Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Guns in Bars and Nightclubs Options · View
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Thursday, January 13, 2011 8:46:21 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,293
Location: West Coast
MrNudiePants wrote:
[quote=eviotis]
Fact is, most policemen and women only fire their weapons once a year. At annual qualification time. Most civilians shoot once a month. Some shoot more, some less. But unless the policeman has a military background, or is a part of a specialized police unit like SWAT, most civilians have more training, more practice time, and far more rounds downrange.


I'm sorry... I had to qualify this because I think my head just exploded. And it wasn't from a gunshot...

Are you seriously saying that the average gun owning citizen in the US has a better skillset at "taking out a lunatic" than a police officer?

If so, then I should be just as nervous around your police force as I would be around a civilian carrying a gun into a bar.




DamonX
Posted: Thursday, January 13, 2011 8:47:01 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
MrNudiePants wrote:
DamonX wrote:

Seriously? Still?


Do we really need to bring back freefallin's arguments about spoons???

This topic keeps getting rehashed over and over, and the proponents still come back with the same old shit.

If you think that broomsticks and pocket knives are the same as guns, then why don't you protect yourself with broomsticks and knives?

"Hey! I can strangle someone with my bare hands, so you better cut off everyone's hands as well!"

Time to get a fucking clue...or at least a decent argument.



Really? Back to the tactic of ignoring the argument just to act ass-clownish and swear a lot? What's YOUR end of the argument, Damon? Explain to me how a sober, law-abiding citizen, lawfully carrying a concealed weapon is any more dangerous because he happens to be in one particular retail establishment instead of another.


First of all, let me appologize for damaging your pristine sensibilities with my foul cursing. I had had no idea the f-bomb was so offensive. But hey! At least I didn't take the lord's name in vain! dontknow

My end of the argument? Take a wild guess. I'm willing to bet that my take on it, is much similar to that of every other intelligent person in the developed western world. Aside from right wing leaning Americans and rednecks in dumbfuck middle America, every other rational person on earth would see this completely assinine.

Now, I'm not sure if you've set foot in a nightclub in the last twenty years, but let me break it down for you. Nightclubs are unstable environments, prone to violence and drunken irrational outbursts. Thus, the presence of violent weapons are generally frowned upon (and for good reason).

Knives, clubs, bats, and yes...guns pose a significant public threat in such an environment. As such, establishments serving massive amounts of alchohol need to make blanket rules to avoid such problems.

Now if you want to holster your piece while you down a cold one and scarf down the fried chicken platter at Applebees, I could care less. After all, you never know when a psycho is going to burst in and start shooting up the place! confused1

And let's not forget the whole reason for this ridiculous "law". Pandering of right wing politicians to gain votes among gun toting, uneducated rednecks during an election year. Congratulations! I think they hit their demographic perfectly. Maybe now you can help them finish the wall along the border.
DirtyMartini
Posted: Thursday, January 13, 2011 8:56:47 PM

Rank: Purveyor of Poetry & Porn

Joined: 10/19/2009
Posts: 5,791
Location: Right here on Lush Stories..., United States
MrNudiePants wrote:
Can anyone please tell me how being sober and armed makes me a more dangerous person depending on the type of business establishment I happen to be in?


It really doesn't...
Shooting sprees and the like are caused by a small segment of the population who have mental disorders...and attempting to legislate away society's social ills never works...it only creates more, worse problems and usually puts a greater burden on the tax payer...
I've known quite a few guys who carried guns, most bought illegally, btw (I won't go into details on that one)...none of them that I know of ever shot anyone...
I equate most of the guys I've known that carry weapons around all the time to the guys I know who drive monster trucks and never go off roading...
The fact is, in the NY metro area where I live at least, it is very easy to purchase an illegal hand gun...I am certain I could make a phone call now and have one within a few hours...
But, to me, to say that the availability of guns causes shootings is akin to that girl who implied the other day that reading incest stories causes people here to go out and rape someone...
These heinous acts are caused by people who are disturbed...if more time/money was spent on education, and trying to identify the warning signs these persons exhibit a lot of these acts could be prevented...
Because guns will always be easily available to those who seek them out, regardless of any laws...


You know you want it, you know you need it bad...get it now on Amazon.com...
Lush Erotica, an Anthology of Award Winning Sex Stories

MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, January 13, 2011 9:19:40 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:
[quote=eviotis]
Fact is, most policemen and women only fire their weapons once a year. At annual qualification time. Most civilians shoot once a month. Some shoot more, some less. But unless the policeman has a military background, or is a part of a specialized police unit like SWAT, most civilians have more training, more practice time, and far more rounds downrange.


I'm sorry... I had to qualify this because I think my head just exploded. And it wasn't from a gunshot...

Are you seriously saying that the average gun owning citizen in the US has a better skillset at "taking out a lunatic" than a police officer?

If so, then I should be just as nervous around your police force as I would be around a civilian carrying a gun into a bar.



No, hon. What I said was... "unless the policeman has a military background, or is a part of a specialized police unit like SWAT, most civilians have more training, more practice time, and far more rounds downrange."

