I've been in two tornados. A "hidey hole" will be part of our home in Oklahoma as soon as possible.
EAA bans guns at OSH
- Thread starter Tom-D
- Start date
Because to not is to assume the hazard does not exist which in our society is an insane position to take.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 22,954
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Noel
She said "Please understand that if I see you armed, I must assume you are dangerous and crazy"
That's not the same thing as understanding that a hazard exists. She said she will assume everyone she sees armed is dangerous and crazy.
Are you merely trying to say that a hazard could exist or are you going completely over the top?
denverpilot
Tied Down
But there's no "I Learned About Shooting People From That" happy survivor articles in the back of the magazines, or Safety Standdown days with rooms full of shooters listening to presentations on gun safety to make it all seem safe.
OTOH, the vast majority of people who are murdered with a silenced weapon have gone through overt acts, regardless whether through crime or law enforcement, to put themselves in harm's way. The reality doesn't lie, if you're going to be shot/ killed/ attempted murder; as, if not more likely it will be by someone you know well/live with and quite possibly with your own weapon. So don't forget the dishes tonight...
I respect and admire your service to our country and the bravery and sacrifice involved in making the decisions you have made. My gratitude is great.
I have seen many pictures of the sort you describe. Both men that were mentioned previously also wore their uniforms proudly and were trained by the same military to care for and use weapons. They were also taught how to kill and to give themselves permission to kill other people as a solution. That is a necessary adjunct to war and the military.
However, this is not a battlefield. (Yes, I know there are those around who believe otherwise, but they are the nuts.) Pulling a gun is not a solution to personal problems.
If you feel compelled to carry weapons into a peaceful museum looking for an opportunity to "defend against a person who wants you dead", "acting before the police arrive", believing "the first 10 seconds will determine the outcome", please seek help.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 22,954
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Noel
That's an excellent way to have a gross overreaction to risks and entirely inappropriate reaction to risks... the kind of thinking giving us the TSA's "security" measures.
denverpilot
Tied Down
I hope you don't presume to really say you've come to a conclusion about someone needing professional psychiatric care from those words.
No one I know who carries "looks for an opportunity" to do any of that stuff.
Anyone carrying a pocket knife has a "weapon" in the museum.
Everyone will "defend against a person who wants you dead". DNA from under fingernails is one of the most common ways of catching murderers. Nobody wants to be killed.
And "the first ten seconds will determine the outcome"... now that one is utter bull and we all know it. It takes longer than ten seconds for anything as crazy as a shooting scenario to play out.
People will "act before the police arrive" in any situation that's dangerous, and the most common "act" is to run away. A gun is a last-choice option.
These are just words. Poorly chosen words, too.
I'm mildly worried that you've never adequately dealt with your own personal trauma from your reaction to this thread.
I would never presume to tell someone to "seek help", but I'm curious. Have you spoken with a professional trauma counselor regarding the loss you experienced?
I ask only as a stranger who sees you get very emotional around the word "gun".
If discussion of guns drags up an emotional response every time and a similar discussion of say, shovels doesn't, that may be a sign of a need to chat privately with anyone you trust.
For the record, I don't care to carry at EAA. I do however think a number of people in this discussion could do it safely, unobtrusively, and not a darn thing would happen.
If you don't trust me with a gun in my pocket, I don't take it personally. But I find it a little odd. That "something isn't right" feeling goes off. I've done nothing to indicate that I'm a crackpot or irresponsible to you.
If you're convinced in your mind that anyone armed is also a threat, that's also a really strong sign of something not right. Fearmongering only works on the scared, so to speak. What are you scared of?
Transference is real. Your argument is that people who carry are scared of something. Most aren't. You also argue that they're agitated and/or that they're looking for a fight. They're not.
Are you? I might be after what you've been through, so I can empathize, but it makes for a very difficult discussion that's not very logical on overall gun policy.
If I walked up to you and said hi with a smile on my face in an open public place with lots of people around and I had a highly visible firearm in a holster on my belt, would you have an emotional reaction of fear, loathing, or anger towards me?
