Page 166 of 216 FirstFirst ... 66116156159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173176 ... LastLast
Results 2,146 to 2,158 of 2796
  1. #2146
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    6,646
    Police didnt cover up anything about the boys with the ar-15.... the day after the incident the police chief acknowledged that they did indeed scare off a burgler... Might be more to it... Boys were the only witnesses....only evidence was some bbs....outside a broken window......

    Cops acknowledged something went on.... but they could be thinking this is another incident like the oregon mall shooter....." I pulled my gun and the guy then just shot himself.....yet nobody...not even the girl who was standing beside me will back me up on that......"

    Yep... bloggers are not documentable facts.....especially when the news station they work for has the police doing exactly the opposite of what the blogger says they did....or didnt do..... and the bloggers timeline is different from both the police and his own news stations timeline...plus it doesnt quite jibe with what the boys themselves said........lol

    I said documentable.....not certifiable........

    BTW... I do work for a living... I might not be an hvac car trunker or a techician with a weekly sales plan of so many contactors, capacitors, thermostats and unit change outs per week..... but i do make a decent living.

    I do spend most of my time at a laptop....and can actually do a lot of my work from home....but chose not to because it is too distracting... but there is nothing dishonest or lazy about that..

    GA... I get to the customers sometimes two or more hours early and study their system....and thats on my own time.... sometimes stay late too...looking at control panels...studying how things at the customers are set up....on my own time....

    MY GOD..... The work I do at home..... graphics, programming....looking at customers system over the vpn to make sure things are hopping along ok.... no pay for that either....

    Id lose money as a two bit car trunker..couldnt make it as a sales plan techician either... plus I dont know how well my mind would handle the guilt....
    As Seen On You Tube (usually under someone elses name)

  2. #2147
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    14,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian GC View Post
    Just as a gun is used as a tool of intimidation by CCW holders in a situation the same can be said about a criminal’s use of handguns. That guy who robbed you Ga did not fire the gun nor would I assume he wanted to fire it. So to better describe the criminal’s use of guns, they do not fire bullets when using a gun 99% of the time either. Should we give them the same credit for that as we give to CCW holders?

    IOW maybe it is nature of the use of a gun not to fire it and no credit should be given to the CCW holder for not firing them.
    wow, you make a lot of assumptions. You seem bent on equating a Law Abiding CCW holder with a criminal. Why is it you simply can not separate the two?

    the difference is a criminal doesn't care if you live or die. The criminal won't have any restraint. But you really don't care about that do you. you'll just make up some other stupid scenario to try and justify your Gun control agenda

    You keep saying your Pro-gun, when it's readily apparent that's not the case
    "Arguing with liberals...it's like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it's victorious." -- Anonymous

  3. #2148
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    6,646
    Oh man... I have not had a soft drink all week....and just took a swig of pepsi..... and it was gooooooooooooooooooood.....
    As Seen On You Tube (usually under someone elses name)

  4. #2149
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    3,147
    Quote Originally Posted by jmac00 View Post
    wow, you make a lot of assumptions. You seem bent on equating a Law Abiding CCW holder with a criminal. Why is it you simply can not separate the two?

    the difference is a criminal doesn't care if you live or die. The criminal won't have any restraint. But you really don't care about that do you. you'll just make up some other stupid scenario to try and justify your Gun control agenda

    You keep saying your Pro-gun, when it's readily apparent that's not the case
    I merely stated that criminals don’t fire their weapons 99% of the time either. Is that an incorrect estimation?

    If it is even close to being so it takes the wind out of the sails of the CCW holders that make that exclusive claim.

    It infers that guns are used as a visual threat/deterrent much more often than they are fired. It is the nature of the use of the gun and not necessarily professionalism or restraint shown only by the CCW holder.

    BTW – I do not lump CCW holders with criminals, not by a longshot (no pun intended).

  5. #2150
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,267
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian GC View Post
    Hugh,
    I would really appreciate a response from you about what percentage of cops think CCW would lower our crime rate, that they would feel just a safe doing their jobs with a ten-fold increase in CCW and why they do not publicly encourage CCW?

    And guys, please don’t respond to this until Hugh does.
    Yes, something I can speak to with some personal experience. As I have stated I am a police academy grad and former reserve officer, come from a family or past as well as current officers and I use the police firing range so get to talk shop with the cops regularly. My son is a private dectective and and works with the local professional cops all the time. BTW he is currently far from home on an assignment in Tennessee and has been talking with the cops there.

    To answer your question, the Police Chiefs Associations are often very anti-gun and anti-ccw. This is especially true in the big cities. Now police chiefs are hired not elected and are in very political positions. They don't get those jobs by being NRA members I can tell you that! Now the street cops in big cities also know who signs their checks and so generally fall in line politically. I was a reserve in a large metro area. Big city police officers also have no actual experience with CCW carriers so they have no personal interactions from which to make a decision on. Most cops in LA or San Francisco (been with them on ride alongs) will be kind of anti CCW for the two reasons states; Political reasons and no experience with CCW citizens.

    Now if you go to cities outside of the anti-gun cities of California and the eastern anti-gun cities the situtation changes. The cops in other cities will tell you personally they have no concern with CCW holders. Because of politics they will not usually tell you what they think openly but personally they will mostly not have a problem with CCW. Many of those cops arm their spouse and get them CCW permits.

    As soon as you talk to county sheriffs and their deputies outside of the major cities the picture is more positive for CCW yet. My own sheriff for example (as well as the others in my state) is very pro CCW. I just got my own renewed a few weeks ago and he and I had this very conversation. Some of what I am posting here is what we discussed. He by the way has joined the dozens of other sheriffs across the nation who just in the last few weeks have signed a letter stating that they will refuse to enforce any federal laws or regulations they consider unconstitutional. My sheriff said he will NOT disarm any of his CCW holders who are following state and local law. He added, he will move to prevent any agent of the federal government from doing so in his county against one of his CCW holders.

  6. #2151
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,267
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian GC View Post
    Just as a gun is used as a tool of intimidation by CCW holders in a situation the same can be said about a criminal’s use of handguns. That guy who robbed you Ga did not fire the gun nor would I assume he wanted to fire it. So to better describe the criminal’s use of guns, they do not fire bullets when using a gun 99% of the time either. Should we give them the same credit for that as we give to CCW holders?

    IOW maybe it is nature of the use of a gun not to fire it and no credit should be given to the CCW holder for not firing them.
    You seem to have created a good solid argument in favor of citizens with CCWs carrying in public. All other things being equal we are better off with more good guys carrying in public than bad guys. And, the facts and figures clearly show that where that is the case crime goes down as CCW holders go up and it does so without all those projected wild west shootouts.

    What part of this do you just not get?

  7. #2152
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,267
    Quote Originally Posted by AStudent View Post
    Speaking of gun laws and fools.....aren't many of you calling the anti gun movement fools....but yet support laws making abortion illegal?
    I don't get your point.

  8. #2153
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    14,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian GC View Post
    I merely stated that criminals don’t fire their weapons 99% of the time either. Is that an incorrect estimation?

    If it is even close to being so it takes the wind out of the sails of the CCW holders that make that exclusive claim.

    It infers that guns are used as a visual threat/deterrent much more often than they are fired. It is the nature of the use of the gun and not necessarily professionalism or restraint shown only by the CCW holder.

    BTW – I do not lump CCW holders with criminals, not by a longshot (no pun intended).

    really, about 12,000+ people who were murdered last year may have a problem with your 99% estimation, so ya, I think your "off' by a smidge
    "Arguing with liberals...it's like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it's victorious." -- Anonymous

  9. #2154
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,267
    Wolfstrike posted this in another thread. Too good to let it go to waste so I copied it and am pasting it here. He is exactly spot on!


    wolfstrike
    View Profile View Forum Posts Add as Contact View Forum Threads

    Professional Member Join Dateec 2005
    Location:California/Nevada
    Posts:3,268Gun control didn't start with guns
    disarming of the public has been going on though out the ages, long before there were guns.

