That's a very good point, Erik. On another tack, I've been asked nicely to remove the term "ethnically challenged" for one of my above posts. I have tried to edit the post three times now but without success. The server keeps dropping the connection.
So, failing that, I wish to make it absolutely clear that my use of the term is not informed by any racist sentiment. It was not an attempt to slip a racist remark past the house rules. I am sorry if it caused offence to anyone. As someone who believes that immigration is necessary to keep our economies functioning, I have always taken the view that those who are denied easy access to our wealth by accident of birth are "ethnically challenged" in the sense of being handicapped, disabled or deprived in some way.
PK
Doctors vs Gunowners
-
phylo_roadking
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
-
Christoph Awender
- Patron
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 3:09 am
- Location: Austria
- Contact:
If you tell a 16 year old boy who just got his first bike to wear a helmet he will curse you because it doesn´t look cool. When it saves his life because it prevents his brain being smashed two weeks later he will reconsider I guess. The same with all things that save lifes like helmets, safety belts etc...ah yes. the "We're smarter than everyone else so we'll tell you whats in your best interest" arguement. Tell me something, who decides? you?
If everyone would wear a helmet on the ski-slope I wouldn´t have flown out 16 brain damaged patients since December. Guess what they would say if they would be able to see how they end.
Paddy, as I said before everything can be used to kill someone. No need to list all things which could under some circumstnces kill people... You cannot rob a bank with a Heinkel airplane etc...
Where did I say that knives, swords etc.. are not as dangerous as guns Mr.Pzmeyer2? You need weapons in your life. Me not.. I never needed one and I will never need one. Must be a very dangerous area you live in where you 95 old ladies are robbed and need a gun to defend themselves.
What a luck that I survived several months in NYC and in Toronto without a gun!!
-
Christoph Awender
- Patron
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 3:09 am
- Location: Austria
- Contact:
-
Jason Pipes
- Patron
- Posts: 1800
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 4:06 pm
- Location: CA & WI
-
pzrmeyer2
I dunno, Christoph. Where did I say YOU did? It was a general point.Where did I say that knives, swords etc.. are not as dangerous as guns Mr.Pzmeyer2?
Guns save lives. Ask the families of the 9/11 victims if they wish the pilots had some...The same with all things that save lifes like helmets, safety belts etc...
So what neighborhoods did you hang out in, Manhattan? Of course, while you were enjoying the scenery, you were protected by 10,000+ NYPD officers with...guess what? 10,000+ guns. Dead tourists are bad for business. Perhpas if you were spending your late evenings in the Bronx, Newark or Bed-Stuy, you'd be more appreciative of your own protection.What a luck that I survived several months in NYC and in Toronto without a gun!!
How do you know? are you clairvoyant? have super-human powers?I never needed one and I will never need one.
on the other hand it is true that those who meekly obey the orders of their beaureucratic leaders without question probably wont need them. I'm sure most average Germans in 1933 didnt feel they needed them either. Or Russians in the 20s/30s...Or Chinese in the 50s/60s....or EUSSR citizens in the not so distant future?
-
Tom Houlihan
- Patron
- Posts: 4301
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 12:05 pm
- Location: MI, USA
- Contact:
There are strong feelings both for and against firearms for self-defense. I personally see the value. That point was hammered home a couple of years ago when a local cop was shoveling snow in his driveway. For some reason, he was carrying his off-duty weapon.
Well, he got attacked. In civilian clothes, at home. He defended himself. End of story.
Are there people who have guns that shouldn't? Oh, HELL YES!!! However, the overwhelming majority of gun owners do not use them for illegal or immoral purposes. Like so many other things in our society, it is the small percentage of malcontents and abusers who cause problems for the rest of us.
Well, he got attacked. In civilian clothes, at home. He defended himself. End of story.
Are there people who have guns that shouldn't? Oh, HELL YES!!! However, the overwhelming majority of gun owners do not use them for illegal or immoral purposes. Like so many other things in our society, it is the small percentage of malcontents and abusers who cause problems for the rest of us.
