general [2][3], after she realized that her firearm was not in her purse, but "a hundred feet away in [her] car", her father charged at Hennard in an attempt to subdue him, only to be gunned down; a short time later, her mother was also shot and killed. (Hupp later expressed regret for abiding by the law in question by leaving her firearm in her car, rather than keeping it on her person[4].)

Hupp could have saved her parents and she definitely had the time to react. I'd rather have the chance to defend myself than wait 20 minutes for the cops to save me.
Hostrauser wrote:
Ryan H. Turner wrote:GUN CONTROL is dangerous. GUN CONTROL kills people.
The Brits (indeed, most of Europe) would disagree.
[/quote]

thats why england has a higher crime rate than the US! They were even thinking of banning certain kitchen knives. Assuming they could actually stop criminals from getting guns, it still doesn't stop them from committing crimes with other weapons. Only homicides are higher in the US than in the UK mainly because US residents believe they have a right to defend themselves so they try and that the UK reports homicides only as murders while the US reports homicides as anybody that have been killed whether it be suicide or accidental.
WHS '05, UCSB '10
WOP OT Round 1 Picture Battle Champion!
WOP OT Mafia Game II: First ever mafia champions
http://officeofstrategicinfluence.com/spam/

Ryan H. Turner
Grand PooBah
Grand PooBah
Posts: 3160
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 4:24 pm
Location: Brea, California
Contact:

Post by Ryan H. Turner » Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:45 pm

Very nice Knife...appreciate your post. Look, the bottom line is this. Gun control in any form, like I said before, is a flawed concept. There is no guarantee that a bad guy will "follow the law" and NOT have a gun if they are not allowed, whereas I, a law-abiding citizen and speaking for myself, WILL follow the law. So therefore, it's rather logical. I'm going to protect myself against said bad guy. I'm not going to talk to him. I'm not going to negotiate with him. When the rubber meets the road, and my or my family's life is in peril, I WILL win. And by the way Hostrauser, it's not whether or not you THINK I'm trained in how to use a firearm--definitely not an argument against me having a gun to protect myself in the first place. Since I AM a law-abiding citizen, and since I DO want to protect myself, and, thank goodness I still have that right to bear arms and the government doesn't need to stick it's big fat nose in MY business, I'm more inclined to take the necessary classes in gun safety, maintenance, usage, and the proper way to drop a bad guy with one shot.

It's a real simple equation. ME vs. BAD GUY...I win. Period.

What's the problem out there and what I totally get riled up about is that I am expected to "give up my right" to protect myself, because handwringers want to CONTROL me and how I live my life, all in the name of "gun control". No, how about BAD GUY CONTROL?? How about that? We don't talk about that, do we? No we look at the evil instrument of destruction and the sheeple (great term by the way Knife) who don't know how to think for themselves cowtow to the big scary image of a gun.

There's gun safety, there's respect for a gun, there's righteous use of a gun. I'll be in that department, and I would thank those of you that think I don't have that right to please practice your choice of not having firearms in your own lives and leave MY life alone. And...

...don't worry. You can hide behind me the next time we have a mass shooting and I'm protecting you.

Bad guys are bad for a reason. They are the ones that need to be controlled...NOT ME. And not MY guns.

User avatar
Gonzofoto
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:50 pm

Post by Gonzofoto » Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:41 pm

Ryan H. Turner wrote: You can hope until you turn blue in the face brother, but as for me, well...my conflict resolution when faced with the possibility of me or my family dying because of someone ELSE with a gun will be based on MY gun being A WHOLE LOT BIGGER THAN THE OTHER GUY'S GUN. You see, when comments like this pop up, especially the milque toast "conflict resolution" type, I laugh myself silly. What would you expect to do when you're in a mall, say, in Minnesota and some guy decides it's time for you to die? Hmmmm??? Talk it out???? No...YOU KILL THE PERPETRATOR and keep him from killing others.

GUN CONTROL, in ANY form, will keep me, a person who is NOT "psychologically affected" by having a gun, from being able to protect myself, my family, and others. GUN CONTROL, in ANY form, is the next dangerous step down a road this country is ALREADY LONG DOWN. And personally, I would rather have the ability to say the Pledge of Allegiance without tacking on a "Ziech Heil" at the end of it, if you get my drift.

GUN CONTROL is dangerous. GUN CONTROL kills people.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go sit on my porch, tune up my banjo, and play some songs...
It’s not a matter of pie in the sky, utopian wishful thinking on the part of "handwringers", but of trying to be practical in trying to insure that episodes of confrontation don’t escalate into acts of extreme violence. It might be very well to focus on episodes of mass shootings, in which people are attacked randomly, but despite the sensational and sustained coverage on television that each of these episodes receives, that doesn’t change the fact that they are extreme cases, not everyday occurrences. You are arguing from fear in advocating the most extreme response, an act which many of our politicians are extremely adept at doing as well, and I don’t buy your argument that if we were all armed to the teeth, these episodes would somehow diminish (they are already rare) or be any less deadly than they are.

