Bear mace as a self-defense weapon


Off-Topic Discussions

51 to 100 of 535 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Irony or bad luck?


Kryzbyn wrote:
Irony or bad luck?

I couldn't say, but I wonder how he learned an interpretation of the Second Amendment that hadn't been invented until after he died. Time travel?

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well i'm going to try and present this and be as open-minded as possible. From my viewpoint, the issues revolving around gun control are many and varied, with there being 3 main separate issues to contend with

"Gun control for violent crime". "Gun control for crimes of passion" and "Gun control for accidental shootings".

There are lots of violent crimes in the US every year, and many of the perpetrators use firearms. The problem is, the majority criminal element who usually perpetrate these crimes do not walk into a sporting goods store and buy a legally obtainable gun over the counter with a permit. They buy it illegally on the black market. Banning all legal gun sales in the US would not stop these types of individuals from getting guns. Look at chicago, its almost impossible to obtain a legal permit to carry a pistol in that city, yet it has the highest gun murder rate in the country. Obviously an outright ban is not really effective there. Something else needs to be tried.

Ok so banning all guns doesn't stop criminals. Hmm well what does it do?? Well it would cut down on the accidental shootings, where a child finds his parents gun and accidentally hurts himself or a friend. Then again, that's more of the fault of the parents not storing the weapon properly than the fault of the community for letting the person own it. Children die in pools every year, yet we don't restrict those, do we?

It would cut down on crimes of passion, where someone grabs a gun and shoots someone in a fit of anger.

That's really about it. hard core criminals will always find weapons through illegal channels, so an outright ban only really effects the smaller subgroup of gun crimes revolving around accidental shootings and crimes of passion.

So whats the answer? I'm all for a reasonable level of gun permits and background checks when purchasing firearms. I happen to live in one of the most restrictive states in the US in regards to gun control laws. I happen to own a few firearms for sporting purposes (hunting and target shooting), and I had to go through a year's worth of paperwork, background checks, and interviews with my local police chief before my permits to won them were granted. And here is where I think a major improvement in the entire gun control controversial can be made.

The secret I think is education. Most of the US population now dwells in urban environs. For most states, long gone are the days where a kid grew up on a farm and was handed a small caliber rifle at the age of 12 so he could go shoot a rabbit for dinner. Instead, thanks to movies and the media, people are terrified of guns. The mere thought of guns sends shivers up the spines of some of my closest friends? Why? well mostly because of ignorance. Humans fear what they don't understand. We view these tools with fear, because we've been brought up this way, disconnected from a culture that regularly uses firearms. When was the last time you saw a high school with a shooting team? They were popular all the way through the 50's and 60's, but have been phased out in modern times.

Lets educate people. Lets let them know about the laws that are already in place. Let's allow people to understand what a gun is and what it can be used for. Lets give people the knowledge necessary to make an educated decision on the topic at hand, and to discuss all the options in a logical manner. Its really hard to hold debates when only one side has all the facts.

A real world example. As I mentioned already, I have lots of friends who, like many Americans, we're terrified at the "concept" of a gun (my wife included). Yet they we're open to the idea of learning about them. After a few show and tell session with an unloaded gun, some time shooting a bb-gun at tin cans (for the uninitiated, a toy guy that shoots a small copper bead through the means of air pressure), and eventually a trip to a rifle range to shoot an actual firearm, my friends came away with different views of guns. Sure, some were still for banning them, but none of them we're terrified of them anymore. They were now familiar with what a gun was, how it worked, and found themselves no longer afraid. Now, some years later, some of them own guns. Some do not. Others occasionally come and shoot recreationally with me, but do not own firearms of their own. Heh, my wife is now a better shot at the shotgun range than I am.

But across the boards, a small bit of education, helped ALL of my friends understand, exactly what a gun is, and not to be afraid of the object. We now have informed debates, with pro-gun and anti-gun people in the same room, and can actually have a discussion as sane individuals :) Like a knife, or a car, a gun is simply a tool that can be used for many purposes. Sadly some people use them to commit terrible crimes. I say take out the fear of the unknown, then we can all sit down and talk about what the options for gun control are.