That doesn't make police officers more dangerous. It just means that most cops are not "gun" people. Most cops join the force out of a desire to help people. Most firearms enthusiasts shoot because as hobbies go, it's an enjoyable way to pass the time, and the more shooting they do, the happier they are. I knew a guy that lived for golf. Subscribed to several different golf magazines, spent hours each weekend drinking at a sports bar where there was one corner where all the TV's were tuned to golf channels. He had thousands of dollars tied up in different sets of clubs. He could easily blow several hundred dollars in one weekend on the course. What makes him any different than me?

Guest
Posted: Thursday, January 13, 2011 9:27:14 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
Ahhh, finally a step toward actual debate or simple quid pro quo.

1. You quoted the wrong part concerning the "good samaritan." The fact still remains that he almost shot another gun booster and did not because he believed he would be shot by another gun carrier thinking he was the shooter if he drew his gun, so he did not.

2. How do my fears and assumptions as to yours or any others intentions as to what they will do with a weapon of deadly force have no bearing?

3. By your remarks, you are equating yourself to a soldier, or police officer? Along with past remarks, I see the argument closely resembling that of a Vigilante, or at least condoning a vigilante society. Yeah!!!!! Bronson.

4. Your remarks as to being more prepared for gun battle, due to your time shooting at paper and or skeets is troubling, and if you cannot see the reason for worry in people like me, then that point will always be moot.

5. "Or do you think all "semi-trained" civilians are idiots?" Yes, for the most part they are. Full of ignorant libido, thinking of themselves greater than they are, this belief will carry through to any Tom, Dick and Harry that puts in time at the gun range, and thinks himself ready for battle.

6. It's been a while since my own training, however, if given a gun, I can shot very well, but that does not mean since I have the ability to shot, that I will be able to, under duress, make the quick calculation needed to maneuver within such a volatile situation. As for the people that took him down, they did so after his clip had emptied, and was reloading, and with a great degree of chance. Going back to one of my many points which have been overlooked by rhetoric previously, if he did not have such a weapon, the degree of damage would not have been so severe, and his take down would have been more likely, much sooner. If the question about what it says about me was to incite some type of bravado on my part, think again.

7. You being sober does not diminish the fact that you are taking live rounds, and gun into an already volatile situation. You stated that you stay away from dangerous places, areas, neighborhoods, whatever. When you or anyone else carries a weapon into such an environment you are endangering everyone around you.

Now for the spot light dance on the main floor, we have a song request by the NRA couple in the back:

(the guy with glasses is me, the guy on the porch is the NRA):

MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, January 13, 2011 9:29:13 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
DamonX wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:
DamonX wrote:

Seriously? Still?


Do we really need to bring back freefallin's arguments about spoons???

This topic keeps getting rehashed over and over, and the proponents still come back with the same old shit.

If you think that broomsticks and pocket knives are the same as guns, then why don't you protect yourself with broomsticks and knives?

"Hey! I can strangle someone with my bare hands, so you better cut off everyone's hands as well!"

Time to get a fucking clue...or at least a decent argument.



Really? Back to the tactic of ignoring the argument just to act ass-clownish and swear a lot? What's YOUR end of the argument, Damon? Explain to me how a sober, law-abiding citizen, lawfully carrying a concealed weapon is any more dangerous because he happens to be in one particular retail establishment instead of another.


First of all, let me appologize for damaging your pristine sensibilities with my foul cursing. I had had no idea the f-bomb was so offensive. But hey! At least I didn't take the lord's name in vain! dontknow

My end of the argument? Take a wild guess. I'm willing to bet that my take on it, is much similar to that of every other intelligent person in the developed western world. Aside from right wing leaning Americans and rednecks in dumbfuck middle America, every other rational person on earth would see this completely assinine.

Now, I'm not sure if you've set foot in a nightclub in the last twenty years, but let me break it down for you. Nightclubs are unstable environments, prone to violence and drunken irrational outbursts. Thus, the presence of violent weapons are generally frowned upon (and for good reason).

Knives, clubs, bats, and yes...guns pose a significant public threat in such an environment. As such, establishments serving massive amounts of alchohol need to make blanket rules to avoid such problems.

Now if you want to holster your piece while you down a cold one and scarf down the fried chicken platter at Applebees, I could care less. After all, you never know when a psycho is going to burst in and start shooting up the place! confused1

And let's not forget the whole reason for this ridiculous "law". Pandering of right wing politicians to gain votes among gun toting, uneducated rednecks during an election year. Congratulations! I think they hit their demographic perfectly. Maybe now you can help them finish the wall along the border.


So... you're saying you think I can be a safe gun owner at Applebees, even if I'm under the influence of alcohol, but set one foot in a nightclub, stone-cold sober, and I'm going to break out into random violence the first chance I get? Why is that? Is there some kind of psychological effect that low lights and loud music have that turns people into maniacs? If that's the case, then it's not firearms that are the problem... it's nightclubs!

Let's ban nightclubs! It's for the good of the people!



Dancing_Doll
Posted: Thursday, January 13, 2011 9:36:48 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,293
Location: West Coast
MrNudiePants wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:
[quote=eviotis]
Fact is, most policemen and women only fire their weapons once a year. At annual qualification time. Most civilians shoot once a month. Some shoot more, some less. But unless the policeman has a military background, or is a part of a specialized police unit like SWAT, most civilians have more training, more practice time, and far more rounds downrange.