Now change the scenario. I walked up, said hi, we chatted about flying for a while and I left and I had the same gun concealed so well you didn't know I had it, but someone told you later that I did. Any emotional reaction to that?
Neither one should elicit any emotion other than perhaps curiosity.
Garthur
Pre-takeoff checklist
To all you anti-gun people out there. If really think that the world would be safer without guns then do this, Make a sign that says "This is a gun free zone, no firearm will ever be in this house". Then post it on the curb in front of your house. You should sleep sounder now.
If you are not willing to do this then you want outsiders to think that maybe there is a gun in the house and the bad guys will go to the house that they think is gun free. What it comes down to is that you are not anti-gun you just don't want me to have a gun.
I don't hate any one that doesn't have a gun, but I know several people that hate me because I do.
If you are not willing to do this then you want outsiders to think that maybe there is a gun in the house and the bad guys will go to the house that they think is gun free. What it comes down to is that you are not anti-gun you just don't want me to have a gun.
I don't hate any one that doesn't have a gun, but I know several people that hate me because I do.
I don't want a burglar to think that there is a gun in the home. The majority of residential burglaries happen during the daytime while nobody is home. A handgun to a burglar is like a bundle of $20 bills. Easy to carry, easy to liquidate. On a $/lb basis, they beat almost everything else. One of those 'protected by Smith&Wesson' yard signs is the same to them as a sign 'bundles of cash in left nightstand'.
airbornejohnny
Line Up and Wait
First of all, I respect why you feel the way you do about guns. My mother feels pretty much the same way you do about them. I did not grow up around "real" guns, but my father taught me from my first toy cap gun to treat it like the real thing. The weapons I was trained to use are only the tools my team/squad/etc relied upon to accomplish our missions, and come home alive. Not every mission, even in a war zone, involved firing our weapons, on some occasions it would have flown to shoot back but evasive maneuver was our out. My point is, having the tool for the chance it may be needed is not the same as looking for a reason to use it. If I really want to go shoot, I'll pay a $20 fee and punch holes in paper at the range. I know this is not a war zone (actually I think the reference was a bit juvenile, but whatever...) and I don't carry where I live because I do not have a permit to do so. On the other hand, a few years ago a friend went missing when he was at work, and some of my friends and I helped the police in looking for him. He was in the scrapping business, and the yard he did most of his business with was in close proximity to a fairly high crime area. It was pointed out to us by LEO's some of the "locals"known to pack heat here and there throughout the area. My friend was later found, robbed and beaten to death, left in his truck. It ruined his fiancee's life for quite a while (they were high school sweethearts). Had he been allowed to have a pistol on him, I doubt he would be dead. Of course, this is pure speculation, but I for one would rather have a tool, which would prove decisive in such an unlikely event, that would stop the act before it becomes so heinous as it did for him.
AcroBoy
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
- Messages
- 649
- Display Name
Display name:
Jim N
There seems to be a lot of anecdotal accounts regarding guns and their usage, but no one has brought up the data that the United States has much more gun associated crime (and deaths) per capita compared to any other first world country, and this is nothing we should show with pride.
There is little data presented that arming more civilians is an effective deterrent to crime.
As an aside, I still serve in the military, and have shot many tens of thousands of rounds of rifle, pistol, and shotgun ammo as well, perhaps even more as a private citizen. Yet, it makes me wonder why someone is compelled to carry a concealed pistol into a Walmart or any other location. And yes, it does make me uncomfortable- I do not know their intent, judgement, or level of training.
Unlike the ridiculous arguments about shovels and ropes, the only purpose of a handgun is to kill someone else. And yes, I have a civilian concealed handgun permit as well, but have yet to see the need to carry in any conceivable every day situation. Otherwise, I would avoid going places where it might even remotely be necessary.
There is little data presented that arming more civilians is an effective deterrent to crime.
As an aside, I still serve in the military, and have shot many tens of thousands of rounds of rifle, pistol, and shotgun ammo as well, perhaps even more as a private citizen. Yet, it makes me wonder why someone is compelled to carry a concealed pistol into a Walmart or any other location. And yes, it does make me uncomfortable- I do not know their intent, judgement, or level of training.