P.S. For those curious as to what it currently takes to buy a firearm. I've lived in Massachusetts and New Jersey. For those of you who don't know, In those states you have to have a permit to buy a sporting firearm (like a shotgun, or a rifle you'd use to hunt deer). You need a second permit to buy and carry a handgun. The permits involve: criminal background checks, mental health checks, fingerprinting, and an interview with the local police. A process that takes 6 months to a year. If the police choose to grant you a permit, you can now buy a gun.

Of course to buy a gun, you have to have the appropriate permit type. Then the clerk calls the state police, who run a new background check on you to see if you've done anything bad since your permit was issued. If you pass that check, you pay for your firearm, then leave. In 10 days you can return to pick it up. This "Cooldown period" is to prevent "crimes of passion". And of course the make, model, and serial number of whatever I just bought is logged in a national database. In jersey they add more steps, including 2 more trips to the local police department to confirm what you purchased.

Looks like I got a bit long winded. Oh well, I feel its a topic that needs discussion from all sides.


By the way, all that stuff about how hard it is to legally get a gun in Massachusetts or New Jersey. The NRA is against it.

"Shall issue", reciprocal licensing, against national background checks, against any registration, etc, etc.

And of course, part of the reason guns are so easy to get illegally, even in the heavily restricted areas is that they are so easy to get legally in nearby states.


New Hampshire in the house, biznitch!

Live free or I'm going to kill you!


I concur on the education idea.
I've often wished that firearms safety could be taught in high schools, but the politics of the day prohibit that.
I make a point of attempting to go over the basics of firearms saftey with folks every chance I get, even those who are anti-firearms as there is always a chance they will find themselves in a situation where they may need to render a weapon safe.

Ah, New Hampshire - where (if I recall correctly) your drivers license is your conceal carry permit.

Regarding NRA members & banning "assault weapons". I'm not a member of the NRA. Of the 30 firearms owners I can think of off of the top of my head that I know well, only 2 are NRA members. None of the 30 would support another "assult weapon ban" and would actively oppose any restriction to their magazine capacity. I still hope to buy a Calico some day... the time I could save on reloads at the range almost makes it worth the prices they are going for these days because of the last "assault weapons ban" that put some very nice American companies out of business.

-TimD

P.S. yeah, thejeff, I'm already regretting it - I figure I'll allow myself one day a year, and this is it ... no more politics after today, back to gaming advise and random bits about how awesome alcohol is... or is that political now too?


TimD wrote:

I concur on the education idea.

I've often wished that firearms safety could be taught in high schools, but the politics of the day prohibit that.

And I wish we could afford music and art and all the other cultural things we had when I was in school, all pushed aside for the latest standardized test and the latest budget cut. What do we drop to teach firearms safety?


thejeff wrote:
TimD wrote:

I concur on the education idea.

I've often wished that firearms safety could be taught in high schools, but the politics of the day prohibit that.
And I wish we could afford music and art and all the other cultural things we had when I was in school, all pushed aside for the latest standardized test and the latest budget cut. What do we drop to teach firearms safety?

I would probably roll it into part of a PE or Health class, not offer it as a separate class in and of itself. Though I could see funding being an issue.

I was not aware that art and music classes have been removed from the curriculum, but it may vary from state to state.

-TimD


I live in NW Montana in grizzly country. I also own and carry a 45 acp. Usually open carry, but I do conceal sometimes and have both a Florida CCW and Montana CCW.

I carry bear spray when I am out and about.... for bears. It is bear country. Bear spray is far safer to use verses bear. In fact, they say even using a 45 vs bears is not liable to help... if the bullet goes through them, it just pisses them off.

To defend from people.... nothing beats a gun. Nothing.

When I am in Glacier National Park or one of the national forests... I carry both. Sometimes adding my AK 47, or the pistol gripped 12g Mossberg 500 Persuader I use as a backpack gun.

Considering Montana has told the Feds to go jump off a bridge over Obamacare when we made them enforcing Obamacare on Montanans illegal, we'd do the same with a gun ban. My guns are not going anywhere....


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, I should point out using bear spray in a school would be the height of irresponsibility. You could kill children with it.

80 percent of Montanans own at least 1 gun. 80 percent of them own more than 2 guns. 80 percent of them own more than 3 guns. Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians....