    kings of nations arm the public to go fight their war, then win or lose, they make sure they get those arms back.
    why?
    ...was it because of school sword-ings?
    they made no secret of it.
    the king didn't want to wake up one day and find the public had judged him, and he wasn't going to be the king anymore.
    they locked themselves in castles to protect themselves from the enemy, from the public, and to keep control of the region.

    most of the time owning professional weapons was illegal unless the king said so.

    when the founders of the United States Of America created the nation, they wanted the old ways gone forever.
    the government was to have no standing military power.
    the founders felt the public could not be oppressed if they kept their own arms.


    here we are in the modern age where they tell us we're the smartest people in the world, and the truth is, the public is bombarded with lies, BS, and propaganda,
    ...and can't tell the difference between up, down, left ,right, sky or water.

    the people who run our government don't give a crap about school children, accidental deaths, or anyone else who drops dead.
    you're a fool if you think they do.

  10. #2155
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    14,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh B View Post
    Wolfstrike posted this in another thread. Too good to let it go to waste so I copied it and am pasting it here. He is exactly spot on!


    wolfstrike
    View Profile View Forum Posts Add as Contact View Forum Threads

    Professional Member Join Dateec 2005
    Location:California/Nevada
    Posts:3,268Gun control didn't start with guns
    disarming of the public has been going on though out the ages, long before there were guns.

    kings of nations arm the public to go fight their war, then win or lose, they make sure they get those arms back.
    why?
    ...was it because of school sword-ings?
    they made no secret of it.
    the king didn't want to wake up one day and find the public had judged him, and he wasn't going to be the king anymore.
    they locked themselves in castles to protect themselves from the enemy, from the public, and to keep control of the region.

    most of the time owning professional weapons was illegal unless the king said so.

    when the founders of the United States Of America created the nation, they wanted the old ways gone forever.
    the government was to have no standing military power.
    the founders felt the public could not be oppressed if they kept their own arms.


    here we are in the modern age where they tell us we're the smartest people in the world, and the truth is, the public is bombarded with lies, BS, and propaganda,
    ...and can't tell the difference between up, down, left ,right, sky or water.

    the people who run our government don't give a crap about school children, accidental deaths, or anyone else who drops dead.
    you're a fool if you think they do.
    makes perfect sense to me
    "Arguing with liberals...it's like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it's victorious." -- Anonymous

  11. #2156
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    381
    Some of you may have all ready come across this, but really sums up the answer to the OP;

    "The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)


    Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

    If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.

    Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

    In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.
    Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

    When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.
    You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

    The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

    There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.
    These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a armed mugger to do his job.
    That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

    People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

    Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.
    This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

    People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.
    The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

    The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.
    It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

    When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

    It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

    By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

    So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

  12. #2157
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    14,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian GC View Post
    I merely stated that criminals don’t fire their weapons 99% of the time either. Is that an incorrect estimation?

    If it is even close to being so it takes the wind out of the sails of the CCW holders that make that exclusive claim.

    It infers that guns are used as a visual threat/deterrent much more often than they are fired. It is the nature of the use of the gun and not necessarily professionalism or restraint shown only by the CCW holder.

    BTW – I do not lump CCW holders with criminals, not by a longshot (no pun intended).
    60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
    Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, James Wright and Peter Rossi,

    Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
    Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, James Wright and Peter Rossi,

    A survey of felons revealed the following:
    • 74% of felons agreed that, "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."
    • 57% of felons polled agreed, "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."
    The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Federal Firearms Offenders study, 1997: National Institute of Justice, Research Report, July 1985, Department of Justice
    "Arguing with liberals...it's like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it's victorious." -- Anonymous

  13. #2158
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,972
    Where do crims get their guns?
    Either there is a massive imported black market or from irresponsible gun owners. So unless you regulate the gun owners to make them responsible, then all that will increase is more guns for the crims. chicken and egg!

Page 166 of 216 FirstFirst ... 66116156159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173176 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event