I'm sorry... I had to qualify this because I think my head just exploded. And it wasn't from a gunshot...

Are you seriously saying that the average gun owning citizen in the US has a better skillset at "taking out a lunatic" than a police officer?

If so, then I should be just as nervous around your police force as I would be around a civilian carrying a gun into a bar.



No, hon. What I said was... "unless the policeman has a military background, or is a part of a specialized police unit like SWAT, most civilians have more training, more practice time, and far more rounds downrange."

That doesn't make police officers more dangerous. It just means that most cops are not "gun" people. Most cops join the force out of a desire to help people. Most firearms enthusiasts shoot because as hobbies go, it's an enjoyable way to pass the time, and the more shooting they do, the happier they are. I knew a guy that lived for golf. Subscribed to several different golf magazines, spent hours each weekend drinking at a sports bar where there was one corner where all the TV's were tuned to golf channels. He had thousands of dollars tied up in different sets of clubs. He could easily blow several hundred dollars in one weekend on the course. What makes him any different than me?


I would just assume that most gun enthusiasts who spend their time at the gun range popping off rounds in a controlled setting, against a target board would not have the kind of training the average police officer would have in armed conflict and confrontation. Withdrawing your weapon quickly, and hitting a moving target (such as an 'armed lunatic gunman') in the middle of a crowd just might be a little different and require a more advanced skillset... one that I would think a police officer would be well trained in.

As well, that opens things up to a whole different set of requirements for the law. If the gun owner hits someone else accidentally, like a child, or some other random person running for cover... does that gun owner go to jail for homicide? Or will there be some new law enacted to "protect" the average gun owner who feels so confident in his skills that he wants to take the chance of endangering others by trying to shoot a criminal... Cause you can bet I would be just as pissed off if my loved one was killed by the well-meaning gun owner, as I would be if they were shot by the 'lunatic gunman'.


MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, January 13, 2011 9:54:09 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Okay, let's discuss these... points.


1. You quoted the wrong part concerning the "good samaritan." The fact still remains that he almost shot another gun booster and did not because he believed he would be shot by another gun carrier thinking he was the shooter if he drew his gun, so he did not.


No, he didn't "almost shoot another gun booster" (whatever that is). He reacted correctly for the situation at hand.

2. How do my fears and assumptions as to yours or any others intentions as to what they will do with a weapon of deadly force have no bearing?


Because they don't. Not everyone is as afraid as you are, so not everyone should have to be restrained by the rules you feel are needed for you to be safe.

3. By your remarks, you are equating yourself to a soldier, or police officer? Along with past remarks, I see the argument closely resembling that of a Vigilante, or at least condoning a vigilante society. Yeah!!!!! Bronson.

No, I'm equating myself to a citizen of the United States, willing to take personal responsibility for his actions.

4. Your remarks as to being more prepared for gun battle, due to your time shooting at paper and or skeets is troubling, and if you cannot see the reason for worry in people like me, then that point will always be moot.

It's not my fault you're afraid. That's something you're going to have to deal with if you're ever going to be a well-adjusted adult.

5. "Or do you think all "semi-trained" civilians are idiots?" Yes, for the most part they are. Full of ignorant libido, thinking of themselves greater than they are, this belief will carry through to any Tom, Dick and Harry that puts in time at the gun range, and thinks himself ready for battle.

This is just transference. You're assuming that all people share your attributes, when we do not. Hell, even Sprite is a better man that that, and she's a gurl!

6. It's been a while since my own training, however, if given a gun, I can shot very well, but that does not mean since I have the ability to shot, that I will be able to, under duress, make the quick calculation needed to maneuver within such a volatile situation. As for the people that took him down, they did so after his clip had emptied, and was reloading, and with a great degree of chance. Going back to one of my many points which have been overlooked by rhetoric previously, if he did not have such a weapon, the degree of damage would not have been so severe, and his take down would have been more likely, much sooner. If the question about what it says about me was to incite some type of bravado on my part, think again.

If he wasn't able to get a gun, he probably would have used a bomb (which is what most suicidal psychos use) and the death toll could've been much, much worse. And your point about your abilities and limitations? Not all people share them. I know my abilities, and I know my limitations, and I have a pretty good idea of how I respond to volatile and rapidly changing situations. Assuming that everyone shares your limitations is just downright insulting.


7. You being sober does not diminish the fact that you are taking live rounds, and gun into an already volatile situation. You stated that you stay away from dangerous places, areas, neighborhoods, whatever. When you or anyone else carries a weapon into such an environment you are endangering everyone around you.


How? In what way am I endangering people by possessing a weapon? Maybe you're not qualified or fit to carry a weapon, and maybe YOU would be endangering everyone around you, but again - arguing that all people share your fears and limits is degrading and insulting to the multitude of responsible adults in the world.