Kids here train with guns all the time.

There has never been a mass killing here. There has never been a school shooting here. The violent crime rate is lower than most states with massive gun restrictions.

If guns kill people, my own are defective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The 8th Dwarf wrote:

I am all for arming Bears with Maces...

Although Chuck Norris once used a bear as a mace.

The sooner we all admit that Chuck Norris has lost all his Internet-spawned powers by allowing himself to become a whacked-out nut job conspiracy freak of Vatican proportions, the sooner we can all forget what a beating he took from Bruce Lee, and move on from thinking about his sorry, hypocritical butt entirely.


Bruunwald wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:

I am all for arming Bears with Maces...

Although Chuck Norris once used a bear as a mace.

The sooner we all admit that Chuck Norris has lost all his Internet-spawned powers by allowing himself to become a whacked-out nut job conspiracy freak of Vatican proportions, the sooner we can all forget what a beating he took from Bruce Lee, and move on from thinking about his sorry, hypocritical butt entirely.

The Chuck thing is sarcasm and irony. It looks like you need to take a chill pill.

it wasn't only Bruce Lee that kicked the s#%$ out of Chuck... Chuck once made a star sized nuisance of himself in a night club in Sydney and had his arse kicked by a bouncer.


Mead Gregorisson wrote:

Also, I should point out using bear spray in a school would be the height of irresponsibility. You could kill children with it.

80 percent of Montanans own at least 1 gun. 80 percent of them own more than 2 guns. 80 percent of them own more than 3 guns. Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians....

Kids here train with guns all the time.

There has never been a mass killing here. There has never been a school shooting here. The violent crime rate is lower than most states with massive gun restrictions.

If guns kill people, my own are defective.

There have been 2 school shootings in Montana, both with 1 fatality, in 1986 and 1994. There aren't really any accurate records to search for Montana (easily) prior to the 1950's.

With 118 school shootings since 1950, Montana accounts for 1.6% of them, but only has 0.3% of the population. I don't have the time to do the figures for deaths, though I think Montana will fare better on that one.

Also, statistics show that gun control laws do lower gun deaths, including laws about trigger locks, safes and ammunition storage. But don't let silly things like facts and science get in the way of your opinion.


Irontruth wrote:
Mead Gregorisson wrote:

Also, I should point out using bear spray in a school would be the height of irresponsibility. You could kill children with it.

80 percent of Montanans own at least 1 gun. 80 percent of them own more than 2 guns. 80 percent of them own more than 3 guns. Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians....

Kids here train with guns all the time.

There has never been a mass killing here. There has never been a school shooting here. The violent crime rate is lower than most states with massive gun restrictions.

If guns kill people, my own are defective.

There have been 2 school shootings in Montana, both with 1 fatality, in 1986 and 1994. There aren't really any accurate records to search for Montana (easily) prior to the 1950's.

With 118 school shootings since 1950, Montana accounts for 1.6% of them, but only has 0.3% of the population. I don't have the time to do the figures for deaths, though I think Montana will fare better on that one.

Also, statistics show that gun control laws do lower gun deaths, including laws about trigger locks, safes and ammunition storage. But don't let silly things like facts and science get in the way of your opinion.

I stand corrected on the school shootings, which I don't mind. :)

But you also have to remember our .3% of the population has a much higher percentage of guns. Two school shootings with 2 deaths when we have more guns than we have people? There are more guns here now, then there were a few years back, let alone 1994.

Edit: Looked them up. The 1994 one in Butte was a teased kid. If he hadn't had access to a gun, I am sure he would have used something else.

The Lewistown one also had a specific target, and could have just have easily used a knife... and back then... a knife would have probably been allowed in that school.

When I was talking school shootings, I did mean random Columbine, Virginia Tech, Newtown ones... not a person trying to kill a single person. I had that in my old high school in California, they used a screwdriver.

They lower gun deaths only when you include things like suicide or accidental deaths. Criminals are still going to be able to get guns. If guns were banned, and I wanted another gun... even I know where I could get one.

I was born and raised in Flint, Michigan... the murder capital of the US. Most of those using firearms and committed by people who already can't legally own them.