Unlike the ridiculous arguments about shovels and ropes, the only purpose of a handgun is to kill someone else. And yes, I have a civilian concealed handgun permit as well, but have yet to see the need to carry in any conceivable every day situation. Otherwise, I would avoid going places where it might even remotely be necessary.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 22,954
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Noel
Is that ridiculous idea coming up again?
I guess you don't understand the concept of target shooting.
Anthony
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,478
- Display Name
Display name:
Anthony
Is that ridiculous idea coming up again?
I guess you don't understand the concept of target shooting.
Or hunting, or sporting clays, or trap shooting.......
AcroBoy
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
- Messages
- 649
- Display Name
Display name:
Jim N
I've done all of those activities, although never seen anyone shoot sporting clays with a handgun. The reference was to carrying a concealed handgun in public for self protection- how does this refer to target shooting or hunting?
Are you suggesting you carry your Ruger Redhawk 44 magnum around at Walmart because you use it for hunting and just wanted to have it just in case you saw a deer in the grocery aisle?
Or perhaps you wanted to carry your Browning Golden clays around at the car wash in case any birds came out of the trap placed in the drying section?
Why dissemble- if you're going to carry a concealed handgun, then the only use of the weapon is to kill someone else. It is not to brandish, fire a warning shot, wound someone in the leg, or in any other way stop someone other than by killing them, and as quickly as possible.
Is anyone that paranoid to think they will encounter this at the Airventure museum?
Are you suggesting you carry your Ruger Redhawk 44 magnum around at Walmart because you use it for hunting and just wanted to have it just in case you saw a deer in the grocery aisle?
Or perhaps you wanted to carry your Browning Golden clays around at the car wash in case any birds came out of the trap placed in the drying section?
Why dissemble- if you're going to carry a concealed handgun, then the only use of the weapon is to kill someone else. It is not to brandish, fire a warning shot, wound someone in the leg, or in any other way stop someone other than by killing them, and as quickly as possible.
Is anyone that paranoid to think they will encounter this at the Airventure museum?
Anthony
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,478
- Display Name
Display name:
Anthony
I shoot clays all the time with a handgun. Maybe not true sporting clays, but they do make nice pistol targets. The point is, that guns are used safely for sport, not just to kill people.
But, I know you want to focus on the handgun thing. Many compete in traget shooting with handguns. Bullseye, ISPC, IDPA, Olympic style, etc. Many just target shoot for fun, and challenge.
Planes are dangerous, they just crash, especially the ones used in airshows when people are just showing off.
But, I know you want to focus on the handgun thing. Many compete in traget shooting with handguns. Bullseye, ISPC, IDPA, Olympic style, etc. Many just target shoot for fun, and challenge.
Planes are dangerous, they just crash, especially the ones used in airshows when people are just showing off.
You are obviously one of those gun-hating sheeple who is just asking to become a victim in the deadly environment of the EAA museum grounds.
And everyone I meet at the range who engages in those activities will unload and case their hardware for the way home. The purpose of a concealed handgun is not target practice.
AcroBoy
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
- Messages
- 649
- Display Name
Display name:
Jim N
Yes, I have a Model 41 Smith and a government model (that I never learned to shoot well) both obviously for target shooting. Neither is ideal nor suited for concealed carry. I have a Smith 9 that would do a good job for CC, but the grip is a bit fat, and I am thinking about a Sig in 357 or 40.
I doubt a race gun would make a good weapon for concealed carry. Pretty unlikely that someone is going to carry their Hammerli target pistol around for self protection.
The discussion revolves around concealed carry for self defense, which again, the only purpose for doing so is to potentially kill someone else. Any rational gun owner realizes this, or should, as already has been discussed.
Why dissemble about target shooting, trap, and other non relevant distractions from the topic?
I doubt a race gun would make a good weapon for concealed carry. Pretty unlikely that someone is going to carry their Hammerli target pistol around for self protection.
The discussion revolves around concealed carry for self defense, which again, the only purpose for doing so is to potentially kill someone else. Any rational gun owner realizes this, or should, as already has been discussed.
Why dissemble about target shooting, trap, and other non relevant distractions from the topic?