Guest
Posted: Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:09:43 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
Do you honestly believe that your ill attempts at trying to goad someone into paying more attention to your density will work? I had much higher hopes.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:22:12 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:
I would just assume that most gun enthusiasts who spend their time at the gun range popping off rounds in a controlled setting, against a target board would not have the kind of training the average police officer would have in armed conflict and confrontation. Withdrawing your weapon quickly, and hitting a moving target (such as an 'armed lunatic gunman') in the middle of a crowd just might be a little different and require a more advanced skillset... one that I would think a police officer would be well trained in.

As well, that opens things up to a whole different set of requirements for the law. If the gun owner hits someone else accidentally, like a child, or some other random person running for cover... does that gun owner go to jail for homicide? Or will there be some new law enacted to "protect" the average gun owner who feels so confident in his skills that he wants to take the chance of endangering others by trying to shoot a criminal... Cause you can bet I would be just as pissed off if my loved one was killed by the well-meaning gun owner, as I would be if they were shot by the 'lunatic gunman'.


That's actually a valid assumption to make. For most police officers, the only actual firearms training they receive is at the academy. Once they've graduated from the academy, they have to re-qualify with their weapons once a year. Unless they choose to pay for additional training from any of the many private firearms training facilities in the country, that's it. Most civilians, though, treat their firearms as an enjoyable hobby. One that they pursue as time and budget constraints allow. There are practical shooting leagues and informal defensive shooting competitions at most gun ranges at least once a month. There are numerous sites where for a price you can receive training equal to (and occasionally superior to) the training received by elite Special Forces groups. I recently read a review of a place where the class the reviewer attended was also being attended by a pair of Navy Seals looking to hone up their skills.

Maybe my asserting that civilians are better trained than policemen could be argued, since I know of no statistics that could prove the issue either way... but I know LOTS of cops, and while they're good people and do their best to control any situation (no matter how dangerous), there are plenty of them that struggle to get even a minimum passing score on their annual qualifications... And that ain't saying much.

As for the legal ramifications of a self-defense shooting, I can only claim knowledge of Florida laws. Our statutes say that as long as I'm in a place where I'm legally allowed to be (I'm not trespassing or anything), if I feel my life threatened, I can respond with deadly force. The statute also protects me from any civil lawsuits brought about by the other person's family. If a hearing shows that a "reasonable person" would not have reacted as I did, then you can bet that I'll face criminal charges. And if someone is hit accidentally, like a child or passerby, then I'll face punishment for my actions. This is why owning and carrying a firearms is not something that's to be undertaken lightly, or treated as a matter of no consequence. In order to obtain your concealed weapons permit, you have to get training, you have to understand the laws regarding concealed carry and use, and you have to pass a rigorous background check. Concealed weapons permit holders are not perfect, but on the average, they break the law at a rate far below non-permit holders. Just 3 or 4 tenths of a percent, if I recall correctly.

Magical_felix
Posted: Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:40:20 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,908
Location: California
MrNudiePants wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:
I would just assume that most gun enthusiasts who spend their time at the gun range popping off rounds in a controlled setting, against a target board would not have the kind of training the average police officer would have in armed conflict and confrontation. Withdrawing your weapon quickly, and hitting a moving target (such as an 'armed lunatic gunman') in the middle of a crowd just might be a little different and require a more advanced skillset... one that I would think a police officer would be well trained in.

As well, that opens things up to a whole different set of requirements for the law. If the gun owner hits someone else accidentally, like a child, or some other random person running for cover... does that gun owner go to jail for homicide? Or will there be some new law enacted to "protect" the average gun owner who feels so confident in his skills that he wants to take the chance of endangering others by trying to shoot a criminal... Cause you can bet I would be just as pissed off if my loved one was killed by the well-meaning gun owner, as I would be if they were shot by the 'lunatic gunman'.


That's actually a valid assumption to make. For most police officers, the only actual firearms training they receive is at the academy. Once they've graduated from the academy, they have to re-qualify with their weapons once a year. Unless they choose to pay for additional training from any of the many private firearms training facilities in the country, that's it. Most civilians, though, treat their firearms as an enjoyable hobby. One that they pursue as time and budget constraints allow. There are practical shooting leagues and informal defensive shooting competitions at most gun ranges at least once a month. There are numerous sites where for a price you can receive training equal to (and occasionally superior to) the training received by elite Special Forces groups. I recently read a review of a place where the class the reviewer attended was also being attended by a pair of Navy Seals looking to hone up their skills.

Maybe my asserting that civilians are better trained than policemen could be argued, since I know of no statistics that could prove the issue either way... but I know LOTS of cops, and while they're good people and do their best to control any situation (no matter how dangerous), there are plenty of them that struggle to get even a minimum passing score on their annual qualifications... And that ain't saying much.

As for the legal ramifications of a self-defense shooting, I can only claim knowledge of Florida laws. Our statutes say that as long as I'm in a place where I'm legally allowed to be (I'm not trespassing or anything), if I feel my life threatened, I can respond with deadly force. The statute also protects me from any civil lawsuits brought about by the other person's family. If a hearing shows that a "reasonable person" would not have reacted as I did, then you can bet that I'll face criminal charges. And if someone is hit accidentally, like a child or passerby, then I'll face punishment for my actions. This is why owning and carrying a firearms is not something that's to be undertaken lightly, or treated as a matter of no consequence. In order to obtain your concealed weapons permit, you have to get training, you have to understand the laws regarding concealed carry and use, and you have to pass a rigorous background check. Concealed weapons permit holders are not perfect, but on the average, they break the law at a rate far below non-permit holders. Just 3 or 4 tenths of a percent, if I recall correctly.