I should point out I am for many gun laws. But banning them just takes them from law-abiding hands. Criminals are not going to care if a law banning a weapon is in place. If they want a gun to shoot someone, they will get a gun to shoot someone.

My main point was bear spray makes a poor choice to replace a gun.

For one thing, the cans are huge. Lol

Interestingly, I was anti-gun until 2010. I got my CCW after my neighborhood in Florida had a home invasion spree in which I was victimized. Most of the victims died. They had trouble getting into my place, so they waited until the next day when myself and my neighbors were gone to try again. Succeeding. Luckily, I guess they didn't want to kill my cats.


TimD wrote:
Ah, New Hampshire - where (if I recall correctly) your drivers license is your conceal carry permit.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. You have to pay $10 and have a background check, methinks.


In Wisconsin, the procedure for obtaining a conceal carry permit is as follows:

Go to Gander Mountain.
Plunk down $50.
Fire ~10 rounds into a target at their range.
Attend a short (10 minute) demonstration of how to properly adjust clothing as to not restrict access to your concealed holster/gun.
Sign a piece of paper.

All in all, about 20 minutes and 50 bucks with ZERO actual governmental oversight.

AND you can carry weapons in the state capital building, but carrying any video or audio recording devices has been outlawed.


Duh. People carrying guns are good. People carrying cameras are evil. And you ask why guns are allowed but not cameras???


Sissyl wrote:
Duh. People carrying guns are good. People carrying cameras are evil. And you ask why guns are allowed but not cameras???

Inorite? Who wants openness, transparency and accountability in governance? Certainly not Scott Walker who campaigned on those guiding principles!


Mead Gregorisson wrote:
Most of the victims died.

From what? Gunshot wounds?

Lantern Lodge

Krensky wrote:
TimD wrote:
Quite possibly, especially given that one of the policies of the British was to utilize private homes to house their troops and the point of the Second Amendment was not to defend the right to hunt (as that would have seemed about as odd a notion as defending the right to farm in their day), but rather the...

Ah... the old tyranny myth.

The second ammendment was about having an armed citizen militia rather then a standing army. The framers writings and actions demonstrate this, as does over two hundred years of case law until the thoery that the Second Amendment was about personal gun ownership was invented in the 1970s and enshrined by a nitwit and his sock puppet in the 2000s.

I think it's less about tyranny and more about authority, the entire constitution is about maintaining a government that is under the authority of the people, the ability to punish or otherwise cause negative consequences to another for their actions, whether used or not, is an important part of authority.

We the people are suppossed to have authority over the government, that means we need to have a paddle to maintain that authority while avoiding the need for its use.

Have you ever noticed that better behaved children always have parents that are willing dish out punishment when needed? I have, and you can think of the people as the parent and the government as the child.

A government with nothing to fear /eventually/ goes out of control.

That said, that study posted earlier in the thread seems to support the idea of culture having a major effect on gun related problems.

As for those who keep saying that other countries with bans having lower gun crimes, I would like to see the population and their culture taken into account.

My google fu is subpar, and I only have a phone anyway (a substandard internet tool) but if a country with five times the population has only twice the problems seems like a bad arguement for the smaller country.

Also, did anyone notice how low the numbers were on that report?

As bad as these guns problems are, they don't seem bad enough to warrent the ridiculous outcry that has occured. Yes death is bad, but still hundreds of millions of people and maybe a few hundred die from this problem. Seems more like it should be a (relatively) minor concern to me, particularly since having people live long lives would be very bad for our economic structure (by way having ever more people living off retirement compared to the working populace).

Death is a part of life, this doesn't seem out balance, however tragic it is.

Lantern Lodge

+1 for education
+1 for culture effects (example is montana)
+1 for the need to discern criminal gun deaths from other gun deaths which even the report from earlier stated that all were lumped together.

As someone stated above, most criminals ae useing illegal guns anyway, even where guns are legal, therefore being illegal makes not much a difference on the criminal side.

As for the non-crime related gun deaths, regulations and permits help though don't need to very restrictive and even less so if you include education and the right cultural environment.

Also think, making guns a badge of respect or obtaining one a right of passage, would encourage education and proper respect for guns.

Note: I do not believe that being a badge of respect or a right of passage would be the same as glorifying them, though I do expect some to disagree with me on that point.

