tsisson 0 #76 January 22, 2010 QuoteI would prefer not to be there when the bad stuff happened. "Skilled intelligence agents use their combat training to get out of shitty situation alive, while wise intelligence agents use their brain to not get into such situations where they would have to show their skills" was the favorite quote of my Sgt. I don't see how this is relevant to anything that we've been discussing. I'm not talking about living my life as a skilled intelligence agent - having to extract myself from situations or taking constant vigilance to ensure I'm not finding myself in a secret agent standoff. I'm talking about defending my life should I need to - if by some chance I find myself in a predicament like the poor folks at Brown's... I didn't realize that a local Brown's Chicken is a high risk environment that one should never go near. Let's look at some other high risk environments: Denny's The Olive Garden Your local Radio Shack Dog Parks Any bank Commuter Train Stations All of Northern Arizona backcountry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #77 January 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteTo make it really workable (and address your "robber" concern), I suppose you'd have to screen everyone at the door. Exactly...and this doesn't happen. So the sign is useless. If I'm a bad guy and want to rob a store - the first place I'm going is somewhere that has one of those silly "No Guns Allowed" signs posted out front. Then, when I yell "EVERYONE GET DOWN!!!!", I can be more confident that no one is going to stand up for themselves and point the business end of a .45 at me. Presumably, if the sign is useless, and everyone ignores it, and people aren't checked at the door, and you go ahead and do that, you'll be thwarted by the other citizens who chose to ignore the warning. Unless you want to parse this hypothetical to the "nth" degree until we're no longer really discussing the subject, but arguing over how many angels will fit on the head of a pin.* (*It's 849.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #78 January 23, 2010 QuotePresumably, if the sign is useless, and everyone ignores it, and people aren't checked at the door, and you go ahead and do that, you'll be thwarted by the other citizens who chose to ignore the warning. Unless you want to parse this hypothetical to the "nth" degree until we're no longer really discussing the subject, but arguing over how many angels will fit on the head of a pin.* (*It's 849.) The criminals ignore it because they have nothing to lose - they're going to get arrested regardless if they're caught. The concealed carry holders *will* (in the overwhelming majority of cases) obey the sign because of the penalties involved in unlawful carry.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #79 January 23, 2010 Quote Sure, it could be amended in the future. However, have you seen anyone even attempt to do so? There is indeed some discussion about it. Just type "repeal 2nd amendment" in Google, and you will find a lot of articles about it. You might also find that a lot of those articles are pretty recent. If the number of such stupid shooting sprees increases dramatically, I wouldn't be surprised to have it happened quite fast - as it happened with 18th. Quote The best they can do these days is pretend to support gun rights and hunting, while trying to put up as many barriers as possible. This is good enough for me. As you know, guns are not banned completely in Europe as well - some people (not everyone) can still get some guns (limited selection and limited ammo) with some restrictions on storage, transporting, transfer and so on. So if we add enough barriers, it will be good enough even without repealing the 2nd.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #80 January 23, 2010 Quote Wrong. Read Heller. Someone trying to bring a case to the SC on 'militia' grounds would find it very hard to gain cert. That's what I'm talking about. Heller was decided 5/4 - not a major victory by any standards, and after the next neo-con Justice is replaced by a liberal, I wouldn't expect the next time it to be decided 5/4 but the opposite way. Quote Sure - but don't hold your breath waiting on it to happen. Why not? A lot of things changed which were considered absolutely impossible just fifty years ago. Quote And I'm *sure* you'll provide the data showing no drug confiscations or drug crimes in Singapore, since "their ban works"....right? Even if I did, such data would be useless to prove that the "ban works". If the data shows that there are little drug confiscations, you'd claim that "the ban does not work because nobody really cares about drugs". If the data shows there is a lot of drug confiscations, you'd claim that "despite the ban, they still have all those drugs!"* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #81 January 23, 2010 Quote Exactly...and this doesn't happen. So the sign is useless. If I'm a bad guy and want to rob a store - the first place I'm going is somewhere that has one of those silly "No Guns Allowed" signs posted out front. Then, when I yell "EVERYONE GET DOWN!!!!", I can be more confident that no one is going to stand up for themselves and point the business end of a .45 at me. If this was even remotely true, no gun store would ever be robbed!* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #82 January 23, 2010 QuoteQuote Wrong. Read Heller. Someone trying to bring a case to the SC on 'militia' grounds would find it very hard to gain cert. That's what I'm talking about. Heller was decided 5/4 - not a major victory by any standards, and after the next neo-con Justice is replaced by a liberal, I wouldn't expect the next time it to be decided 5/4 but the opposite way. First, there has to be a case on validity of the militia to get forwarded to the SC - good luck with that one. QuoteQuote Sure - but don't hold your breath waiting on it to happen. Why not? A lot of things changed which were considered absolutely impossible just fifty years ago. How many amendments were overturned in the last 50 years? QuoteQuote And I'm *sure* you'll provide the data showing no drug confiscations or drug crimes in Singapore, since "their ban works"....right? Even if I did, such data would be useless to prove that the "ban works". Then it's equally useless as an argument in regards to guns, especially since the 'ban' cities haven't had a dramatic decrease in violent crime to prove your point. QuoteIf the data shows that there are little drug confiscations, you'd claim that "the ban does not work because nobody really cares about drugs". If the data shows there is a lot of drug confiscations, you'd claim that "despite the ban, they still have all those drugs!" Sort of like YOU'RE doing with guns, you mean?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #83 January 23, 2010 QuoteQuote Exactly...and this doesn't happen. So the sign is useless. If I'm a bad guy and want to rob a store - the first place I'm going is somewhere that has one of those silly "No Guns Allowed" signs posted out front. Then, when I yell "EVERYONE GET DOWN!!!!", I can be more confident that no one is going to stand up for themselves and point the business end of a .45 at me. If this was even remotely true, no gun store would ever be robbed! Just like your Singapore drug ban? Or would that be like the 'criminals obey gun bans' argument?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #84 January 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote Exactly...and this doesn't happen. So the sign is useless. If I'm a bad guy and want to rob a store - the first place I'm going is somewhere that has one of those silly "No Guns Allowed" signs posted out front. Then, when I yell "EVERYONE GET DOWN!!!!", I can be more confident that no one is going to stand up for themselves and point the business end of a .45 at me. If this was even remotely true, no gun store would ever be robbed! Just like your Singapore drug ban? Or would that be like the 'criminals obey gun bans' argument? My local gun store was robbed and the owner and his son were shot dead.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #85 January 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Exactly...and this doesn't happen. So the sign is useless. If I'm a bad guy and want to rob a store - the first place I'm going is somewhere that has one of those silly "No Guns Allowed" signs posted out front. Then, when I yell "EVERYONE GET DOWN!!!!", I can be more confident that no one is going to stand up for themselves and point the business end of a .45 at me. If this was even remotely true, no gun store would ever be robbed! Just like your Singapore drug ban? Or would that be like the 'criminals obey gun bans' argument? My local gun store was robbed and the owner and his son were shot dead. And in a gunstore local to me, the owner shot a robber dead. In both cases, anecdote != data. Guns aren't some magical talisman that repels all crime from the wearer - that's just the viewpoint that you anti-gun folks ascribe to us, instead of the 'last chance for self-defense' that we *know* it is.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #86 January 23, 2010 Quote I don't see how this is relevant to anything that we've been discussing. It is very relevant. Surprisingly (for a lot of gun owners) shit happens NOT at the moment you're very alert, full of energy and keeping your finger on a trigger of a full-loaded gun. It mostly happens when you're relaxed, probably drunk, and left your gun at home. An ability to predict - and avoid - the situations which much higher probability of having shit happen (like a late night walk in some Oakland neighborhood) will do much more for your survival than all the guns in the world. Quote I'm talking about defending my life should I need to - if by some chance I find myself in a predicament like the poor folks at Brown's... If you look on the statistics, you'll find that in a lot of gun-happy places your chance to get murdered is much higher than in Chicago or NYC. So your chance of get hurt does NOT get lower just because you carry a gun. Quote Let's look at some other high risk environments: Denny's The Olive Garden Your local Radio Shack Dog Parks Any bank Commuter Train Stations All of Northern Arizona backcountry Except of "any bank", I personally do not visit any of those places, so I cannot comment on it. And I would not consider "any bank" a high risk place either.