Not added any friends yet.
No favourite stories listed.
Seriously??? You don't want to use a shot gun because you concerned they might pass through an intruder go through a wall and injury someone else. I'll forgive you the physics lesson of the force required to pass through a human body, then pass through at least 2 sheets of dry wall and very probably part of wall framing? And I am fairly certain joe citizen isn't going to go with a shredder round, fletching, or a high energy round. As I pointed out the quote was from somebody that military, or more precisely an ex-Army Ranger and current sergeant on the SWAT team. But then again I am sure your knowledge of home defense and urban pacification surpasses his 20 plus years of knowledge. And as far as using a semi-automatic shotgun for bird hunting, growing up and living in a massively popular hunting state (yes I have hunted myself), well god forbid you become a better shot. I know all of my serious hunting friends bird hunt with double barrel over under configurations. But seeing as you are the expert on hunting, physics, and home defense I defer to you. Or not. Just to clarify what I believe foxjack was trying to say.You are right, shotguns are the best for home defense, because they have the best chance of 1) hitting the intruder and 2) doing the most damage. This isn't the movies, where people die after one bullet. Shotguns increase the amount of projectiles that you're sending the intruder's way, as well as the wound channel, thus increasing the effectiveness of your shot. However, what Foxjack was probably referring to is the fact that as a responsible gun owner, using a weapon in self defense, you are responsible for every single projectile the instant you pull the trigger. If you're using #4 buckshot with 24 pellets, and 23 of them hit the intruder, but the 24th blasts through the wall and kills the person next door, you are responsible for that death. It doesn't matter that you were defending yourself; the death of the intruder will most likely be justifiable homicide, the death of your neighbor will get you sent to prison. As far as there being a "very probable" chance of hitting the wall framing, most houses are build with the studs 12" on center, some up to 16" on center. So every 12-16", there is a stud, which measures 1.75" wide. Unless my math is off, that puts it at a 85-90% chance that you will not hit wall framing. So yes, shotguns are the best for home defense. Apartment defense, not as much. But either way, there is a huge responsibility that some are not willing to take. Being responsible for all 24 pellets that you're spraying with each trigger pull is a lot.Last comment (and this time I mean it): For those of you who are saying "We banned guns in X, and our gun crime went down", please take a moment to think of what you are saying. It's the same as me saying "McDonalds took the double cheeseburger off their menu, and people stopped ordering double cheeseburgers". Of course they did. When you took guns off of the murder "menu", of course there are going to be less gun crimes. But the people who dine at McDonalds will not stop going just because the double cheeseburger is gone, they'll order something else. Likewise, the people who are intent on murder aren't going to change just because the gun is "off the menu", they'll just use something else. Show me statistics where the gun ban reduced the murder and assault rates equal to the amount of gun related murders and assaults prior to the ban, and I will retract my statement. As of yet, I haven't seen any statistics that have come close to supporting that claim.