Lantern Lodge

Irontruth wrote:
Some information on factors that contribute to gun violence.

The report I mention.

The four highest factors are Collage, Obama voter, McCain Voter, and poverty.

Obama and McCain are indictators of culture BTW, however may be a bit inaccurate considering the questionability of the last elections.

Collage is an indicator of education, and poverty is an indication of desperation, culture, and sometimes education.


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
I think it's less about tyranny and more about authority, the entire constitution is about maintaining a government that is under the authority of the people, the ability to punish or otherwise cause negative consequences to another for their actions, whether used or not, is an important part of authority.

How's that working out?

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
As for those who keep saying that other countries with bans having lower gun crimes, I would like to see the population and their culture taken into account.

Really? Go ahead.

Australia, 27,000,000 approx.

Guns freely available over the counter, sold with your newspaper.
Number of massacres = too bloody many.

Gun control in place 1996 (after bloodiest shooting on record)
Number of massacres since = 0.

No bombs, no alternate methods, no secret Ninja death rays used in lieu of firearms.


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Some information on factors that contribute to gun violence.

The report I mention.

The four highest factors are Collage, Obama voter, McCain Voter, and poverty.

Obama and McCain are indictators of culture BTW, however may be a bit inaccurate considering the questionability of the last elections.

Collage is an indicator of education, and poverty is an indication of desperation, culture, and sometimes education.

What that chart shows is the the four highest factors were

McCain Voters
Poverty Level
Working class
Weapons in schools

The LOWEST factors were:

College Graduates
Obama Voters
Creative Class
Safe Gun Storage

It also goes on to say:
Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).


Mead Gregorisson wrote:


Considering Montana has told the Feds to go jump off a bridge over Obamacare when we made them enforcing Obamacare on Montanans illegal, we'd do the same with a gun ban. My guns are not going anywhere....

You are aware that those laws are purely symbolic, right? The ACA will be enforced, same as a gun ban would be.

More accurately, a gun ban might be struck down on 2nd Amendment issues, depending on the details, but if it passes that test, it will apply to Montana regardless of Montana law. The SC has not and will not uphold that kind of 10th amendment challenge and has already held the ACA as constitutional.


Mead Gregorisson wrote:
Also, I should point out using bear spray in a school would be the height of irresponsibility. You could kill children with it.

But guns in school are ok because you can't kill children with guns?

Lantern Lodge

Shifty wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Some information on factors that contribute to gun violence.

The report I mention.

The four highest factors are Collage, Obama voter, McCain Voter, and poverty.

Obama and McCain are indictators of culture BTW, however may be a bit inaccurate considering the questionability of the last elections.

Collage is an indicator of education, and poverty is an indication of desperation, culture, and sometimes education.

What that chart shows is the the four highest factors were

McCain Voters
Poverty Level
Working class
Weapons in schools

The LOWEST factors were:

College Graduates
Obama Voters
Creative Class
Safe Gun Storage

It also goes on to say:
Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).

Those are not the highest and lowest factors, saying highest and lowest implies that the lowest have the least effect, what they are saying is McCain, poverty and working class have a big effect as well as Obama, collage and creative class have a big effect.

Them sorting the positive effects vs negative effects doesn't change my top four as having the greatest effect on the situation in any direction.

Lantern Lodge

thejeff wrote:
Mead Gregorisson wrote:
Also, I should point out using bear spray in a school would be the height of irresponsibility. You could kill children with it.
But guns in school are ok because you can't kill children with guns?

I think his point was that bear spray wouldn't be a better option since it would be possible for kids to die and teachers are more likely to use the spray then they would a gun. Doesn't mean he supports giving them guns (referencing this statment).

Just because someone says something doesn't make it automatic support for some other statement. It isn't always mutually exclusive concepts in these discussions.


thejeff wrote:
Mead Gregorisson wrote:
Also, I should point out using bear spray in a school would be the height of irresponsibility. You could kill children with it.
But guns in school are ok because you can't kill children with guns?

When's the last time a bunch of kids died because some guy went into a school with a gun? That's so...last week.

The Exchange

Samnell wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Mead Gregorisson wrote:
Also, I should point out using bear spray in a school would be the height of irresponsibility. You could kill children with it.
But guns in school are ok because you can't kill children with guns?
When's the last time a bunch of kids died because some guy went into a school with a gun? That's so...last week.