So because a cop is only required to qualify once a year he must only train once a year? When you have to take a test nudie you don't study? Do you really think they don't practice to keep up with their skills so they can pass a test so they can make a living? If you were a cop and knew that your gun might save your life, you wouldn't regularly fire it at a range just to make sure it's still shooting straight? Saying a cop only fires trains with his weapon once a year when he's qualifying is not thought out that well. I'm sure cops are gun enthusiasts too. I mean they carry one around 50 hours a week.



sprite
Posted: Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:52:31 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,604
Location: My Tower, United States
MrNudiePants wrote:

5. "Or do you think all "semi-trained" civilians are idiots?" Yes, for the most part they are. Full of ignorant libido, thinking of themselves greater than they are, this belief will carry through to any Tom, Dick and Harry that puts in time at the gun range, and thinks himself ready for battle.

This is just transference. You're assuming that all people share your attributes, when we do not. Hell, even Sprite is a better man that that, and she's a gurl!




i'm confused? what attributes do i share? and honestly, does anyone here think it's a good idea to arm me with something that spits bullets out of one end? because, honestly, i don't. i have also asked the opinion of several people who know me well, and they all agree. an armed sprite is a very very scary thing indeed.

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
Remington
Posted: Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:09:17 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/21/2010
Posts: 1,753
Like Nudie said, the cops only qualify once a year. And yes they only shoot once a year. I've talked to many cops and only a couple of them actually go and shoot on a regular basis. The majority of cops only shoot when they have to.

As for myself, I go out shooting as often as I can, as do a lot of the people who I've sold guns to. I want to keep up on my skills to ensure that I will be at the best of my abilities in case a situation - which I hope doesn't ever arise - requires me to use my gun. Therefore, I trust the average gun owner in a situation like Arizona than I do cops.

Go check out my new story - How Did This Happen? - John's Story

Magical_felix
Posted: Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:15:13 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,908
Location: California
Remington wrote:
Like Nudie said, the cops only qualify once a year. And yes they only shoot once a year. I've talked to many cops and only a couple of them actually go and shoot on a regular basis. The majority of cops only shoot when they have to.

As for myself, I go out shooting as often as I can, as do a lot of the people who I've sold guns to. I want to keep up on my skills to ensure that I will be at the best of my abilities in case a situation - which I hope doesn't ever arise - requires me to use my gun. Therefore, I trust the average gun owner in a situation like Arizona than I do cops.


So they're just naturally gifted at shooting? They only need to shoot when they qualify and they are good enough to pass? They must be awesome then.



Remington
Posted: Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:17:11 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/21/2010
Posts: 1,753
Ha, no they are not gifted to shoot. Some of them shouldn't even qualify but our local police department is lazy and don't want to bring in anyone else. It's sad to say the least.

Go check out my new story - How Did This Happen? - John's Story

Magical_felix
Posted: Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:20:18 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,908
Location: California
Remington wrote:
Ha, no they are not gifted to shoot. Some of them shouldn't even qualify but our local police department is lazy and don't want to bring in anyone else. It's sad to say the least.


That might be unique to your local police department. I'm sure most cops are required to pass.



Remington
Posted: Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:22:36 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/21/2010
Posts: 1,753
And I'm sure most of them barely pass. Anyways, point is, I wouldn't trust cops to defend me.

Go check out my new story - How Did This Happen? - John's Story

Magical_felix
Posted: Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:32:04 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,908
Location: California
Remington wrote:
And I'm sure most of them barely pass. Anyways, point is, I wouldn't trust cops to defend me.


What's barely passing? How exactly do they qualify? I confess that I don't know the specifics of it. But is it really that easy that someone that doesn't shoot a gun ever can pass? Cops don't ever shoot their guns but once a year!? Hahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahaha!



MrNudiePants
Posted: Friday, January 14, 2011 2:22:03 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Magical_felix wrote:

What's barely passing? How exactly do they qualify? I confess that I don't know the specifics of it. But is it really that easy that someone that doesn't shoot a gun ever can pass? Cops don't ever shoot their guns but once a year!? Hahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahaha!


The purpose of qualification is to ensure that officers can hit what they aim at, and not hit any innocent bystanders. Different departments have different qualifications tests. Officers will be required to shoot at static (non-moving) targets at specific distances, and with set time limits. Most re-quals only serve as a check to see if the basic motor skills taught at the academy are still present. At one department I know, the officers are also required to shoot pellet guns in a simulator where a computer system plays a movie showing a situation that will require their action. Once the simulation is over, the computer analyzes their performance based on their body motions and lets their trainer know how they did. If an officer fails to pass his re-qual, then the rangemasters will keep him there until he does. And if time runs out, they let his command know that he needs to be retrained (which basically means that he goes in on his next day off and shoots until he qualifies - either he gets overtime for this day, or he does it for free, depending on the department). I said before, I know lots of cops, and you'd be surprised how many have to go in for training because they failed their re-qual.