-
Paddy Keating
I wouldn't make a habit of carrying a firearm as a general rule because I am probably too likely to reach for it and use it as a first resort when faced with certain kinds of people and certain kinds of behaviour. Paradoxically, this probably means that I am, at heart, a reasonably responsible person. However, I would certainly tool up if going to a risky area or congregating with dangerous people and I would not pull the tool out unless I intended to use it. A sad fact of life is that some people need killing. I am not talking about major villains in hugely dramatic situations. Taking a lateral view, this little toerag from a good background who walked down my street the other night with his mates kicking motorcycles over and breaking mirrors off cars deserves a lead pill in the head for all the grief he has caused since his parents abdicated responsibility for him. If I did not know that I would end up in prison and that prison is a very tedious place in which to kill time, I would have no hesitation at all in killing someone who kicked my motorcycle over, whether shooting him or beating his head in with a u-lock. I would visit the same penalty upon anyone abusing my loved ones. So, you see, I am a perfect middleclass chap! I am the poster boy for the "Prison Works!" brigade and I have a responsible attitude to firearms.
Now, can I have Section 5 firearms licence please?
PK
Now, can I have Section 5 firearms licence please?
PK
-
John W. Howard
- Moderator
- Posts: 2282
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 10:55 pm
Firearms
Hi Gents:
I think Paddy's post is spot on; some people do need killing. We have already had our first murder of the year in my reasonably small town, plus an 83 year-old man was beaten over the head by a group of thugs, when he tried to protect his 76 year-old wife from a home invasion. One year ago an aged Pearl Harbor vet was murdered in his home during a home-invasion. The latest was a young man, who was going to school to try to better himself. The murderers pulled up in a car and shot at the boy eight times, replaced the clip and shot at him eight more times, then drove calmly away. We have also had a spate of arsons, which are linked to young gang members "making their bones" for gang membership. The police seem to be powerless because of community pressure to be "kind and understanding".
Like Paddy, I do not carry a gun, because of too much of a temptation to use it. Instead, I follow the law and drive to a shooting range, gun and ammo separated. My family used to have a rural range, where I spent many hours shooting, and oddly enough after I was finished my stress was gone, and I felt much relieved. Although I do not carry a weapon, it is nice to know I have one and know how to use it, just in case. My problem with the concealed carry laws is that after qualifying for the license, there is no provision for continuing practice or qualification for the licensee. Law enforcement officers will tell you that continuing practice is very necessary with a hand-gun in order to ensure proficiency, something the licensees may or may not do. Thus we have people licensed to carry who are in some cases out of practice and a potential menace.
I think Paddy's post is spot on; some people do need killing. We have already had our first murder of the year in my reasonably small town, plus an 83 year-old man was beaten over the head by a group of thugs, when he tried to protect his 76 year-old wife from a home invasion. One year ago an aged Pearl Harbor vet was murdered in his home during a home-invasion. The latest was a young man, who was going to school to try to better himself. The murderers pulled up in a car and shot at the boy eight times, replaced the clip and shot at him eight more times, then drove calmly away. We have also had a spate of arsons, which are linked to young gang members "making their bones" for gang membership. The police seem to be powerless because of community pressure to be "kind and understanding".
Like Paddy, I do not carry a gun, because of too much of a temptation to use it. Instead, I follow the law and drive to a shooting range, gun and ammo separated. My family used to have a rural range, where I spent many hours shooting, and oddly enough after I was finished my stress was gone, and I felt much relieved. Although I do not carry a weapon, it is nice to know I have one and know how to use it, just in case. My problem with the concealed carry laws is that after qualifying for the license, there is no provision for continuing practice or qualification for the licensee. Law enforcement officers will tell you that continuing practice is very necessary with a hand-gun in order to ensure proficiency, something the licensees may or may not do. Thus we have people licensed to carry who are in some cases out of practice and a potential menace.
John W. Howard
-
phylo_roadking
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
Unfortunately, an NRA-approved HS (Hunter's Safety) course is NOT mandated for firearms' owenership in the majority of US states 
or else the relatively small number of accidental injuries and deaths compared to gun crime would be even lower. Nor do I see anything wrong with them being mandatory. Every other form of possession that requires "legal responsibility" - driving licence, pilots' licence et. - require a mandatory minimum of safety training.
I have to say - while the recourse to armed resistance when faced with gun crime MAY increase the number of overall injuries and deaths from firearms....it shore would reduce the statistics for "repeat offenders" LMAO
or else the relatively small number of accidental injuries and deaths compared to gun crime would be even lower. Nor do I see anything wrong with them being mandatory. Every other form of possession that requires "legal responsibility" - driving licence, pilots' licence et. - require a mandatory minimum of safety training.I have to say - while the recourse to armed resistance when faced with gun crime MAY increase the number of overall injuries and deaths from firearms....it shore would reduce the statistics for "repeat offenders" LMAO
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
-
John W. Howard
- Moderator
- Posts: 2282
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 10:55 pm
Accidents
Hello Phylo:
You are right Phylo. Most of the accidents are preventable and part of the problem is that many kids(and adults) do not know one end of a weapon from another, or what severe damage they can do to the human body.
