Luv2Fall 0
Recommended Posts
QuoteQuotesounds like a great big bunch of bullshit
No, all those factors do seem to play a part in /some/ people's desire to own guns, BUT she forgot one other vary important thing. We humans seem to have an inborn instinct to collect things, So with this urge, you can have a person who is by the current definition perfectly adjusted, and who just chose guns as their choice of collector's item.
-Blind
The husband of that woman who wrote to Dr. Brothers should ask his wife how many pairs of fuckin' SHOES she has, and why she needs so goddamned many. Perhaps when she was a child she was forced to walk barefoot across a hot asphalt parking lot strewn with thumbtacks?
That Brothers is a moron if that's the "reasoning" behind gun ownership that she comes up with. I have neither an inferiority complex nor was I bullied nor am I inadequate in the male-sexuality department (except maybe for frequency
). I own guns for protection, for defense against tyranny, and because the things are so damned cool -- works of engineering and art that are very nearly incomparable. If this husband were really owning guns because of some mental complex, and needed to fend off those "bullied" feelings, that would not explain the drive to have many guns. All you can even hold and use at a given time is two, after all. Anti-gun people often have mindlessly simplistic views on guns, gun ownership and gun owners. This comes as no surprise to me.
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
QuoteQuoteThis one goes into my category of who give a shit.
blues
jerry
That was constructive!
-
Jim
It's becoming clear to me that b1jercat simply likes to pop his head into gun-related threads to simply alert us all that he cares enough to tell us he doesn't care.
b1jercat, why the fuck do you even come in and post, if you truly care so little about these topics? Do you post in EVERY thread, informing us of either your intense concern with the subject, or, "This one goes into my category of who give a shit."? I mean, tell me you don't single out the gun threads to tell us that it's not worth giving a shit...
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
QuoteWith the number of gun posts you provide on a skydiving sight you might want to rethink your priorities, or look at what the good Dr. is saying.
To suggest that there is anything of substance worth considering in what Dr. Brothers said is the height of inanity. It was a puerile, simplistic, irrational and invalid analysis of the woman's husband's "problem."
The woman probably has, in pairs of shoes, double the number guns her husband has, but he's not writing to Dr. Brothers out of concern that she owns too many shoes and may be compensating for having too loose a vagina.
Once again someone attempts to demonstrate (unsuccessfully) that John's penchant for posting about guns in the part of the site specifically NOT reserved for skydiving discussion is somehow abnormal. Have you seen the number of idiotic postings about things like "boobies" or "kittens" or drunkenness? What makes you think that because John posts non-skydiving material in the non-skydiving material section of the website that there's a big story there??
I thought it funny that John was called hypocritical for pointing out that b1jercat has made a habit recently of popping into the gun threads simply to make sure we know he doesn't care about the gun threads. How did sarcastically thanking b1jercat for his input make John a hypocrite, Quade?
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
What other means of defense do you have?Quote
1) My Brain to scope out the situation before I get out of the car.
2) 2 Dogs total weight 200#'s that are with us most of the time, including bed.
3) Wife carries pepper spray
4) Run like hell
I prefer not to have the police or courts second guessing me if I shoot someone. Excessive force, etc.
If I win in court my lawyer wins if I lose in court my lawyer wins.
I'm guessing if there's a total breakdown of law and order there will be a gradual escalation of violence which will give us time to get our toys ready to protect our property from the bad people.
R.I.P.
I always get a kick out of people who think their dog is going to be the weapon they use defensively against an attacker, or more specifically that the dog will somehow swoop in just between the time when a response with deadly physical force would be justified against an attacker, and when that attacker has already done his damage. What makes you think that if you sicced your dogs on someone at the same time you would otherwise have shot him, that you won't answer for that legally (with the help of your apparently apathetic lawyer)?
And I wonder if you mean a situation like in Los Angeles during the 1991 riots, when people who decided they needed a gun for protection went to the shops to find out that even honest, law-abiding citizens would have to wait FIFTEEN DAYS for purchase. Because if the truth be told, that was not nearly "a total breakdown of law and order," and clearly people who needed guns were not able to obtain them, and would have been pretty screwed, had things really gone utterly to shit.
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
QuoteI always get a kick out of people who think their dog is going to be the weapon they use defensively against an attacker
Dogs are more of a deterrent than anything to an attacker. If they want to damage you, they will, but then they'll have to deal with a pissed off canine afterwards.
JVig 0
Brilliant!! especially the shoe point!!!
--------------------------------------------------
Just remember.....if the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off.
--------------------------------------------------
Just remember.....if the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off.
slug 1
Hi Jeff
Thanks for yor comments, I'll try and respond but you'll have to excuse the spelling or I'll sic my dogs on you
>>I always get a kick out of people who think their dog is going to be the weapon they use defensively against an attacker, or more specifically that the dog will somehow swoop in just between the time when a response with deadly physical force would be justified against an attacker, and when that attacker has already done his damage. What makes you think that if you sicced your dogs on someone at the same time you would otherwise have shot him, that you won't answer for that legally (with the help of your apparently apathetic lawyer)?>>
I've had my dogs for 10 years so we're really good friends and we spoil them rotten and you've never met them personally so your statement may be correct in general terms but not in this case.
We would never "sic" our dogs on anyone, and never intend to. As soon as someone hears 200#'s of barking dogs (we live in the country) or when we go into the city and people see them they decide to go somewhere else. Of course if the bad people are bad enough they will kill the dogs first, I don't have anything that valuable.
Your statement about dogs may be valid in general terms but not in my case. They are a early warning system and a deterent. If you know anyone in special ops or the police dept ask them about dogs.
In our house our dogs have more right's to protect their territory than we do. Don't need a lawyer.
