The Sicatoka Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 amazing - huh? http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?...L20070419b.html I don't know - I feel safer when entering a building with a sign that states" "This establishment bans guns" ya - right I bet VaTech had a "no firearms on campus" policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertrex Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 Once again, in case you missed it on the last page... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 I let my son have toy guns & he had a BB gun by 5 & was shooting a shotgun by 8 (12 ga single shot) at ducks & geese - the next yr he had a pump But I never let him treat a toy gun or BB gun any different than a real gun This is my 16 month old Grandson (at 9 mo.) & NO it is not normally part of school curriculum (only in schools with really good Admin. & Teachers) Amen Brother, that post brought Tears to my eyes. Nothing beats huting ducks with buddies and having the kids along. One of my buddies brings his three kids along, it was awesome watching a 9 year old shoot his very first duck. His father was right there watching his every move talking him through it. Its fun watching my dog smile as he sits next to the kids in the blind. This is the memories we will be loosing if the anti gun nuts are successfull in taking our constituionally held rights away from us. It's up to gun owners to protect these rights and freedoms. Its up to lawfull gunowners to make sure we practice fire arm safety and correct unsafe acts when we see them. We must educate the uneducated. When I go hunting and I hunting with someone for the first time. I tell them I have two rules, first don't shoot my dog. Second no bird is worth dying over. Watch your gun at all time and lets have fun but be safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 I'm deathly afraid of guns and snakes. I stay away from guns and snakes. That makes me feel much safer than if I were to expose myself to guns and snakes. I'm merely trying to teach those same values to my children. What's wrong with that? I'm not a believer of teaching through fear. I believe that education is a better method of teaching someone to stay away from guns and snakes, etc. Making someone deathly afraid of something in order to keep them safe is, IMHO, not the best method. I don''t like snakes. I thought my son was afraid of snakes. When he was 11 years old, he brought a neighbor's boa constrictor into my house to show me the 'nice snake'. Your children may not be as deathly afraid of guns as you would like to think they are. I'm not trying to give you a bad time here, I would have agreed with you 100% not that long ago, on your opinion of guns. I'm not trying to change your mind on how you feel about guns. I just can't agree with your theory that 'being deathly afraid' of something will keep you safe. I'm concerned that you're setting your children up for injury if you really believe that's enough to keep them safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 I bet VaTech had a "no firearms on campus" policy. From April 2005... Virginia Tech's ban on guns may draw legal fire "I think it's fair to say that we believe guns don't belong in the classroom," Hincker said. "In an academic environment, we believe you should be free from fear." I don't know if any of you listen to Neal Boortz, but he spent some time today talking about the quickest way to make Virginia Tech safe would be allow all students and faculty who have a license to carry a concealed weapon in the state of Virginia to register with the campus police and be allowed to carry their weapons to class. Do you think this week's events would have happened if there were such a rule? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STS Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted April 20, 2007 Author Share Posted April 20, 2007 If you don't know, every adult male is issued a firearm during their military service that they keep at home 16 yr olds are packing uzi's & m-16's in Israel everywhere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 Water isn't a weapon, and my kids have taken swimming lessons. Google Murder by Drowning... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proudsioux Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 water kills... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 Dave_K, Did you suffer a head trauma as a child? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STS Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 Yeah, so... not having any lions around makes us not have to worry about being killed by lions. If we didn't have any guns around we wouldn't have to worry about being killed by them either. I fail to understand exactly what point you were trying to make. Water isn't a weapon, and my kids have taken swimming lessons. It is my personal opinion that Charleton Heston is a trigger happy madman and the NRA scares the crap out of me to be perfectly honest with you. I swear their motto should be "Guns don't kill people, I do". It's pretty simple... People who don't have guns don't kill people with guns. People who kill people with guns have them. Do the math. That loud whoosh you just heard was you completely missing the point. I guess the fact that you can't identify a worthless statistic probably shouldn't surprise me. Reporting the amount of GUN VIOLENCE after there aren't anymore guns is stupid, instead report the amount of violence after the guns are removed from the equation. I'm sure that the recent calls for bans on swords and kitchen knives has nothing to do with crime not vanishing with the guns in England. What's next blunt objects and things with pointy corners, I guess I should buy stock in Nerf. A gun is a tool, nothing more, it isn't evil or blood thirsty. "People who