I think the key word you used is " potentially"... Hopefully if a law abiding citizen gets into a predicament that dictates the use of a handgun, the perpetrater will flee when faced with a firearm... If the situation has degraded to the point of having to use it for saving your life then the bottom line is.. The good guy goes home to live another day and the perp gets neutralized... Whether s/he dies is up to fate, after all they created the position they ended up in...
Last edited:
AcroBoy
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
- Messages
- 649
- Display Name
Display name:
Jim N
.. Whether s/he dies is up to fate, after all they created the position they ended up in...[/QUOTE]
I agree, but this means the handgun holder has to first be trained in defensive shooting, and practice, and be aware of the background to avoid hitting bystanders. The only purpose for pulling out a weapon is to kill someone else, with the knowledge that you will have to live with the consequences forever. It is not to scare the other person, fire shots in the air, wound him in the leg, or other nonsense. When the gun comes out, it is to kill the other person, only.
I have fired and reloaded tens of thousands of rounds of all calibers, both as a civilian and in the military, but somehow getting worked up over whether you can carry a pistol in the EAA museum seems more than a little absurd. It there are gunfights, armed assaults, and robberies on the EAA grounds on a regular basis, perhaps it would be wiser to simply stay home and avoid a confrontation.
We should be asking ourselves why the United States has orders of magnitude higher rates of deaths from gun violence compared to any other first world country like Canada or western Europe. The premise that if more people were legally armed the crime rates would be lowered has never been established.
I agree, but this means the handgun holder has to first be trained in defensive shooting, and practice, and be aware of the background to avoid hitting bystanders. The only purpose for pulling out a weapon is to kill someone else, with the knowledge that you will have to live with the consequences forever. It is not to scare the other person, fire shots in the air, wound him in the leg, or other nonsense. When the gun comes out, it is to kill the other person, only.
I have fired and reloaded tens of thousands of rounds of all calibers, both as a civilian and in the military, but somehow getting worked up over whether you can carry a pistol in the EAA museum seems more than a little absurd. It there are gunfights, armed assaults, and robberies on the EAA grounds on a regular basis, perhaps it would be wiser to simply stay home and avoid a confrontation.
We should be asking ourselves why the United States has orders of magnitude higher rates of deaths from gun violence compared to any other first world country like Canada or western Europe. The premise that if more people were legally armed the crime rates would be lowered has never been established.
Is that ridiculous idea coming up again?
I guess you don't understand the concept of target shooting.
You mean the sports we teach to build and maintain shooting proficiency so when the time comes we have the ability to kill someone?If it wasn't for the preparing to kill part, you can replace guns with darts, and you don't need a firearm either, a BB gun would be fine for target shooting.
There is one purpose for a firearm, death and destruction. Were it not for death and destruction, firearms would have never been invented. All firearm sports are about proficiency in the use of a tool that is designed for only one purpose, to kill whatever it is you aim at.
To try to argue otherwise is kinda lame and counters any sensible arguments you may have.
Some discussions can be best summarized in Simpsons quotes.
A gun is not a weapon, Marge. It's a tool. Like a butcher knife, or a harpoon, or... uh, a... an alligator. You just need more education on the subject. Tell you what. You come with me to an N.R.A. meeting, and if you still don't think guns are great, we can argue some more.
Homer Simpson
Hey yutz. Guns aren't toys - - they're for family protection, hunting dangerous and delicious animals, and keeping the king of England out of your face.
Krusty the Clown
nddons
Touchdown! Greaser!
I guess you could say the same thing for gun powder, black powder, smokeless powder, and other related ingredients. Death and destruction all the way. Yet we seem to have a hell of a good time with such things on the 4th of July, Cinco de Mayo, after home runs at some ballparks, etc.
Damned tricky Chinese!
On the other hand, when I was sitting in a park on the Mississippi River, listening to the Quad City Symphony playing the 1812 Overture, and seeing a dozen Howitzers from the nearby Rock Island Arsenal firing blank rounds across the river at the precise moment in the music, I wasn't thinking to myself "those are damned fine musical instruments!"