And how many times do teachers in some states carry and not kill?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting
And some save lives....


DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Them sorting the positive effects vs negative effects doesn't change my top four as having the greatest effect on the situation in any direction.

Except in this case theres four going one way (bad) and the other four going the otherway (good).

They are polar opposite figures.

Yes they all represent 'significant effect' however by overlooking that two were positive and two were negative you start to look as though you are being misleading.

Its like saying a million dollars in savings and a million dollars in debt are pretty much equivalent.


Shifty wrote:


Its like saying a million dollars in savings and a million dollars in debt are pretty much equivalent.

Welcome to politics!


The school's assistant principal, Joel Myrick, retrieved a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol from his truck and, spotting him near the parking lot, shouted for Woodham to stop. Woodham instead got into his mother's car and tried to escape. Myrick, a U.S. Army Reserve commander, detained Woodham until authorities arrived.[8][9]

No lives were saved, the guy was just arrested easier.

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:

The school's assistant principal, Joel Myrick, retrieved a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol from his truck and, spotting him near the parking lot, shouted for Woodham to stop. Woodham instead got into his mother's car and tried to escape. Myrick, a U.S. Army Reserve commander, detained Woodham until authorities arrived.[8][9]

No lives were saved, the guy was just arrested easier.

Unless he went back to shooting before the police found him. but he was apprehended before we will ever need to find out


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Some information on factors that contribute to gun violence.

The report I mention.

The four highest factors are Collage, Obama voter, McCain Voter, and poverty.

Obama and McCain are indictators of culture BTW, however may be a bit inaccurate considering the questionability of the last elections.

Collage is an indicator of education, and poverty is an indication of desperation, culture, and sometimes education.

Woo hoo! Sounds like there is only one course available to solve this problem then.

Ban voting! Then you would get rid of both the McCain voters and the Obama voters from affecting the gun death statistics!!! Yay!!!

...or else these factors show a significant correlation, meaning that you don't consider anything but the SIZE of the correlation, not the direction. Which is, you know, deeply dishonest.

Sovereign Court

Andrew R wrote:
Samnell wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Mead Gregorisson wrote:
Also, I should point out using bear spray in a school would be the height of irresponsibility. You could kill children with it.
But guns in school are ok because you can't kill children with guns?
When's the last time a bunch of kids died because some guy went into a school with a gun? That's so...last week.

And how many times do teachers in some states carry and not kill?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting
And some save lives....

From what I'm reading in the Wiki entry you linked it says the assistant principal had a gun in his car and when he got it he confronted the shooter in the parking lot. That would seem to suggest to me that the shooter had done all the shooting he wanted in the school and was attempting to escape when he was apprehended. Not to belittle this brave man's actions but I don't see how he saved any lives unless you count the shooter. I suppose it's possible that the shooter would have taken his rampage elsewhere, or that apprehending him gave critical time to paramedics, but I'm not familiar with the case enough to say one way or the other. That's just the impression I get from the brief snip-it on Wikipedia.


Democracy is the people wielding the power to check a government, you do not need guns to protect your self from your government.

The British are not going to make you part of the empire again.

It may be a surprise for some but the US Civil War is over.

You have massacred the Native Americans and taken their land and they are no longer a threat.

Mexico is not going to take Texas or California back.

There are not enough Hawians to challenge your illegal annexation of their country.

The Canadians aren't going to invade, even though you invaded them and failed.

Why the f~~$ do you want to have guns if you don't need them.

Growing up near farms I can understand the need for farmers,I also understand hunting ( I don't agree with it but I understand), target and sport shooting fine, but casual gun ownership why?


Well, you see, all the things you bring up are only true because americans have guns. Ban guns, and God knows what the mexicans, hawaiians, native americans and canadians might do? You are aware that the canadians invaded, pillaging, burning, looting and generally giving everybody a bad time, just because american vigilance slipped for a few days?

The Exchange

Sissyl wrote:
Well, you see, all the things you bring up are only true because americans have guns. Ban guns, and God knows what the mexicans, hawaiians, native americans and canadians might do? You are aware that the canadians invaded, pillaging, burning, looting and generally giving everybody a bad time, just because american vigilance slipped for a few days?