And like I said - most cops see the gun as just another part of the uniform, like the badge and belt. Most cops aren't gun enthusiasts. Those cops that are usually get themselves assigned to specialized duties like SWAT or Warrant Service.

You don't have to take our word for it. Call around and find any gun range where both civilians and police shoot. Ask the range master on average how the cops do. In my experience, most cops do little better than most civilians. At one gun range I frequent, they'll tell you that the worst shooters are the FBI and the DEA, because they think even basic rules (like safety rules) don't apply to them. The best shooters are usually the US Marshals, especially their Fugitive Task Force.

Remington
Posted: Friday, January 14, 2011 2:30:41 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/21/2010
Posts: 1,753
Exactly. And like Nudie said, most of them do just enough to pass so they can keep their job. If they don't pass here, they go in and re-qualify until they pass.

That's why I wouldn't depend on the law in a life or death situation where precious seconds count.

Go check out my new story - How Did This Happen? - John's Story

MrNudiePants
Posted: Friday, January 14, 2011 2:31:57 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
sprite wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:

5. "Or do you think all "semi-trained" civilians are idiots?" Yes, for the most part they are. Full of ignorant libido, thinking of themselves greater than they are, this belief will carry through to any Tom, Dick and Harry that puts in time at the gun range, and thinks himself ready for battle.

This is just transference. You're assuming that all people share your attributes, when we do not. Hell, even Sprite is a better man that that, and she's a gurl!




i'm confused? what attributes do i share? and honestly, does anyone here think it's a good idea to arm me with something that spits bullets out of one end? because, honestly, i don't. i have also asked the opinion of several people who know me well, and they all agree. an armed sprite is a very very scary thing indeed.


Sorry, Sweet One. What I was trying to say was that he seems to feel that most people are unable to think realistically about their own needs, and take the steps required to be personally responsible for their own safety. He feels that we need cops to look after us, and take care of us. All I was saying is that this line of reasoning is false, since the basic responsibility for ones safety belongs WITH oneself, as you've demonstrated by your own actions in learning martial arts and taking responsibility for yourself.

Sorry for any confusion I've caused.

Magical_felix
Posted: Friday, January 14, 2011 3:40:19 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,908
Location: California
Saying a cop isn't too familiar with his gun is like saying a carpenter barely knows how to use a hammer...

Where's a cop when you need one? Any cops out there that can shed some light on this? Any cops out there feel that five rednecks could take out five cops in a firefight. Well just pretend that firing your gun straight at a paper target is all you need to be able to effectively control a situation. We'll forget about tactics and physical fitness for now... Those probably aren't as important. I'm sure those five disorganized but very accurate rednecks will totally come out on top. I mean have you seen how fast some of those rednecks can draw a gun? Just like the man with no name... And we all know how untouchable he was.



Dancing_Doll
Posted: Friday, January 14, 2011 4:22:17 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,293
Location: West Coast
This was just in the news again today, and I couldn't resist posting it here, just to remind everyone of how safe those gun shows and gun control laws are. I mean where else, can you rest assured that your 8 year old will be supervised by an uncertified teenager when he shoots an Uzi?

Kids grow up early these days, right? Every pre-schooler should learn how to shoot a machine gun. You never know when he might need to protect himself, especially since this thread has proven that we sure can't rely on those unskilled cops.

Massachusetts apparently has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation? Scary.

Gun Shows are Safe? wrote:


BOSTON — Gun control advocates hope that manslaughter indictments in the death of an 8-year-old who accidentally shot himself in the head with an Uzi at a gun show will deter other gun shows from allowing children to fire weapons.

"But this is so rare; if you look at other activities kids are involved in, shooting sports at the ranges is probably the safest activity kids can get involved in," he said.
Christopher attended the Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo at the Westfield Sportsman's club on Oct. 26 with his father and brother. The fair's ads promised shooters with certified instructors, but prosecutors said last week Christopher was supervised by an uncertified 15-year-old boy when the accident occurred.

But the criminal charges may have little effect on how gun shows are run in Massachusetts, which already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.

State law says it is legal for children to fire a rifle or shotgun if they have parental consent and are supervised by a certified instructor. But it is illegal in Massachusetts to furnish a child with a machine gun under any circumstances.
.
Vice said there are no federal regulations governing live shoots at gun shows. The events are regulated by each state. In most states, a child could walk into a gun show and fire an Uzi legally, he said.

The range officers stand with and help any child who shoots a machine gun, Scott said.


Just incase anyone was wondering... everyone indicted in this case on manslaughter charges was found "not guilty" today.
It definitely sends an interesting message, and sets a clear precedent that there is zero liability for those that make these truly idiotic decisions about equipping children with Uzis "for fun"...


Guest
Posted: Friday, January 14, 2011 7:41:14 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,401
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5556

"Gun owners, in contrast, take the responsibility of owning, and where legal, carrying a gun very seriously. That is the reason when concealed carry laws pass there isn’t a huge increase in rage crimes or spree killings with guns."

"A delusion is a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception. In psychiatry, it is defined to be a belief that is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process) and is held despite evidence to the contrary."
DamonX
Posted: Friday, January 14, 2011 8:41:30 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
MrNudiePants wrote:
DamonX wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:
DamonX wrote:

Seriously? Still?