Yes, we all want to feel safe, but chances are carrying around a gun (or bazooka or AK-47 or missile launcher or whatever you feel the need to acquire in the arms race you seem to be advocating) is not going to resolve the situation, and instead I would be tempted to suggest that it would contribute to a gunslinger mentality which will put everyone else at risk, innocent bystanders as well as aggressors, protestations of being a “good guy” to the contrary. Or, fallible human nature being what it is, are you saying that you can trust yourself in any and every situation which presents itself? With all your practice sessions, your gun safety classes and your knowledge of firearms and your attendance at church services, are you going to be the one perfect human being who will be able to shoot straight or restrain yourself in episodes of extreme emotional duress? I’m human, and I do the best that I can, but because I am human, I know that I have made mistakes and will do so in the future as well.

And lastly, I appreciate the emotion of your posting, but you have to take a step back. You don’t prove your point with slogans, and you discredit your argument with invective, which reveals a strong and unrestrained emotional response which is not subject to reason. Please leave the diatribes for Talk Radio. And please, life isn’t a Western, so enough of this crap about “Good Guys” and “Bad Guys”, or always invoking Hitler’s Germany, regardless of whether the circumstances are applicable or not. To argue from extreme cases (the rare mass shootings), to disregard the safety record of other countries which do have gun control, and to fail to consider the ramifications of advocating a universally armed populace with the hope that this will minimize rather than escalate confrontation is to ignore the bigger picture.

What I am wondering is, who will protect me from you when you are having a bad day? How do I know that you will always be “not psychologically affected”? By trusting you, because you say so and wear a proverbial white hat? Your boss yells at you at work, someone cuts you off in traffic, someone swears at you, some Hispanic kids are standing next to your car (they could be my kids), you feel threatened and you immediately reach for your gun? You applaud the neologism "sheeple" (yes, I realize that some find it fun to insult others) but in the next instance you morph back into the respectable, regular “you”, the one who only wants to protect his family and livelihood? Well, my and my families’ lives and security and happiness are the most important things to me, and of course I know that verbal taunts are not the same as homicidal tendencies, yet I still am also aware that aggression is one of our deepest instincts, and I don’t want expanded gun availability.

Enough of this, I agree with Loyal Tubist and Hostrauser, we are Off Topic, so let’s turn to other subjects.

Ryan H. Turner
Grand PooBah
Grand PooBah
Posts: 3160
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 4:24 pm
Location: Brea, California
Contact:

Post by Ryan H. Turner » Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:20 am

When you can promise me that the "bad guys" will NOT have guns, you can take mine. That's it.

User avatar
Gonzofoto
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:50 pm

Post by Gonzofoto » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:20 pm

Ryan H. Turner wrote:When you can promise me that the "bad guys" will NOT have guns, you can take mine. That's it.
Who are the "Bad Guys"? Until they start firing away (i.e. by their actions), I don't know who they are.

I can take a punch, also deflect and return one, but I can't take a bullet. Thus, I don't want guns in my classrooms, malls, places of civic gathering, etc. No one is saying anything about taking the one you have at home.

That's it.

User avatar
The Aceman
Support Staff
Support Staff
Posts: 3599
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 12:58 pm
Location: Escondido, Ca
Contact:

Post by The Aceman » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:23 pm

Gonzofoto wrote:No one is saying anything about taking the one you have at home.
YOU may not be saying that, unfortunately a lot of people are, and it's ridiculous, what I still don't understand is how you intend to keep the guns out of CRIMINAL hands in public places. Isn't it better for non-criminals to have at least some chance of taking out a criminal who is opening fire or attempting to hold hostages? Until you can show me a fail-safe way to keep guns out of both Criminal and Civilian hands, I won't support it, and I can see no feasible way of doing that.
Go read "Ishmael" a novel by Daniel Quinn. It will literally change your life.
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
Image

Ryan H. Turner
Grand PooBah
Grand PooBah
Posts: 3160
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 4:24 pm
Location: Brea, California
Contact:

Post by Ryan H. Turner » Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:22 pm

What Gonzo doesn't seem to understand is that the slippery slope exists BIG time in this "gun control" argument. Right now in California, in order for me to get a shotgun, I have to take a Hunter/Safety Course which I believe is 8hrs. In order for me to get a handgun, I have to submit to a 21 day "waiting" period for a background check (which costs me $30 some odd bucks), plus I have to pass a written test, sort of like DMV for driving. If "gun control" proponents wanted to end it there, that's fine. But that's NOT where they want to end it. And that's where my feet get dug into the ground REALLY deep. After the restrictions and rules and fees I have to pay in order for me to practice my Constitutional right to bear arms, they STILL want more.