>>And I wonder if you mean a situation like in Los Angeles during the 1991 riots, when people who decided they needed a gun for protection went to the shops to find out that even honest, law-abiding citizens would have to wait FIFTEEN DAYS for purchase. Because if the truth be told, that was not nearly "a total breakdown of law and order," and clearly people who needed guns were not able to obtain them, and would have been pretty screwed, had things really gone utterly to shit.
>> Thanks for yor comments, I'll try and respond but you'll have to excuse the spelling or I'll sic my dogs on you
>>I always get a kick out of people who think their dog is going to be the weapon they use defensively against an attacker, or more specifically that the dog will somehow swoop in just between the time when a response with deadly physical force would be justified against an attacker, and when that attacker has already done his damage. What makes you think that if you sicced your dogs on someone at the same time you would otherwise have shot him, that you won't answer for that legally (with the help of your apparently apathetic lawyer)?>>
I've had my dogs for 10 years so we're really good friends and we spoil them rotten and you've never met them personally so your statement may be correct in general terms but not in this case.
We would never "sic" our dogs on anyone, and never intend to. As soon as someone hears 200#'s of barking dogs (we live in the country) or when we go into the city and people see them they decide to go somewhere else. Of course if the bad people are bad enough they will kill the dogs first, I don't have anything that valuable.
Your statement about dogs may be valid in general terms but not in my case. They are a early warning system and a deterent. If you know anyone in special ops or the police dept ask them about dogs.
In our house our dogs have more right's to protect their territory than we do. Don't need a lawyer.
>>And I wonder if you mean a situation like in Los Angeles during the 1991 riots, when people who decided they needed a gun for protection went to the shops to find out that even honest, law-abiding citizens would have to wait FIFTEEN DAYS for purchase. Because if the truth be told, that was not nearly "a total breakdown of law and order," and clearly people who needed guns were not able to obtain them, and would have been pretty screwed, had things really gone utterly to shit.
The fifteen day waiting period doesn't appy to us. Learned that in the boy scouts, same with food and water
We don't need to live in a fort with a loaded gun in every room, car etc. But if the "big one" (Earthquake shortage of food and water) hits we can do that witout having to go to the store. Shame private ownership of RPG's aren't legal in this country.
But there's very few limits on the number of legal guns you can own. Or amount of ammo you can stockpile. ( NFPA, ask the fire marshal) I hope my earlier response makes a little more sense to you now. And no I'm not going to share get your own.
[email]
R.I.P.
QuoteFrom the Seattle Post, Dr. Joyce Brothers:
Owning guns helps erase feelings of inferiority
DEAR DR. BROTHERS:
"My husband and I live in a gated community that could hardly be safer. This choice of a place to live was mine, incidentally, not his. We both work at jobs in a nearby city, and we're not threatened in any unusual way. Our offices are pleasant and in good areas. What I'm trying to figure out is why my husband needs so many guns. He's an old Army guy, but none of his friends seems to have this particular fascination with guns, so I don't think that explains it. I bring this up now because he told me recently that he found two more he's going to buy from yet another gun dealer. They're not cheap, and we could use that money to clean up some of our bills." -- E.C.
DEAR E.C.:
"Gun ownership is extremely important to some people, and often they're not aware of why. To most, the gun means added power, something that erases all feelings of inferiority, weakness, vulnerability and impotence. It's not irrelevant that guns, in themselves, are so frequently linked to sexuality and the male sex organ. Think of the many slang terms common to both sex and guns, and the relationship becomes obvious. Guns have been accurately called 'the great equalizer.'
"Some of this exaggerated need for protection -- and fear of what might happen were they not to have this -- might have been carried over from experiences in early childhood, at a time when they truly were weak, small and vulnerable to attack. If a boy were abused or brutalized in his youth by bullies or by bullying parents, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that he might still bear feelings of anger and resentment and a desire for an assurance that no one could ever humiliate or hurt him again."* * *
Seattle Post
What about female gun owners? Do they have little dicks too?
never pull low......unless you are
QuoteWith the number of gun posts you provide on a skydiving sight you might want to rethink your priorities, or look at what the good Dr. is saying.
I enjoy John's posts. Apparently you do too, or you'd be elsewhere.
never pull low......unless you are
JohnRich 4
What other means of defense do you have?Quote
1) My Brain...
2) 2 Dogs...
3) Wife carries pepper spray
4) Run like hell
I'm guessing if there's a total breakdown of law and order there will be a gradual escalation of violence which will give us time to get our toys ready to protect our property from the bad people.
If there's a total breakdown, it might be too late to purchase a gun. In the Los Angeles riots a few years ago, for example, people were flocking to gun stores, only to be told they had to wait three days according to state law. Suddenly some formerly anti-gun pro-waiting-period people were transformed into pro-gun anti-waiting-period people.
A gun is the most effective means of self defense.
Attack and Injury Rates in Robbery and Assault Incidents:
Robbery Assault
Physical force ............................ 51% 52%
Tried to get help or frighten attacker .... 49% 40%
Knife ..................................... 40% 30%
Non-violent resistance/evasion ............ 35% 26%
Threatened or reasoned with attacker ...... 31% 25%
Other measures ............................ 27% 21%
No self protection ........................ 25% 27%
Other weapon .............................. 22% 25%
Gun ....................................... 17% 12%
From: Kleck G, "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America", Table 4.4.
Source: Analysis of incident files of 1979-1985 National Crime Survey public use computer tapes (ICPSR,1987b).
Note: Percentages do not total to 100% since any single criminal
incident can involve several different types of self-protection methods.
Do you see where "gun" is on that list?
Shit no witnesses. 
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites