EAA bans guns at OSH

bartmc said:
Who get's to dictate what a rational reason is?

I took a .45 hand gun to high school for show and tell, was an original run 1911. No hostile creatures harmed. Perfectly legitimate reason. No school administrator had a heart attack.

An even better legitimate reason is that I want to.
Click to expand...

You took a .45 with you to high school!????
:no::nono::mad2:
 
Clark1961 said:
FYI, I've used guns for years and never for violence. Hunting is a very legitimate use of a gun. Dove, pheasant, and quail are tasty animals and most definitely not hostile creatures.

Maybe you have no rational basis for your claims?
Click to expand...
I used "violence" as a generic term; "a use of physical force." Hunting is violence; albeit a socially acceptable one. The point is that one can have a non-violent use for a knife or pressure cooker, which makes it a poor comparison for gun rights.

Telling you your argument is faulty is not the same thing as telling you that your fundamental desire... carrying weapons to defend yourself...is wrong.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Skyscraper said:
You took a .45 with you to high school!????
:no::nono::mad2:
Click to expand...

If you leave California, you'll find that many other places aren't so infested with people that scream "ZOMG!" at everything. I wouldn't be surprised if his teacher/principal asked if they could fire it after school.
 
Skyscraper said:
You took a .45 with you to high school!????
:no::nono::mad2:
Click to expand...

Yep, it was a war issued US Army M1911 .45 of my granddaddy's (Still have it and shoot it BTW). My history teacher wanted to see it. I took it to class for show and tell.

Most days there was a .20 gauge in the back window of the truck for squirrel huntin'.

People didn't get sand in their panties back then, and thought nothing of it. no more than had I brought a peanut butter and jelly sandwich to school (Which might be illegal in NYC)
 
wanttaja said:
I used "violence" as a generic term; "a use of physical force." Hunting is violence; albeit a socially acceptable one. The point is that one can have a non-violent use for a knife or pressure cooker, which makes it a poor comparison for gun rights.
Click to expand...

So what's the non-physical force use of a knife or pressure cooker that makes them not analogous to a gun? Cutting with a knife is a physical force use of a knife. Using pressure to help cook food is a physical force use of a pressure cooker.

In short, it seems to me that you're splitting hairs that are pretty darn fine. Maybe so fine that other folks can't see them when examined closely.
 
bartmc said:
Yep, it was a war issued US Army M1911 .45 of my granddaddy's (Still have it and shoot it BTW). My history teacher wanted to see it. I took it to class for show and tell.

Most days there was a .20 gauge in the back window of the truck for squirrel huntin'.

People didn't get sand in their panties back then, and thought nothing of it. no more than had I brought a peanut butter and jelly sandwich to school (Which might be illegal in NYC)
Click to expand...

Yeah, people didn't get sand in their panties back then, you're right. But then again, people didn't go blowing children's heads off in broad daylight massacres back then either. We're not living in your grandaddy's world anymore I'm afraid. It's a much scarier place.
 
Skyscraper said:
It's a much scarier place.
Click to expand...

According to most all sources I can find, it's actually much safer these days. One thing I recall reading somewhere is that you are four times as likely to die from a cop than from a terrorist.
 
Skyscraper said:
Absolutely not. I'm not against firearms, but I just don't see "because I wanted to" as an acceptable reason to bring a fully functioning gun into a high school.
Click to expand...

Why not ? In the hands of a responsible person, a 'fully functioning' firearm is not inherently dangerous, it doesn't just jump out of the case or holster to do evil things.
 
Skyscraper said:
Yeah, people didn't get sand in their panties back then, you're right. But then again, people didn't go blowing children's heads off in broad daylight massacres back then either.
Click to expand...

Actually they did.

Ever heard of the Bath schoolhouse attack ?
 
Skyscraper said:
Yeah, people didn't get sand in their panties back then, you're right. But then again, people didn't go blowing children's heads off in broad daylight massacres back then either. We're not living in your grandaddy's world anymore I'm afraid. It's a much scarier place.
Click to expand...

Not true, do some research, violent crime is at a 30+ year low.
 
Skyscraper said:
Yeah, people didn't get sand in their panties back then, you're right. But then again, people didn't go blowing children's heads off in broad daylight massacres back then either. We're not living in your grandaddy's world anymore I'm afraid. It's a much scarier place.
Click to expand...