Do we really need to bring back freefallin's arguments about spoons???

This topic keeps getting rehashed over and over, and the proponents still come back with the same old shit.

If you think that broomsticks and pocket knives are the same as guns, then why don't you protect yourself with broomsticks and knives?

"Hey! I can strangle someone with my bare hands, so you better cut off everyone's hands as well!"

Time to get a fucking clue...or at least a decent argument.



Really? Back to the tactic of ignoring the argument just to act ass-clownish and swear a lot? What's YOUR end of the argument, Damon? Explain to me how a sober, law-abiding citizen, lawfully carrying a concealed weapon is any more dangerous because he happens to be in one particular retail establishment instead of another.


First of all, let me appologize for damaging your pristine sensibilities with my foul cursing. I had had no idea the f-bomb was so offensive. But hey! At least I didn't take the lord's name in vain! dontknow

My end of the argument? Take a wild guess. I'm willing to bet that my take on it, is much similar to that of every other intelligent person in the developed western world. Aside from right wing leaning Americans and rednecks in dumbfuck middle America, every other rational person on earth would see this completely assinine.

Now, I'm not sure if you've set foot in a nightclub in the last twenty years, but let me break it down for you. Nightclubs are unstable environments, prone to violence and drunken irrational outbursts. Thus, the presence of violent weapons are generally frowned upon (and for good reason).

Knives, clubs, bats, and yes...guns pose a significant public threat in such an environment. As such, establishments serving massive amounts of alchohol need to make blanket rules to avoid such problems.

Now if you want to holster your piece while you down a cold one and scarf down the fried chicken platter at Applebees, I could care less. After all, you never know when a psycho is going to burst in and start shooting up the place! confused1

And let's not forget the whole reason for this ridiculous "law". Pandering of right wing politicians to gain votes among gun toting, uneducated rednecks during an election year. Congratulations! I think they hit their demographic perfectly. Maybe now you can help them finish the wall along the border.


So... you're saying you think I can be a safe gun owner at Applebees, even if I'm under the influence of alcohol, but set one foot in a nightclub, stone-cold sober, and I'm going to break out into random violence the first chance I get? Why is that? Is there some kind of psychological effect that low lights and loud music have that turns people into maniacs? If that's the case, then it's not firearms that are the problem... it's nightclubs!

Let's ban nightclubs! It's for the good of the people!



Unbelievable. I would say that your lack of reasoning astounds me, but this is the kind of stuff we all have come to expect from you.

What would you say if a person walked into a nightclub carrying an axe? Would you say "well, its his constitutional right to carry that."?

Probably not. You would probably say "what the fuck is this guy doing, taking an axe into a nightclub."

Well, the rest of us sane people think the same about guns. Your comments about nightclubs only further cements my belief that you really have no idea what the environment is like in a night club. Even a child could determine that introducing any kind of weapon into that environment would be a pretty bad idea. The bars I go to wont even allow bottles, glasses or even canes into them.

Oh wait! You're doing it for self defence! Who are you? Tupac?

As with most of your arguments, you take an individualistic point of view. You think that because you, yourself would not be more prone to shooting someone by having a gun you assume that statistically, the same would go for everyone else. Your inablility to see things from a wider perspective is quite interesting and sheds light on many of your previous arguments.

As rational argument is obviously not your thing, I guess I'll go back to mocking you with sarcasm and "ass clowning".

When I posted this thread, I thought of it as a joke. I never expected anyone (even you) to actually argue this ridiculous point. Please continue. This is growing highly entertaining.

MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 9:43:52 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
DamonX wrote:

Unbelievable. I would say that your lack of reasoning astounds me, but this is the kind of stuff we all have come to expect from you.


Just as I've come to expect a total lack of logic and ability for debate from you. Can't attack the argument, so you attack the arguer. Hey, if that's what creams your Twinkee.

DamonX wrote:
What would you say if a person walked into a nightclub carrying an axe? Would you say "well, its his constitutional right to carry that."?



Well, if he was carrying his axe concealed, as I carry my firearm, then I wouldn't say anything because I'd never know it was there, would I? Regrettably, this topic isn't about axes in nightclubs, so what you hope to gain by introducing this bit if nonsensical bullshit is anybody's guess.

DamonX wrote:
The bars I go to wont even allow bottles, glasses or even canes into them.


If you make the deliberate choice to go to a venue where violence is likely, don't blame me if there's violence in your life. I can go to such a venue and remain peaceful. If you can't, you may need counseling.

DamonX wrote:
As with most of your arguments, you take an individualistic point of view. You think that because you, yourself would not be more prone to shooting someone by having a gun you assume that statistically, the same would go for everyone else. Your inablility to see things from a wider perspective is quite interesting and sheds light on many of your previous arguments.


So prove me wrong. I've issued this challenge before, and nobody has taken me up on it. Everywhere the local governments pass concealed weapons laws, the anti-gun lobbyists predict dire consequences and drone the catch-phrase "there'll be blood in the streets" until that's all you hear in the news. But it never happens. Show me one jurisdiction, anywhere in America (or Canada, for that matter) where comprehensive individual concealed-carry laws have been enacted where people use those legally-carried concealed weapons to drastically influence the crime rate. If the same truly doesn't "go for everyone else", then prove it. Show me how all those concealed weapon carriers are suddenly transformed into murdering, robbing hooligans.