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #87 January 23, 2010 Quote First, there has to be a case on validity of the militia to get forwarded to the SC - good luck with that one. I don't see any issues of making up such a case if the balance in SCOTUS changes. Quote How many amendments were overturned in the last 50 years? What makes last 50 years unique? How about last 100 years? Last 200 years? Quote Then it's equally useless as an argument in regards to guns, especially since the 'ban' cities haven't had a dramatic decrease in violent crime to prove your point. No. QuoteSort of like YOU'RE doing with guns, you mean? No.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #88 January 23, 2010 QuoteJust like your Singapore drug ban? Or would that be like the 'criminals obey gun bans' argument? Your reply is completely irrelevant to the discussed issue. If you spent time to reply to the post not addressed to you, you should have spent one minute more to at least read what we were talking about.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #89 January 23, 2010 Quote I'm talking about protecting myself and loved ones against something bad happening - like the examples I have given (aka Brown's Chicken). See the difference? No. If you were a law abiding gun owner in such a "no guns" place, you'd leave your guns behind, and will still be helpless in exactly the same situation - despite all the guns you have. Even if the state law allowed carrying, you can easily end in the same situation if a business owner does not allow guns on his property (which you, as a law abiding citizen, would follow). Quote The Brown's Chicken massacre was not pulled off by skilled assassins. It was committed by two lunatics who I wish would have been stopped by someone capable of defending themselves. I agree - but you know what? There are too many gun crimes in U.S. committed by crazy lunatics. Which means that it is too easy for lunatics to get guns. This situation should change, and I'd prefer there is a system which would deny gun ownership to anyone except a few verified individual which have much less chance to turn into lunatics just before they got fired, or their (girl|boy)?friend left them.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #90 January 23, 2010 Quoteafter the next neo-con Justice is replaced by a liberal, Only moderately likely. Stevens is oldest at 89, and he's moderate-to-liberal. Ginsburg, a liberal, is 76 and has cancer. Those two are probably the most likely to be replaced by Obama, so it will probably be an ideological wash as far as that goes. Scalia (very conservative) and Kennedy (moderate-to-conservative) are both 73. Breyer, age 71, is moderate. I'd call it a 50/50 chance any of them will be replaced by Obama. Very conservative Thomas is only 61. Conservatives Roberts and Alito are 54 and 59 respectively. Sotamayor, a liberal, is 55. Not likely any of them will be replaced by Obama. It's way too soon to (objectively) predict, yet, whether Obama will be reelected in 2012. If he is, then after 8 years, it's quite possible the American voters will, as historically they have frequently done in he past, express weariness with the sitting president's party and vote in a Republican. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #91 January 23, 2010 QuoteQuote I don't see how this is relevant to anything that we've been discussing. It is very relevant. Surprisingly (for a lot of gun owners) shit happens NOT at the moment you're very alert, full of energy and keeping your finger on a trigger of a full-loaded gun. It mostly happens when you're relaxed, probably drunk, and left your gun at home. An ability to predict - and avoid - the situations which much higher probability of having shit happen (like a late night walk in some Oakland neighborhood) will do much more for your survival than all the guns in the world. Well, then....you should have no problems with those spree killers, being the highly trained intelligence expert that you are. QuoteQuote I'm talking about defending my life should I need to - if by some chance I find myself in a predicament like the poor folks at Brown's... If you look on the statistics, you'll find that in a lot of gun-happy places your chance to get murdered is much higher than in Chicago or NYC. So your chance of get hurt does NOT get lower just because you carry a gun. You keep saying that...too bad the stats don't support you.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #92 January 23, 2010 QuoteQuote First, there has to be a case on validity of the militia to get forwarded to the SC - good luck with that one. I don't see any issues of making up such a case if the balance in SCOTUS changes. "Making up a case" - so, you'd LIE to get a case before the SC? QuoteQuote How many amendments were overturned in the last 50 years? What makes last 50 years unique? How about last 100 years? Last 200 years? You tell me - you're the one that brought up 50 years. QuoteQuote Then it's equally useless as an argument in regards to guns, especially since the 'ban' cities haven't had a dramatic decrease in violent crime to prove your point. No. Yes. QuoteQuoteSort of like YOU'RE doing with guns, you mean? No. Yes.