Perhaps there's a balance, if we don't speak in absolutes and say that firearms and their related sports are designed for only one purpose.
fgcason
En-Route
Available data or lack thereof is no indication whatsoever of reality except within the limits of the little happy world data set which does not represent actual reality. Just because it's not in the NTSB report doesn't mean it didn't happen.
It's just like motorcycles. People who wear all the crash gear don't always get into the database to be recorded because when they go down. They often just get up again, ride home, repair the broken stuff and get on with life and no data collector is involved. The people without gear end up with their brains smashed out and their skin ripped off and are recorded in the database at the hospital and the hose them off the pavement with a water hose police reports. Using that kind of data collecting ability, all crashes unconditionally result in injury or death because all the data indicates crash=injury or crash=death and there is no chance of crashing without injury. Reality is totally different.
As an example: I've gone down 4 times and none of those are reported (including the one down really hard otherwise fatal crash) so any data related to crash statistics is flawed by a factor of 4. Add in my dirt bike crashes and your data is off by at least 100 data points, probably more. -- and that's just one rider...
Guns. Same thing. If a thug attacks someone or breaks into someone's house or whatever, and the innocent person pulls a gun on the thug and the thug runs away, it doesn't necessarily mean it gets reported - yet it did deter crime and probably deterred murder. Do you go sticking your arm in holes in the ground in a field without knowing what is down that hole? Most holes are empty, some have badgers in them. Now considering the possibility of meeting armed resistance, how many thugs look at a potential victim and keep going because the thug just wasn't ready for a fight that might result in his brains getting shot out that day. That's unreported deterrence also even if the target was unarmed because he simply didn't know.
Total absolute bunk. By that argument, anyone who buys a gun, bought it for the purpose of killing someone. Does every gun owner in this country kill someone else with their gun? (Hint, the answer is NO) What about hunting? Those guns are bought to shoot deer or rabbits or birds for food, not killing people. What about target shooting? Those guns are bought for putting holes in pieces of paper or old pop cans, not shooting people. What about collectors? Those guns are bought to hang on a wall or in a display case, not shooting people.
A gun is just a tool, nothing more, nothing less. It's no different than a shovel or rope or combination wrench or breaker bar or torque wrench or a stick. It's just a specialized tool like any other. The person holding it determines it's actual use. Seriously, even if I have a gun available, in a self defense situation I'm more likely to kill someone with one of my wrenches or bust them in the face with a bunch of carabiners that are hooked together than by using a gun due to the instant availability of the typically harmless tools that are within reach at any given moment. The only real difference that a gun offers is that a gun can keep the bad guy from getting close enough to hit you while you defend yourself.
Sure, guns may have been originally invented to kill people more efficiently in battle a long time ago however today their intended uses have often been altered. Boats were designed to get people across water and go places centuries ago. Today they are mostly about sitting in a muck puddle drinking beer on a holiday and not actually going anywhere even though they still technically have the ability to go places. Radios? Cars? Houses? Same thing. Think about it.
The inanimate objects are not the problem. Humans are the real problem. Want to solve the violence problem? Work on the defective humans, not the inanimate objects.
Last edited:
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
You must not spend a lot of time at the range. I go there and shoot one of my pistols all the time. It's carried to the range concealed and loaded. The first thing I do is unholster it and shoot the magazine and chambered round I've been carrying. Then I'll shoot about a hundred rounds, making sure I leave a magazines worth. When I'm done I load it again and put it back in my holster and go home.
Probably 40% of the people at the range do the above here.
AcroBoy
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
- Messages
- 649
- Display Name
Display name:
Jim N
Yes, the tired old argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Yet in other first world countries, like Western Europe, Canada, and Japan, gun related crime is virtually non-existent. The per capita rate of gun related injury and death is much higher in the United States than in these other countries- hardly a good rationale for increased numbers and unregulated guns.
Not sure about the relevance of carrying a concealed pistol to the range, but at least at our club, there is no concealed carry. A gun has to be brought to the range in a case, so a simple anecdote means nothing.
Yet in other first world countries, like Western Europe, Canada, and Japan, gun related crime is virtually non-existent. The per capita rate of gun related injury and death is much higher in the United States than in these other countries- hardly a good rationale for increased numbers and unregulated guns.