OOOh what happened there? can you link it I am curious.


http://www.historycentral.com/1812/Washington.html


Ooh! I just realized I can tie all of this in with the Cultural Marxism thread!!

More scary Negro women with guns and the sexist songs written about them.

Sovereign Court

Sissyl wrote:
http://www.historycentral.com/1812/Washington.html

Linkified

That wasn't about American vigilance slipping, that was about the US attacking Canada, burning our then capital of York, and then getting their tails beat back across the border by the British. On the bright side our relations are much better and we hardly ever mention The War of 1812.


Don't mention the war!


Mead Gregorisson wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Mead Gregorisson wrote:

Also, I should point out using bear spray in a school would be the height of irresponsibility. You could kill children with it.

80 percent of Montanans own at least 1 gun. 80 percent of them own more than 2 guns. 80 percent of them own more than 3 guns. Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians....

Kids here train with guns all the time.

There has never been a mass killing here. There has never been a school shooting here. The violent crime rate is lower than most states with massive gun restrictions.

If guns kill people, my own are defective.

There have been 2 school shootings in Montana, both with 1 fatality, in 1986 and 1994. There aren't really any accurate records to search for Montana (easily) prior to the 1950's.

With 118 school shootings since 1950, Montana accounts for 1.6% of them, but only has 0.3% of the population. I don't have the time to do the figures for deaths, though I think Montana will fare better on that one.

Also, statistics show that gun control laws do lower gun deaths, including laws about trigger locks, safes and ammunition storage. But don't let silly things like facts and science get in the way of your opinion.

I stand corrected on the school shootings, which I don't mind. :)

But you also have to remember our .3% of the population has a much higher percentage of guns. Two school shootings with 2 deaths when we have more guns than we have people? There are more guns here now, then there were a few years back, let alone 1994.

Edit: Looked them up. The 1994 one in Butte was a teased kid. If he hadn't had access to a gun, I am sure he would have used something else.

The Lewistown one also had a specific target, and could have just have easily used a knife... and back then... a knife would have probably been allowed in that school.

When I was talking school shootings, I did mean random Columbine, Virginia Tech, Newtown ones... not a person trying to kill a single person. I had that in...

Random anonymous shootings are rare and irregular. People killing people who they know is much more common and happens several thousand times a year, every year. Those were shootings that happened at a school, you don't get to pick and choose which ones count.

The point of banning guns is to take them out of the hands of most criminals. It's happened successfully in multiple countries, so your claim of the opposite is in fact false and not supported by observable situations.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The 8th Dwarf wrote:

Democracy is the people wielding the power to check a government, you do not need guns to protect your self from your government.

The British are not going to make you part of the empire again.

It may be a surprise for some but the US Civil War is over.

You have massacred the Native Americans and taken their land and they are no longer a threat.

Mexico is not going to take Texas or California back.

There are not enough Hawians to challenge your illegal annexation of their country.

The Canadians aren't going to invade, even though you invaded them and failed.

Why the f&~# do you want to have guns if you don't need them.

Growing up near farms I can understand the need for farmers,I also understand hunting ( I don't agree with it but I understand), target and sport shooting fine, but casual gun ownership why?

Well, its an interesting case, isn't it? Yes the revolutionary war and civil war are now part of history, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen again. I always believed the spirit of the second amendment was intended as a check against the government. A way for the people to rise up, if necessary, and put aside a corrupt system. Or to defend ourselves vs. an invasion, whether foreign or domestic (such as another civil war). True, the chances of either of those events happening right now in this country are very small, but none of us can predict what will occur down the road. Look at congress, Last time I checked they had less than a 10% approval rating by the US populace. The founding fathers warned against career politicians (and even instituted house and senate term limits, which the house and senate eventually voted to remove). I'm not saying we should take up arms against them, on the contrary I hope the american people never have to do such a thing, but the option SHOULD be there, just in case.

As for the whole assault weapon ban. The question is what is an assault weapon? The media throws the term around, and they seem just as ignorant as to what one is, as a good amount of the voting public.