don't have guns don't kill people with guns." Brilliant, people who don't have guns beat people to death, stab them, drown them, strangle them, run them over with cars, poison them, fly planes into buildings, burn them, bury them alive, etc... And that's assuming the CRIMINALS obey the law and don't illegally procure guns. People were murdered long before the first firearm was ever manufactured and will be murdered long after guns are gone. A gun is a "great disrupter of the natural order" it allows a 5'5" 110lb woman to stop a would be rapist, a 85 year old grandmother to kill a 6'3" 275 pound home intruder. But you're right, people who don't have guns don't kill people with guns, of course the 5'5" young woman and the grandmother are raped or killed, or both. No doubt this thread was started in response to the tragedy at Virginia Tech, many will use the actions of that madman to push for oppressive gun control legislation but direct your attention to HB 1572 defeated in a Virginia House of Representative subcommittee. The bill would have allowed concealed carry on campus by those licensed by the state to do so. Imagine if Prof. Liviu Librescu, the holocaust survivor who was shot and killed while using his body to barricade a door while his students escaped, had been allowed to legally carry a concealed weapon to work. Instead of killing 32 people Cho Seung Hui may well have quickly received two to the chest and one to the head, saving many lives. I'll save you some time responding to the previous paragraph, just copy and paste this "But, but, but, if there were no guns then Cho Seung Hui couldn't have killed people with guns!!!" Correct, score one for DaveK, if there weren't any guns Seung Hui would have been a perfectly sane, productive member of society. Of course the rest of us know that instead he would have bought a box cutter and crashed a 747 into the engineering building, or bought a few gallons of gas and a Zippo and torched his dorm in the middle of the night, etc... Evil people will do evil things with whatever they have at hand, guns allow the rest of us to even the odds. Anyway, my back is getting sore trying to dig your head out of the sand, I'm done. Best wishes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 That loud whoosh you just heard was you completely missing the point. I guess the fact that you can't identify a worthless statistic probably shouldn't surprise me. Reporting the amount of GUN VIOLENCE after there aren't anymore guns is stupid, instead report the amount of violence after the guns are removed from the equation. I'm sure that the recent calls for bans on swords and kitchen knives has nothing to do with crime not vanishing with the guns in England. What's next blunt objects and things with pointy corners, I guess I should buy stock in Nerf. A gun is a tool, nothing more, it isn't evil or blood thirsty. "People who don't have guns don't kill people with guns." Brilliant, people who don't have guns beat people to death, stab them, drown them, strangle them, run them over with cars, poison them, fly planes into buildings, burn them, bury them alive, etc... And that's assuming the CRIMINALS obey the law and don't illegally procure guns. People were murdered long before the first firearm was ever manufactured and will be murdered long after guns are gone. A gun is a "great disrupter of the natural order" it allows a 5'5" 110lb woman to stop a would be rapist, a 85 year old grandmother to kill a 6'3" 275 pound home intruder. But you're right, people who don't have guns don't kill people with guns, of course the 5'5" young woman and the grandmother are raped or killed, or both. No doubt this thread was started in response to the tragedy at Virginia Tech, many will use the actions of that madman to push for oppressive gun control legislation but direct your attention to HB 1572 defeated in a Virginia House of Representative subcommittee. The bill would have allowed concealed carry on campus by those licensed by the state to do so. Imagine if Prof. Liviu Librescu, the holocaust survivor who was shot and killed while using his body to barricade a door while his students escaped, had been allowed to legally carry a concealed weapon to work. Instead of killing 32 people Cho Seung Hui may well have quickly received two to the chest and one to the head, saving many lives. I'll save you some time responding to the previous paragraph, just copy and paste this "But, but, but, if there were no guns then Cho Seung Hui couldn't have killed people with guns!!!" Correct, score one for DaveK, if there weren't any guns Seung Hui would have been a perfectly sane, productive member of society. Of course the rest of us know that instead he would have bought a box cutter and crashed a 747 into the engineering building, or bought a few gallons of gas and a Zippo and torched his dorm in the middle of the night, etc... Evil people will do evil things with whatever they have at hand, guns allow the rest of us to even the odds. Anyway, my back is getting sore trying to dig your head out of the sand, I'm done. Best wishes. Dave_K Its gettng frustrating that you think that just going out and elimiating guns will just end all of societies problems. I don't know if you could make it anymore clearer than STS just did. The fact that your not getting it is the part that is puzzling. It's guys that like you and your disdane for guns is why people like me Join the NRA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 I'm far from alone in my feelings on this issue. Please see the following links: http://www2.stopthenra.com/ http://www.nrablacklist.com/ You have just posted a couple of links to fringe left wing groups. Wow... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 I suppose you think you're right and I'm wrong, don't you? Typical conservative arrogance. Legal law abiding gun owners get pissed off when lefties try to go and take away people rights to own guns. It's about the intrusion on peoples constitutionally protected freedoms. This is ussually done using fear mongering and misinformation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 It wouldn't end ALL of society's problems, but it most certainly would end ONE of them. Seriously, I see the NRA as a borderline terrorist organization. I don't know how any sane and non-violent individual could support them. I think it would be best if I drop out of this thread now. I'm not going to change anybody's mind and nobody is going to change mine, so there's really no point in carrying on any further. So you basically called a good number of SS.com members terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 That loud whoosh you just heard was you completely missing the point. I guess the fact that you can't identify a worthless statistic probably shouldn't surprise me. Reporting the amount of GUN VIOLENCE after there aren't anymore guns is stupid, instead report the amount of violence after the guns are removed from the equation. I'm sure that the recent calls for bans on swords and kitchen knives has nothing to do with crime not vanishing with the guns in England. What's next blunt objects and things with pointy corners, I guess I should buy stock in Nerf. A gun is a tool, nothing more, it isn't evil or blood thirsty. "People who don't have guns don't kill people with guns." Brilliant, people who don't have guns beat people to death, stab them, drown them, strangle them, run them over with cars, poison them, fly planes into buildings, burn them, bury them alive, etc... And that's assuming the CRIMINALS obey the law and don't illegally procure guns. People were murdered long before the first firearm was ever manufactured and will be murdered long after guns are gone. A gun is a "great disrupter of the natural order" it allows a 5'5" 110lb woman to stop a would be rapist, a 85 year old grandmother to kill a 6'3" 275 pound home intruder. But you're right, people who don't have guns don't kill people with guns, of course the 5'5" young woman and the grandmother are raped or killed, or both. No doubt this thread was started in response to the tragedy at Virginia Tech, many will use the actions of that madman to push for oppressive gun control legislation but direct your attention to HB 1572 defeated in a Virginia House of Representative subcommittee. The bill would have allowed concealed carry on campus by those licensed by the state to do so. Imagine if Prof. Liviu Librescu, the holocaust survivor who was shot and killed while using his body to barricade a door while his students escaped, had been allowed to legally carry a concealed weapon to work. Instead of killing 32 people Cho Seung Hui may well have quickly received two to the chest and one to the head, saving many lives. I'll save you some time responding to the previous paragraph, just copy and paste this "But, but, but, if there were no guns then Cho Seung Hui couldn't have killed people with guns!!!" Correct, score one for DaveK, if there weren't any guns Seung Hui would have been a perfectly sane, productive member of society. Of course the rest of us know that instead he would have bought a box cutter and crashed a 747 into the engineering building, or bought a few gallons of gas and a Zippo and torched his dorm in the middle of the night, etc... Evil people will do evil things with whatever they have at hand, guns allow the rest of us to even the odds. Anyway, my back is getting sore trying to dig your head out of the sand, I'm done. Best wishes. You make some very good points, although I do have some concerns about too many people carrying guns. But, according to most of the reports I have read, the portion that I have bolded may or may not have been possible. I believe that he was wearing a bullet-proof vest. So a couple to the chest may have just been annoying to him (probably painful). And according to an FBI report from law enforcement experience, no matter the number of shots fired from a handgun, most of the time only 1 or 2 solid torso hits at best could be expected. Therefore it would be a bit much to expect anyone, much less a non-LE person, to hit someone twice in the chest and once in the head when someone else is shooting at them. The FBI report can be found here on page 6. So, someone else with a gun would have changed the situation, but the chances of it being that simple to eliminate most of the people being killed may not be accurate. Of course, someone else could have gotten a lucky shot and ended the situation after the 1st or 2nd shooting. We will never know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 It wouldn't end ALL of society's problems, but it most certainly would end ONE of them. Seriously, I see the NRA as a borderline terrorist organization. I don't know how any sane and non-violent individual could support them. I think it would be best if I drop out of this thread now. I'm not going to change anybody's mind and nobody is going to change mine, so there's really no point in carrying on any further. Your thought process is very limited if you think that the NRA is a borderline terrorist organization. You need to educate yourself about the NRA. It has always been a organization that teaches GUN SAFETY. Since the anti-gun nuts have been attacking the 2nd Amendment they have had to get political. It's terrible to think of all the money they spend defending the 2nd amendment that doesn't go to teaching gun safety. I wonder how many lifes the anti-gun fools have cost? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 Water isn't a weapon. Actually it helps things grow. Fertilizer isn't a weapon. Actually it helps things grow. Diesel fuel isn't a weapon. It helps farmers help things grow. Yet Tim McVeigh used fertilizer and diesel fuel to kill people. Ban fertilizer. Ban diesel fuel. Or ban the MeVeighs and Chos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BisonMav Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 Alcohol is responsible for as many, if not more deaths as firearms. Link In 2004, 21 percent of the children age 14 and younger who were killed in motor vehicle crashes were killed in alcohol-related crashes An estimated 248,000 people were injured in crashes where police reported that alcohol was present Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eskimos Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 Seriously, I see the NRA as a borderline terrorist organization. I don't know how any sane and non-violent individual could support them. This might be the most ridiculous thing ever written on siouxsports.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted April 20, 2007 Author Share Posted April 20, 2007 Hey Now - it's my thread & I don't want it to get locked up Like I said before, The NRA has to be extreme, to counter the Brady's/ Ban Guns Lobby etc. Trouble is, I do think the moderation that comes from this, is not helping solve slaughters, like we had on Monday & those who hate guns & blame guns, are nieve to think you can ban them & that police or security can prevent crimes of this nature We are supposed to be able to protect ourselves & others, but then the BLEEDING Hearts ban us from doing that, in way to many places Having armed "Good People" & much better ways of keeping guns away from the hands of the Insane & mentally dangerous - to themselves & others, is the only workable compromise I see Hey Dave - I hate snakes too & everytime I'm out west of the Mo. River hunting & someone brings up Rattle Snakes. I spend the rest of the time out there, pointing my Gun at the ground around me, waiting & watching to defend myself - what do you think we should do about the Human Snakes, we have living in our society ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STS Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 You make some very good points, although I do have some concerns about too many people carrying guns. But, according to most of the reports I have read, the portion that I have bolded may or may not have been possible. I believe that he was wearing a bullet-proof vest. So a couple to the chest may have just been annoying to him (probably painful). And according to an FBI report from law enforcement experience, no matter the number of shots fired from a handgun, most of the time only 1 or 2 solid torso hits at best could be expected. Therefore it would be a bit much to expect anyone, much less a non-LE person, to hit someone twice in the chest and once in the head when someone else is shooting at them. The FBI report can be found here on page 6. So, someone else with a gun would have changed the situation, but the chances of it being that simple to eliminate most of the people being killed may not be accurate. Of course, someone else could have gotten a lucky shot and ended the situation after the 1st or 2nd shooting. We will never know. You're right, I guess I used the "two to the chest one to the head" line more for dramatic effect than a prediction of accuracy. Though it should be noted that being a LEO doesn't inherently make you a better shot, I know quite a few people who spend far more time on the range than some LEO's. As far as worrying about too many people carrying guns, I wouldn't. Allowing concealed carry doesn't increase the number of criminals carrying guns, they're already packing illegally. All it does is give law abiding citizens the legal right to do the same. There's some good statistics on the crime rate for concealed carry license holders but I'm too lazy to find it right now. But the message was if you're in an elevator with 10 people, 9 of which legally carry a concealed weapon, keep your eyes on the tenth guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 You're right, I guess I used the "two to the chest one to the head" line more for dramatic effect than a prediction of accuracy. Though it should be noted that being a LEO doesn't inherently make you a better shot, I know quite a few people who spend far more time on the range than some LEO's. As far as worrying about too many people carrying guns, I wouldn't. Allowing concealed carry doesn't increase the number of criminals carrying guns, they're already packing illegally. All it does is give law abiding citizens the legal right to do the same. There's some good statistics on the crime rate for concealed carry license holders but I'm too lazy to find it right now. But the message was if you're in an elevator with 10 people, 9 of which legally carry a concealed weapon, keep your eyes on the tenth guy. I know several people that are probably better shots than the average LEO. But, I would guess that most LEOs would react better and be a little more calm when faced with a person shooting at them. The LEOs have at least a little training for those situations. The average person, even people with carry permits, don't usually have that training. So I believe that the LEO would probably be more accurate in a high stress situation. And my concerns with having too many people carrying guns is more about the increased odds of accidents and honest people making mistakes than about criminals. You are right, the criminals will have weapons no matter what the laws say. But people make mistakes, security features can fail, things can go wrong. And it is a numbers game. If we have a much larger number of people carrying weapons, we have a much higher chance of those things happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proudsioux Posted April 20, 2007 Share Posted April 20, 2007 The weekend has started offically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.