Not sure about the relevance of carrying a concealed pistol to the range, but at least at our club, there is no concealed carry. A gun has to be brought to the range in a case, so a simple anecdote means nothing.
Anthony
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,478
- Display Name
Display name:
Anthony
I never said anything about a concealed handgun. Why are you putting words in my mouth? Another poster said a gun's only purpose is killing people, so I showed several other purposes.
BTW, I often do target practice with the gun I use for concealed carry. Actually, I have competed with that same gun, successfully. There are all types of leagues, including target shooting for these types of guns. I listed them before.
You are just being purposely obstinate.
Last edited:
Anthony
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,478
- Display Name
Display name:
Anthony
Tired argument? How about correct argument. I have never seen a gun jump off a table or come out of a gun safe on its own and kill someone.
Absolutely false. Gun crimes occur in all those countries. The lack of LEGAL guns is not the reason for any difference in crime rates anyway.
At my club, many members shoot their carry pistol then reholster it when they leave. Also, we have areas to safely practice drawing and shooting from our holster. Many are practicing for IDPA competition, and/or self defense situations.
Why would you disarm to go to a gun range where you practice shooting skills for self defense. Do you drain your tanks before you fly too?
More tired old rants about other countries, and guns. They can't fly so much there either, can they?
The discussion is about carrying concealed on EAA museum and Airventure grounds.
I suspect that a slug-gun or rifle in a locked hard-case in the luggage compartment of a 185 from Alaska would neither be an issue under EAA house rules or WI law.
AcroBoy
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
- Messages
- 649
- Display Name
Display name:
Jim N
The same old arguments are what polarize people against guns, not for them. No one has offered a reasoned response as to why gun associated violence is so high in the US compared to other civilized countries. Instead, people jump up and thump their chest and yell that it is their constitutional right.
How does spouting the same tired rhetoric help to reduce our gun related violence and crime in the US? How can we as law abiding gun owners help to show that gun ownership can be safe and used for a variety of sports, when as a country we have the highest rate of gun related injuries in the world?
Instead of dissing people who ask the question, what can we be doing to actually decrease the rate of gun related injuries and death?
Somehow, the people who demand that they have the right to carry a concealed weapon anywhere anytime, like into the Airventure Museum are their own worst enemies, and sadly they don't even realize it.
How does spouting the same tired rhetoric help to reduce our gun related violence and crime in the US? How can we as law abiding gun owners help to show that gun ownership can be safe and used for a variety of sports, when as a country we have the highest rate of gun related injuries in the world?
Instead of dissing people who ask the question, what can we be doing to actually decrease the rate of gun related injuries and death?
Somehow, the people who demand that they have the right to carry a concealed weapon anywhere anytime, like into the Airventure Museum are their own worst enemies, and sadly they don't even realize it.
fgcason
En-Route
The only tiring thing here is that people push the blame off on inanimate objects when it's the people themselves that caused the problem to start with. Cars kill and maim people all the time but no one is out to ban them...or ban other death trap devices like bicycles, or bath tubs, or electrical sockets, or baseball bats, or ropes, or hospital emergency rooms, or sippy cups that hold more than 1/8th ounce of liquid, or pavement, or high rise buildings, or lawnmowers and the list goes on and on and on and on....
Conduct an experiment for yourself: Put a loaded gun on a table by itself (cock it and turn the safety off if you want to) and watch it for a few weeks or months or years or decades without taking your eyes off it even for a second. Just sit there and watch it without touching it. If someone picks it up, the conditions of the experiment are invalidated. You will notice that for some wild random unexplainable reason that it doesn't exactly get up, go out and start shooting people on it's own. Someone has to pick it up and make it shoot someone or even go off in some random direction. For that matter, it won't even move unless there is an earthquake or something. Put 835 million loaded and cocked guns on tables without touching them and you'll find that miraculously none of them will wander off on their own and shoot anyone either. Conclusion: No touch, no shoot. It really is that simple. For some reason people just can't understand that. Now if you were to, say, put a starving abused siberian tiger on the table, that would have a different outcome however, unlike a gun, those things are self animated and have no ethical issues of ripping the throat out of things that look like food to them.