A few facts:
1) Automatic weapons are illegal in the USA. [ there are a few exceptions, primarily you can obtain a special government issues permit to own one for special circumstances. Like a civil war reenactment company owning a Gattling gun for display purposes. The permits are insanely hard to get.]

2)"Military style weapons" We all watch television and the movies, everyone knows what an M16 looks like. Well here's something you may not know. Due to the high number of american vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a demand for military style weapons for civilian use. Interestingly I can now go out and buy a deer rifle that's made to look like an M16 (ie AR-15). Why? well because Vets are used to using that style of weapon, so it has created a demand for rifles that "feel" like the ones they used over seas. Most of these sporting models would not qualify as an assault weapons. But they LOOK terrifying, and the average John Q public seeing one at a sporting goods store would not know the difference.

3) Semi-automatic weapons. I.E. weapons that discharge 1 round of ammunition with each trigger pull. As opposed to fully automatic which continuously fire rounds for as long as the trigger is held down. As I already mentioned, fully automatic weapons are illegal. Semi-automatic weapons, on the other hand, have been the norm for about a hundred years now. My shotgun (made to fire a spray of pellets) that I use for duck hunting holds 3 rounds (the legal limit in my state) and is semi-automatic. The small 22 caliber rifle (a lead bullet about the size of a pencil eraser) are commonly semi-automatic. They are also the quintessential target gun, small game gun (rabbits, squirrels, etc) and farm gun for shooting varmints and tin cans. "Semi-Automatic" does not automatically equate to "Assault Rifle"

4) So what is an "Assault rifle"? Most people probably equate it to a semi-automatic, or automatic rifle that shoots larger, high velocity military caliber ammunition and has a large capacity clip. Funny thing though, many of the "sporting calibers" (like the ones i use for moose hunting) are much larger, and deadly, than the military rounds. I can buy a small 22 caliber rifle with a massive magazine (50+ rounds), yet the rounds are very small, and are not considered to me military type ammunition. So where do you draw the distinction? Who makes the call as to whats an "assault rifle" and what is not?

I'm not an NRA member ( I find they have drifted away from their founding ideals and now lobby for political issues). I support reasonable gun control and legislation.

I think there should be criminal and mental health background checks in all states.

I think that "Gun lock" and "Gun Safe" laws are pointless. Those are common sense issues, that people should already do inside their homes. Passing laws that require gun locks in peoples homes won't change the fact that people who don't keep their guns in a safe manner, won't suddenly do so because a law was passed. And its almost impossible to regulate what goes on inside someone's home. For the record I keep my firearms locked in a safe and my ammunition in another. No law required me to do so, its just common sense.

You want to streamline the system? Create a federal gun ownership license that's good in all 50 states. Everyone has to go through the same system of checks and balances. This will remove the loopholes in states like Vermont and Florida that have a lenient system in place. It will also make things a bit easier and streamlined in states like New York Massachusetts, and Illinois which have a large pile of overly strict and redundant laws.

There are many options out there on how to make things safer, and to do so in a logical and cool headed manner.


Kassegore wrote:
Well, its an interesting case, isn't it? Yes the revolutionary war and civil war are now part of history, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen again. I always believed the spirit of the second amendment was intended as a check against the government. A way for the people to rise up, if necessary, and put aside a corrupt system.

Vive le Galt!

Lantern Lodge

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Kassegore wrote:
Well, its an interesting case, isn't it? Yes the revolutionary war and civil war are now part of history, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen again. I always believed the spirit of the second amendment was intended as a check against the government. A way for the people to rise up, if necessary, and put aside a corrupt system.
Vive le Galt!

I shudder to think of what the modern day equivalent of the Grey Gardeners would be .


Don't look at me.


Andrew R wrote:
Unless he went back to shooting before the police found him. but he was apprehended before we will ever need to find out

And an asteroid could have hit the school too.

You don't shoot up a school, get in your car, leave, and come back, and then start shooting again (in no small part because the cops will be there by that point). Seriously, did you read the article you linked? Is this actually the best correlation you can make between facts and your conclusion?

It simply demonstrates that the weapons neccesity of being adequately secured against accidental misfire prevents them from being used in time. This is evidence against your side, not for it.

51 to 100 of 535 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Bear mace as a self-defense weapon All Messageboards