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #93 January 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteJust like your Singapore drug ban? Or would that be like the 'criminals obey gun bans' argument? Your reply is completely irrelevant to the discussed issue. If you spent time to reply to the post not addressed to you, you should have spent one minute more to at least read what we were talking about. Showing that you consistently make invalid arguments IS germane to the conversation.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #94 January 23, 2010 QuoteEven if the state law allowed carrying, you can easily end in the same situation if a business owner does not allow guns on his property (which you, as a law abiding citizen, would follow). Depends on the state. At least in Texas, signage has to follow certain rules to be valid. Putting a "NO GUNS" sign on a piece of notebook paper in the window doesn't cut it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #95 January 23, 2010 QuoteQuote Sure, it could be amended in the future. However, have you seen anyone even attempt to do so? There is indeed some discussion about it. Just type "repeal 2nd amendment" in Google, and you will find a lot of articles about it. You might also find that a lot of those articles are pretty recent. If the number of such stupid shooting sprees increases dramatically, I wouldn't be surprised to have it happened quite fast - as it happened with 18th. Homicides were substantially higher 20 years ago, and it didn't happen then. Andy addressed your thoughts on the court reversing itself - something that it's reluctant to do in general, and esp on something it recently ruled on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #96 January 23, 2010 QuoteQuote My local gun store was robbed and the owner and his son were shot dead. And in a gunstore local to me, the owner shot a robber dead. In both cases, anecdote != data. He's posted his one anecdote so many times that is has become data, didn't you know? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #97 January 23, 2010 Quote It is very relevant. Surprisingly (for a lot of gun owners) shit happens NOT at the moment you're very alert, full of energy and keeping your finger on a trigger of a full-loaded gun. It mostly happens when you're relaxed, probably drunk, and left your gun at home. An ability to predict - and avoid - the situations which much higher probability of having shit happen (like a late night walk in some Oakland neighborhood) will do much more for your survival than all the guns in the world. I've lived in some of those Oakland neighborhoods. BTW, how exactly do you suggest that everyone avoid them? There will always be the underbelly of society, and those who live near them. Quote Quote Let's look at some other high risk environments: Denny's The Olive Garden Your local Radio Shack Dog Parks Any bank Commuter Train Stations All of Northern Arizona backcountry Except of "any bank", I personally do not visit any of those places, so I cannot comment on it. And I would not consider "any bank" a high risk place either. I'm amazed at the wide range of places you never visit, and the wide range of activities you never participate in. Your notion that your choices will reduce/eliminate the chance of anything bad happening to you sound like the postings we seen from high wingloading newbies. "It won't happen to me, I'm careful." Yet your own lead paragraph talks about gun owners not being always being able to pick ideal situations. Why are you different? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #98 January 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote My local gun store was robbed and the owner and his son were shot dead. And in a gunstore local to me, the owner shot a robber dead. In both cases, anecdote != data. He's posted his one anecdote so many times that is has become data, didn't you know? It is a counter example to the claim that gun stores don't get robbed. Only one is needed to prove a claim like that to be bogus.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #99 January 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote My local gun store was robbed and the owner and his son were shot dead. And in a gunstore local to me, the owner shot a robber dead. In both cases, anecdote != data. He's posted his one anecdote so many times that is has become data, didn't you know? It is a counter example to the claim that gun stores don't get robbed. Only one is needed to prove a claim like that to be bogus. Conversely, the same type of counter example shows that "gun-free zones" aren't.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #100 January 23, 2010 Quote It is a counter example to the claim that gun stores don't get robbed. Only one is needed to prove a claim like that to be bogus. If the claim was they absolutely never get robbed, yes. But that's really not the claim, is it? Compare the robbery rates at the 7/11 versus the local gun store. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