It isn't scarier now, and they did go around shooting each other occasionally back then.
 
docmirror said:
According to most all sources I can find, it's actually much safer these days. One thing I recall reading somewhere is that you are four times as likely to die from a cop than from a terrorist.
Click to expand...

Memphis PD has shot 5 and killed 7 total THIS YEAR.

Some were unarmed.
 
weilke said:
Why not ? In the hands of a responsible person, a 'fully functioning' firearm is not inherently dangerous, it doesn't just jump out of the case or holster to do evil things.
Click to expand...
You're wrong. An unloaded 1911 can really pinch your skin if you're not careful. Ouch! :wink2:
 
dweyant said:
Not true, do some research, violent crime is at a 30+ year low.
Click to expand...

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Crime is lower than it has been in decades, but not by leaps and bounds. Have a look at the violent crime numbers (violent crime being very broad I realize). It is lower now, yes, but compared to his "grandaddy's time", Violent crime is about 6 times more common. This is assuming his grandaddy is over 50 years old.
 
weilke said:
Actually they did.

Ever heard of the Bath schoolhouse attack ?
Click to expand...

No I hadn't, thanks for that. Sad stuff indeed. I wasn't making the point that everything was all skittles and beer until recently. I just believe that with the unreliability of humans, just maaaayyybe we ought not have unchecked firearms in schools. Food for thought.
 
Skyscraper said:
Absolutely not. I'm not against firearms, but I just don't see "because I wanted to" as an acceptable reason to bring a fully functioning gun into a high school.
Click to expand...

"Because I was asked to, by a teacher who wanted to see it" Was my reason he was a war buff (US History teacher). Setup little miniature battle recreations etc...

It would have taken bullets and a person holding with the intent to use it it to function, neither of which it had.

Here's the gun, I'm told it's rare and valuable.

https://plus.google.com/photos/113766962850387565270/albums/5873487896905476961

It has managed to sit in my family's house for the better part of a century without blowing any kid's heads off.
 
weilke said:
Why not ? In the hands of a responsible person, a 'fully functioning' firearm is not inherently dangerous, it doesn't just jump out of the case or holster to do evil things.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that people are not responsible, and by and large unreliable, that's why we have laws. Hell, Nuclear bombs are perfectly safe in the hands of responsible people. Do you see the weakness of the argument you present?
 
bartmc said:
"Because I was asked to, by a teacher who wanted to see it" Was my reason he was a war buff (US History teacher). Setup little miniature battle recreations etc...

It would have taken bullets and a person holding with the intent to use it it to function, neither of which it had.

Here's the gun, I'm told it's rare and valuable.

https://plus.google.com/photos/113766962850387565270/albums/5873487896905476961

It has managed to sit in my family's house for the better part of a century without blowing any kid's heads off.
Click to expand...

I'm glad that you sound like a responsible gun owner. Still, you did violate Georgia law by carrying a firearm within 1000 feet of a school unless you had written authorization from a school official.
 
Skyscraper said:
I'm glad that you sound like a responsible gun owner. Still, you did violate Georgia law by carrying a firearm within 1000 feet of a school unless you had written authorization from a school official.
Click to expand...

wuzn't Jawja and yes I had authorization from a school official. Like I said, History teacher wanted to see, the office knew about it, I don't recall if there was anything in writing, but half the school would have been in jail during hunting season if you couldn't have a firearm within 1000' of a school.

Was in rural Mississippi, even if there was a law, nobody cared.
 
Last edited:
bartmc said:
wuzn't Jawja and yes I had authorization from a school official.
Click to expand...

Forgive me, I made the mistake of assuming based on your current location. I'm not aware of the laws in the particular state in which you brought the gun to school.
 
bartmc said:
wuzn't Jawja and yes I had authorization from a school official. Like I said, History teacher wanted to see, the office knew about it, I don't recall if there was anything in writing, but half the school would have been in jail during hunting season if you couldn't have a firearm within 1000' of a school.

Was in rural Mississippi, even if there was a law, nobody cared.
Click to expand...

I suppose that one could complain about someone providing you (assuming you graduated on time or close to it) the handgun as you were under age.


Doesn't make your point any less valid, as by it's self it is just a collection of wood and metal
 
Clark1961 said:
So what's the non-physical force use of a knife or pressure cooker that makes them not analogous to a gun? Cutting with a knife is a physical force use of a knife. Using pressure to help cook food is a physical force use of a pressure cooker.