I do not have the statistics in front of me now, but a couple of years ago the breakdown of gun deaths in the US was led by suicide, then accidents, then deliberate gun-crime. The first, suicide, is a tough one to deal with, because we cannot force most people to get treatment, and by the fact that if they are really determined, they will get it done another way other than firearms. The accidents are very preventable and should be worked on. The deliberate gun-crime is mostly a criminal problem.
You are right Phylo. Most of the accidents are preventable and part of the problem is that many kids(and adults) do not know one end of a weapon from another, or what severe damage they can do to the human body.
I do not have the statistics in front of me now, but a couple of years ago the breakdown of gun deaths in the US was led by suicide, then accidents, then deliberate gun-crime. The first, suicide, is a tough one to deal with, because we cannot force most people to get treatment, and by the fact that if they are really determined, they will get it done another way other than firearms. The accidents are very preventable and should be worked on. The deliberate gun-crime is mostly a criminal problem.
John W. Howard
-
pzrmeyer2
Re: Firearms
You woulndt happen to live in Carolina, would you John? It seems the same events and the same police (non) reaction, is happening here too, even in my "exclusive" subdivision. A homeowner was shot in an MS13 gang initiation ("isolated incident" said the cops), a mother was robbed and assaulted by other "youths" (unrelated of course), and several houses have had their front doors kicked in and robbed. (also "unlrelated", although all the "suspects" have the same MO and complexions.) I can say in my semi-rural, high-priced suburb, all the cops can do is react and pick up the pieces. Now, in charming parts of rural Austria, where the indigenous population is orderly and peace-loving, this may not be an issue. But...its coming...trust me.John W. Howard wrote:Hi Gents:
I think Paddy's post is spot on; some people do need killing. We have already had our first murder of the year in my reasonably small town, plus an 83 year-old man was beaten over the head by a group of thugs, when he tried to protect his 76 year-old wife from a home invasion. One year ago an aged Pearl Harbor vet was murdered in his home during a home-invasion. The latest was a young man, who was going to school to try to better himself. The murderers pulled up in a car and shot at the boy eight times, replaced the clip and shot at him eight more times, then drove calmly away. We have also had a spate of arsons, which are linked to young gang members "making their bones" for gang membership. The police seem to be powerless because of community pressure to be "kind and understanding".
Like Paddy, I do not carry a gun, because of too much of a temptation to use it. Instead, I follow the law and drive to a shooting range, gun and ammo separated. My family used to have a rural range, where I spent many hours shooting, and oddly enough after I was finished my stress was gone, and I felt much relieved. Although I do not carry a weapon, it is nice to know I have one and know how to use it, just in case. My problem with the concealed carry laws is that after qualifying for the license, there is no provision for continuing practice or qualification for the licensee. Law enforcement officers will tell you that continuing practice is very necessary with a hand-gun in order to ensure proficiency, something the licensees may or may not do. Thus we have people licensed to carry who are in some cases out of practice and a potential menace.
-
John W. Howard
- Moderator
- Posts: 2282
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 10:55 pm
Ohio
Hi Erik:
No Erik, I am in Ohio and it is sad to see the decline in the places around me. I live in the burbs, where things are still reasonably safe, but in the city there is a steady decline. The city used to be called "Little Chicago" in the thirties, because we had bootleggers, tommy-gun shoot-outs etc. We seem to be returning to those days. In the tirties we had white gangsters; now most, but not all, are black kids with no guidance and no future. They spend most of their time terrorizing the decent black folks among whom they live. Two of the victims mentioned above were black. Drugs, of course, play a dominant role. Most of the black families I work with would be just fine and good parents without the drugs. Lack of solid working-class jobs is another problem; the steel mills are mostly closed as are the auto-factories, the tool shops, the engine shops, etc. It is sad.
No Erik, I am in Ohio and it is sad to see the decline in the places around me. I live in the burbs, where things are still reasonably safe, but in the city there is a steady decline. The city used to be called "Little Chicago" in the thirties, because we had bootleggers, tommy-gun shoot-outs etc. We seem to be returning to those days. In the tirties we had white gangsters; now most, but not all, are black kids with no guidance and no future. They spend most of their time terrorizing the decent black folks among whom they live. Two of the victims mentioned above were black. Drugs, of course, play a dominant role. Most of the black families I work with would be just fine and good parents without the drugs. Lack of solid working-class jobs is another problem; the steel mills are mostly closed as are the auto-factories, the tool shops, the engine shops, etc. It is sad.