What is the hard part of figuring out an inanimate tool (gun in this case) won't do anything until it's used by a person? Apparently people can't get past the whole made up touchy feely gun=evil nonsense and can't see what is really going on in the world. People are the problem. Remove the people and the problem goes away. Remove the inanimate object and the problem continues by using another tool.
Yea. So what? I know of quite a few unregulated guns and they haven't killed anyone and likely never will and if they do, there will be a good reason for it. If an idiot or a thug operates a gun, the outcome is pretty predictable..just like with a car.
What exactly is the plan to eliminate guns that the hooligans have? Do you think they're going to go register the stolen guns they have? Or report that they have guns that they just used to shoot someone? Do you think they're going to turn them in because of some new law someone writes on a piece of paper that's shoved into a filing cabinet somewhere? The bad guys whole principle of operation is to not play by the rules. Banning guns will only remove the guns from the hands of the people who aren't going to be shooting anyone else to start with. Even if you do manage to get all the guns away from the hooligans, they will then start using knives or tire irons or baseball bats and whatever else.
How about starting with teaching people ethics and that they need to start taking responsibility for their own actions and quit blaming objects for their incompetence, negligence and flat out intentional behavior. As for guns themselves, teach people what they actually are and how to operate them safely and ethically. TV just teaches people they're toys and no one really ever gets hurt with them. Take someone out and have them shoot a ground hog or deer sometime then go clean up the mess by hand. They'll figure out really quick that a gun isn't a toy.
Last edited:
Simple, legalize drugs and sell them at the liquor store. Most all the violence in our country is centered around the distribution of illegal drugs, who's selling crack on what corner. That's what all our street gang violence is about, crack; bikers have the Meth trade.
Unbeliever
Pre-takeoff checklist
We have high gun stats because we have lots of guns. Of course there's going to be fewer gun injuries per capita in other countries where guns are more tightly regulated.
However, people who want to do harm will just choose something else. Bats/knives etc. I've yet to go into someone's house as a guest and see steak/kitchen knives locked up like guns usually are. People do hurt themselves and others with knives and commit suicide with knives. Just because you don't have a gun, doesn't mean you can't go on a killing spree.
8 dead 15 injured in a spree in Osaka using a kitchen knife.
7 dead in a spree in Toride.
13 dead in a spree in Akihabara, using a knife AND a truck. Should we ban trucks too?
4 dead, 4 wounded in New York.
3 children dead and 10 wounded in a knife spree in Belgium.
Britain has a growing problem with knife crime. Now all the regulations that they had for guns have to be re-applied for knives. You're twice as likely to be a victim of a knife crime in the UK than you are likely to be a victim of a gun crime in the US. It's just the choice of weapon is different.
--Carlos V.
However, people who want to do harm will just choose something else. Bats/knives etc. I've yet to go into someone's house as a guest and see steak/kitchen knives locked up like guns usually are. People do hurt themselves and others with knives and commit suicide with knives. Just because you don't have a gun, doesn't mean you can't go on a killing spree.
8 dead 15 injured in a spree in Osaka using a kitchen knife.
7 dead in a spree in Toride.
13 dead in a spree in Akihabara, using a knife AND a truck. Should we ban trucks too?
4 dead, 4 wounded in New York.
3 children dead and 10 wounded in a knife spree in Belgium.
Britain has a growing problem with knife crime. Now all the regulations that they had for guns have to be re-applied for knives. You're twice as likely to be a victim of a knife crime in the UK than you are likely to be a victim of a gun crime in the US. It's just the choice of weapon is different.
--Carlos V.
Statistics are only as good as the data used to form them.....
Take Machete deaths... In the last ten years on the continent of Africa it is estimated there have been over ONE MILLION people who were hacked to death.. The reason is there were few guns for people to defend themselves with..... So, do we ban Machete's in Africa ? or let the populance have guns ?......
It is a double edged sword...
Sorry for the pun.
Cute answer.....
The name of the topic is " EAA BANS GUNS AT OSH "
I don't see where the EAA is banning machete's