"Gun control" in any other fashion than what's out there IS wanting to take away what's in my house. And what's worse, they want gun owners to be marginalized (just like Gonzo did to me by the way), calling my arguments diatribes that should be saved for "talk radio", and that I'm "overly emotional", and hey, what's worse, I'm a human being and how can I be trusted with a gun anyway and from turning into a bad guy. They want people like me that start to squawk like I am to be likened to not-so-intelligent "Die Hard" fans who would be thought of as crazed vigilantes. Nothing could be further from the truth, however.

So...fine. You don't want me armed walking around the streets of southern Cal. A gun totin' microphone handling marching band enthusiast. Great. I don't. And I won't. But that's not what I'm asking for (even though I used the Minnesota mall shooting as but just ONE example where an armed populace WOULD have ended the bad guy's rampage...or heck...even deterred in the first place). What I AM trying to get across is that there ARE bad people, and a protected populace is an ARMED populace that can, will, and SHOULD protect their families. And I don't want anyone telling me I can't. Gun control has taken away the dreaded assault weapons (at least by law--the same law the bad guys don't care about and look at that--still arm themselves with illegal assault weapons), created 21 day background checks, tests, and mandatory courses that have to be taken including gun registration (another law not followed at all by the bad guys...but we good guys DO follow)...but gun control proponents want NO GUNS...period. I know this is true...I know the agenda. And since that slope is pretty slippery now, unfortunately (or fortunately), this particular gun owner has his anti-slip boots on (lame analogy but I'm pretty tired and well...it's the best I could do).

I talked with a fellow gun owner today at lunch, asking him about what he has, and without mentioning this thread, talked about gun control. I'm FAR more eloquent in my delivery of my distaste for this topic than what I was met with this afternoon--I'll just say that.

Yeah...I'm emotional...but gun control is but one "prong" of a multi-prong attack against the fabric of the Constitution, against the rights of me and my fellow Americans, and I'm sorry to say, won't be the last. It's nothing personal but gun control folks need to be worried about society that's crumbling around them, and wonder what you're going to do when times come and you wished you had something to protect yourself with, but "gun control" turned into "gun banning", and since you were a good guy and followed the law....or worse, you just thought guns were yucky and didn't want to deal with them (your right of course which I support)...well...there you go...see what I'm saying?

User avatar
Gonzofoto
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:50 pm

Post by Gonzofoto » Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:50 pm

Enough, let's give this discussion a rest.

User avatar
IsnipeWithAknife
Drum Major
Drum Major
Posts: 2858
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 1:38 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by IsnipeWithAknife » Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:08 pm

yeah you guys have been ignoring me anyway (gun free zones, 39 states CCW)
WHS '05, UCSB '10
WOP OT Round 1 Picture Battle Champion!
WOP OT Mafia Game II: First ever mafia champions
http://officeofstrategicinfluence.com/spam/

User avatar
Hostrauser
Support Staff
Support Staff
Posts: 7984
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 6:46 am
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Contact:

Post by Hostrauser » Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:16 pm

Ryan H. Turner wrote:Very nice Knife...appreciate your post. Look, the bottom line is this. Gun control in any form, like I said before, is a flawed concept. There is no guarantee that a bad guy will "follow the law" and NOT have a gun if they are not allowed, whereas I, a law-abiding citizen and speaking for myself, WILL follow the law. So therefore, it's rather logical. I'm going to protect myself against said bad guy. I'm not going to talk to him. I'm not going to negotiate with him. When the rubber meets the road, and my or my family's life is in peril, I WILL win. And by the way Hostrauser, it's not whether or not you THINK I'm trained in how to use a firearm--definitely not an argument against me having a gun to protect myself in the first place. Since I AM a law-abiding citizen, and since I DO want to protect myself, and, thank goodness I still have that right to bear arms and the government doesn't need to stick it's big fat nose in MY business, I'm more inclined to take the necessary classes in gun safety, maintenance, usage, and the proper way to drop a bad guy with one shot.

It's a real simple equation. ME vs. BAD GUY...I win. Period.
I don't care if you're ex-special forces and trained in every firearm known to man: it's still a shullbit argument IMO. I only wish I could be as lucky as you to live in this universe where the good guy is always prepared and always triumphs over the bad guy; this universe where "there is no guarantee that a bad guy will follow the law," but yet the bad guy always "fights honorably" and never shoots you and your family in the back or while you sleep.

Talk about your flawed concepts. :roll:

Look, I realize that gun control is part of an idealized view of how the world could/should be and has little feasibility for implementation based on the strong history of gun ownership in the U.S. But that doesn't make the pro-gun arguments automatically correct by default. I personally have found every pro-gun argument that I've heard to be logically specious and/or unrealistic, and therefore am not convinced that the "right to bear arms" needs to be an inviolate right in our Constitution.

As for Knife: the 19th Century American frontier featured no "gun free zones" and tons of concealed weapons; it is not a place in history generally considered "safe." You argue that fewer "gun free zones" and a more heavily armed populace will lead to more law and order, but almost all historical evidence points against that.

Post Reply