And, phase two of the challenge (which you've never addressed either): how is it that a sober, lawful person is suddenly changed into a murdering outlaw simply by dint of changing from one place of business to another? Address the argument. Because from what I see, your view of the world doesn't really reflect the reality that's out there.

MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 9:46:23 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Magical_felix wrote:
Saying a cop isn't too familiar with his gun is like saying a carpenter barely knows how to use a hammer...

Where's a cop when you need one? Any cops out there that can shed some light on this? Any cops out there feel that five rednecks could take out five cops in a firefight. Well just pretend that firing your gun straight at a paper target is all you need to be able to effectively control a situation. We'll forget about tactics and physical fitness for now... Those probably aren't as important. I'm sure those five disorganized but very accurate rednecks will totally come out on top. I mean have you seen how fast some of those rednecks can draw a gun? Just like the man with no name... And we all know how untouchable he was.


If you knew a carpenter that only gets his hammer out once a year, and then to hammer only a few dozen nails, how effective do you think he would be compared to the carpenter that uses his hammer every week? Or every month?

As for your "five rednecks" argument... that's just plain racist and asinine.

MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 9:50:35 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:
This was just in the news again today, and I couldn't resist posting it here, just to remind everyone of how safe those gun shows and gun control laws are. I mean where else, can you rest assured that your 8 year old will be supervised by an uncertified teenager when he shoots an Uzi?

(snip)

Just incase anyone was wondering... everyone indicted in this case on manslaughter charges was found "not guilty" today.
It definitely sends an interesting message, and sets a clear precedent that there is zero liability for those that make these truly idiotic decisions about equipping children with Uzis "for fun"...


That's just wrong. Whoever it was that assigned the 15-year-old to supervise the live machine gun shoot should have been found guilty of criminal negligence at the very least. Of course, I wasn't there, And I don't know all the facts. And that's why we have courts -- to decide hotly contested issues such as this. I guarantee you that they won't be able to find another insurance carrier to cover them for this kind of thing in the future.

sprite
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:04:37 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,604
Location: My Tower, United States
MrNudiePants wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:
This was just in the news again today, and I couldn't resist posting it here, just to remind everyone of how safe those gun shows and gun control laws are. I mean where else, can you rest assured that your 8 year old will be supervised by an uncertified teenager when he shoots an Uzi?

(snip)

Just incase anyone was wondering... everyone indicted in this case on manslaughter charges was found "not guilty" today.
It definitely sends an interesting message, and sets a clear precedent that there is zero liability for those that make these truly idiotic decisions about equipping children with Uzis "for fun"...


That's just wrong. Whoever it was that assigned the 15-year-old to supervise the live machine gun shoot should have been found guilty of criminal negligence at the very least. Of course, I wasn't there, And I don't know all the facts. And that's why we have courts -- to decide hotly contested issues such as this. I guarantee you that they won't be able to find another insurance carrier to cover them for this kind of thing in the future.


yeah, and that's going to bring that kid back to life, right? oh, wait, he'll still be dead. nevermind.

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:10:26 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,293
Location: West Coast
MrNudiePants wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:
This was just in the news again today, and I couldn't resist posting it here, just to remind everyone of how safe those gun shows and gun control laws are. I mean where else, can you rest assured that your 8 year old will be supervised by an uncertified teenager when he shoots an Uzi?

(snip)

Just incase anyone was wondering... everyone indicted in this case on manslaughter charges was found "not guilty" today.
It definitely sends an interesting message, and sets a clear precedent that there is zero liability for those that make these truly idiotic decisions about equipping children with Uzis "for fun"...


That's just wrong. Whoever it was that assigned the 15-year-old to supervise the live machine gun shoot should have been found guilty of criminal negligence at the very least. Of course, I wasn't there, And I don't know all the facts. And that's why we have courts -- to decide hotly contested issues such as this. I guarantee you that they won't be able to find another insurance carrier to cover them for this kind of thing in the future.


I find the real issue to be not about whether the 15 year old was supervising, but why anyone would put an Uzi into the hands of a child? If you do not see the idiocy of this concept, then I am concerned for you. And according to the article, it's quite legal to allow children to fire an Uzi at a gun show in most states.

I know this is a side-topic from the original guns in nightclubs argument, but you continue making the point that you, as a gun carrier, are a responsible person. I might not be afraid of you (in particular) carrying a gun into a bar (although that point is rather debatable in my own mind), but that doesn't mean that every gun-toting human being is like you. You would think at a gun show, there would be hundreds of gun owners around that are supposedly concerned with safety... and yet nobody stopped a teenager from handing over a machine gun to an 8 year old? Obviously people are flawed in their logic. Because of that, a kid is dead. Someone in a nightclub with similar logic makes an error, and other innocent people pay the consequences. What banning guns from bars seeks to do is LIMIT those consequences.

What I still don't understand is... why do you feel the need to carry a gun into a bar, if you, yourself openly claim that you never frequent "violent venues" anyway?


Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.