In short, it seems to me that you're splitting hairs that are pretty darn fine. Maybe so fine that other folks can't see them when examined closely.
Click to expand...
The issue is that the knife or pressure cooker has a primary use OTHER than violence, while firearms are made solely for the projection of lethal force.

I've carried a largish lock-blade knife every day for 30+ years (wedding present from my wife) because I find it useful on a fairly regular basis. I open boxes, I slit envelopes, I even used it once to cut away keep-out tape from the car of a woman who'd driven over some.

Yes, if I utterly have to, I will use it for self-defence. I'm a Robert Heinlein fan, but I tend to take the lesson given by the main character's sister (a Ranger/Seal type) early in "Tunnel in the Sky": Not carrying a serious weapon makes you likely to live longer; you walk in the shadows and watch for threats instead of boltly strutting down the center of street thinking the gun makes you invincible.

I have no objection if a law-abiding citizen wants to carry a firearm for his/her protection. I'd like to retain the right to own guns for my own use. Which means I'm dismayed when those with the same goals use arguments easy to dismiss.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Skylane81E said:
I suppose that one could complain about someone providing you (assuming you graduated on time or close to it) the handgun as you were under age.


Doesn't make your point any less valid, as by it's self it is just a collection of wood and metal
Click to expand...

24 is under aged?
 
wanttaja said:
The issue is that the knife or pressure cooker has a primary use OTHER than violence, while firearms are made solely for the projection of lethal force.
Click to expand...

Now you're changing your definition. First you typed that violence was the use of force. Now it is lethal force.

If you require lethal force then I'll simply point out that many more rounds are expended in the various forms of target practice than are ever used for lethal force. In other words, I do not accept your premise that guns only are used to kill. It would be nice if folks would stop using false claims such as you present here.
 
nddons said:
Tough town. :wink2:
Click to expand...

Yep, the police union is POed that pay was cut and put up some nasty billboards about the city not caring for public safety. 2 police were killed last year, seems to have them on edge.
 
Clark1961 said:
Now you're changing your definition. First you typed that violence was the use of force. Now it is lethal force.

If you require lethal force then I'll simply point out that many more rounds are expended in the various forms of target practice than are ever used for lethal force. In other words, I do not accept your premise that guns only are used to kill. It would be nice if folks would stop using false claims such as you present here.
Click to expand...
I never said guns were only used to kill. I'm not that familiar with match weapons, but I expect they fire heavy-enough projectiles at speeds sufficiently high speed to basically match the lethality of a typical self-defense sidearm.

That constitutes lethal force. It's up to the user to decide what to do with that lethal force... punch holes in a paper target, plink a can off a fencepost, knock a squirrel off a tree, harvest venison, or kill a human being. I think the line is, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." It's easier to kill someone (deserving or not) with a gun than a knife, pen, or even a pressure cooker.

Ron Wanttaja
 
How are you even going to GET your gun to OSH when the GPS system goes Tango Uniform and all the magenta lines disappear? :yikes:
 
Silvaire said:
How are you even going to GET your gun to OSH when the GPS system goes Tango Uniform and all the magenta lines disappear? :yikes:
Click to expand...

The same way I always do. I use my Chevron maps taped together, and my CB raydeeoohh good buddy. :lol:
 
wanttaja said:
Weak argument, I'm afraid...all those other objects have uses that do not involve violence. The only rational reason to carry a firearm is to have it available to use against a hostile creature. Unless you belong to a gun club that gets REALLY creative with their pop-up targets.... :)
Click to expand...

I always carry my chainsaw.
 
Skyscraper said:
The problem here is that people are not responsible, and by and large unreliable, that's why we have laws.
Click to expand...

For the handgun in the hands of a reliable uncrazy person, the law is inconsequential.

For the handgun in the hands of an unreliable crazy person, the law is inconsequential.

By your argument, a police officer who has business in the school would have to enter unarmed. Because you never know, you know.....

Hell, Nuclear bombs are perfectly safe in the hands of responsible people. Do you see the weakness of the argument you present?
Click to expand...

Sure, and if we allow gay marriage, the next thing is going to be a guy petitioning to marry his dog. Same dumb false equality argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top