John W. Howard
-
Paddy Keating
And now we come back to the people who are really to blame for this mess, the moneybags types who sold our industrial patrimony in the US and Europe out to lower bidders, who turned our working classes into indolent classes and, thence, to delinquent sub-classes.
This has long been my issue with "the extreme right", as they are known. They keep focusing on the symptoms, lobbing garbage cans through the windows of houses in which terrified immigrant families are cowering, and parroting ridiculously out-of-date racist hyperbole whilst carefully, it seems, avoiding locking horns with our real enemies, who look just like us, only more expensively dressed and coiffed.
The day a genuinely National Socialist movement of the old Strasserite/Peronist/Nasserite variety rises up from the ashes of old mistakes, embraces our multi-ethnic society, rejecting multi-culturalism, and yells in all its pent-up fury at the massed ranks of white, pink, brown, black and yellow faces that the problems are largely due to the venality of the 3% that control the 97% of the wealth, then I will think about putting on a brown shirt or whatever the uniform is. Of course, the word "nationalist" seems limited but it depends on how one defines "nation". doesn't it? I define my nation at the moment as "nordo-celtic". However, I am inclined to include other races as long as their representatives in my space embrace my culture.
In the meantime, I will sit here refusing to vote in any election whatsoever because I am unrepresented. I know I am using the personal pronoun a bit too much but there are a lot of people who share this view. As John says, there are a lot of Blacks who just want to get on with life. There always were! They didn't ask us to come to Africa and mess them up! Well..OK...some of the Ivory Coast and East Coast royalty cut dodgy deals with the white man and the arabs in relation to the slave trade. But people are people. So a lot of black youths are murderous delinquents.
Well, frankly, if I had to put to put up with the cr@p they have to put up with, I'd be pretty murderous too. Not excusing them, guys, but let's get real here. Plenty of Blacks have tried hard to "integrate". Many have. But there's always that knock-back factor, isn't there? Because we just can't get beyond it, can we? As I said, it's time to reach out to all the people trying to eke out a living honestly or even half-honestly in The White Man's Paradise - har-frigging-har - and say: "Let's unite! Let's stop beating each other up. Let's go after the venal scum skimming the cream off the fruits of our labour and the labour of our ancestors. We should try to forget the old divides and unite against the real enemy.
PK
This has long been my issue with "the extreme right", as they are known. They keep focusing on the symptoms, lobbing garbage cans through the windows of houses in which terrified immigrant families are cowering, and parroting ridiculously out-of-date racist hyperbole whilst carefully, it seems, avoiding locking horns with our real enemies, who look just like us, only more expensively dressed and coiffed.
The day a genuinely National Socialist movement of the old Strasserite/Peronist/Nasserite variety rises up from the ashes of old mistakes, embraces our multi-ethnic society, rejecting multi-culturalism, and yells in all its pent-up fury at the massed ranks of white, pink, brown, black and yellow faces that the problems are largely due to the venality of the 3% that control the 97% of the wealth, then I will think about putting on a brown shirt or whatever the uniform is. Of course, the word "nationalist" seems limited but it depends on how one defines "nation". doesn't it? I define my nation at the moment as "nordo-celtic". However, I am inclined to include other races as long as their representatives in my space embrace my culture.
In the meantime, I will sit here refusing to vote in any election whatsoever because I am unrepresented. I know I am using the personal pronoun a bit too much but there are a lot of people who share this view. As John says, there are a lot of Blacks who just want to get on with life. There always were! They didn't ask us to come to Africa and mess them up! Well..OK...some of the Ivory Coast and East Coast royalty cut dodgy deals with the white man and the arabs in relation to the slave trade. But people are people. So a lot of black youths are murderous delinquents.
Well, frankly, if I had to put to put up with the cr@p they have to put up with, I'd be pretty murderous too. Not excusing them, guys, but let's get real here. Plenty of Blacks have tried hard to "integrate". Many have. But there's always that knock-back factor, isn't there? Because we just can't get beyond it, can we? As I said, it's time to reach out to all the people trying to eke out a living honestly or even half-honestly in The White Man's Paradise - har-frigging-har - and say: "Let's unite! Let's stop beating each other up. Let's go after the venal scum skimming the cream off the fruits of our labour and the labour of our ancestors. We should try to forget the old divides and unite against the real enemy.
PK