I backed out a couple days ago out of disgust over the whole situation. It is still disgusting, and I agree with every one here that something needs to be done. But here's my final post on the subject.Going back to our original debate, Sprite, you countered my statement about deaths due to smoking with laws on where you can smoke, public ads on the dangers of smoking, and increased taxes on cigarettes. And you are correct, that measures are being taken to curb smoking. But that doesn't affect my statement. What the majority of people on here are looking for is a complete and total ban on guns. So where 100% of smokers are killing themselves, and 100% of smokers who smoke around others are damaging the health of others, we have a "sin tax" and some scary pictures on the side of the carton, and smokers can only smoke in designated areas.Shooters can already only shoot in designated areas. If you calculate the number of households who have guns, and the number of murders with guns, 0.05% of gun owners will kill somebody. That's assuming that each murderer only kills one person, and each gun owning household has just one gun owner, so the actual percentage is much, much less. Since I've been vilified for using numbers before, I will state this clearly. No death is acceptable. Not even one. But, with something that has no value except death, and 100% of it's user's are killing themselves and others, we have a "sin tax". With something that less than 0.05% of it's owners are killing themselves or others, we are screaming for a complete ban. Does that make sense? Forget the "saving one life is worth it". Take your opinions on cigarettes and guns out of the equation, and ask yourself if it truly makes sense. 100% of one are killers, 99.95% of the other are not.That's not even considering the fact that the latter is constitutionally protected.As far as my statements on the other amendments, don't think I'm so stupid as to think somebody would be prayed to death. But with Al'Qaeda killing people off of a religious belief, and extremist groups like WBC here in America, it doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to envision a time where religious beliefs lead to death, and where preventing "peaceable gatherings" at these groups' places of worship could curtail deaths. So my questions are still valid.But, let me say this, in closing. This is not directed at any person in particular, so don't take it personally. If you don't want guns in your house, I applaud you. However, for me, and my house, I do not make that same choice. Pictures are floating around of the 20 innocent children killed at Sandy Hook, and they should. We should remember these poor victims, who were cut down before they had a chance to live. However, when I see these kids, I see my children. I do it every day when a little one comes in to the hospital as a victim of drowning or shooting or some other horrible accident. After I have to restrain the grieving fathers because they lash out against the doctors and nurses who tried their best to save their child, I have to find some corner and cry, because the entire time I'm there, I see my child on the table. These deaths haunt me. The little girl who had the same hair as my daughter. The little boy whose father just wanted to be by his side, but couldn't because of a divorce similar to mine. The blood pouring out of every opening as the doctors try to save their little lives. I can't get these images out of my head. So when that "mentally unstable" person comes in, assaults the emergency room staff, and then spews threats against me as I'm tying him down, I take them to heart. When he says he's going to kill me and then rape and murder my daughter, I remember that. And I carry to make sure that little dipshit doesn't make good on his threats. So if you can go throughout life without feeling the need for a gun, more power to you. I cannot, and I will not stand aside and let you take away my rights to protect my beautiful daughter or my two amazing sons, based off of either your fear of guns, dislike or misunderstanding of guns, or the actions of the 0.05%.Until we end this culture we have in America, where killing and death is glorified, and is a multimillion dollar revenue generator, where killers become famous, and where physical violence is an acceptable response to somebody making you mad, then I will continue to carry and fight for my right to carry. Because until that happens, killing will continue. These mentally unstable dipshits will continue to find a way to kill. And I will continue to find a way to protect my family from them. Gun bans will not stop anything, just like alcohol's prohibition did nothing, and the war on drugs has done nothing.
Actually, I'm bowing out of this debate all together. I just read that they're just now starting to bury these children, and honestly, I'm still sick to my stomach over the whole thing. If you want to read my "delusional" opinion on the 2nd amendment, including it's relation to standing armies, there's a link to my blog in my profile. Be kind to each other. I think both sides can agree that is something we need more of.
Sprite, you make valid points that deserve a response, but not ones that I can adequately give using my iPhone. So I'm stepping out of this debate for now. I am only replying right now to apologize if you felt my comment was condescending or insinuated that you were a "ditz". It was only an apparently misguided attempt to add a brief moment of levity to a very emotional and serious discussion. I've seen too many of these debates devolve into vitriolic rhetoric, and sometimes we just need to step back and breathe, and realize that a healthy debate is a good thing. I won't change your mind, you won't change mine, but a well articulated debate is a good thing.
in a lot of cities and states, laws have been enacted dealing with second hand smoke, banning it in the restaurants, schools, airplanes, workplaces, bars, some go as far as prohibiting smoking anywhere public. slowly but surely smoking in public is being banned. drinking alchohol, while legal, is illegal while driving and being drunk in public is a punishable offense, as is underage drinking and supplying minors with booze. i think that those keep in line the idea that, while guns may remain legal, it will be illegal to own assault rifles and semi automatic weapons. I don't have to agree with your stance to appreciate a respectful and well articulated response. So, thank you. Seriously. :)I think there are two different debates here: whether or not all guns should be banned, and whether or not these "assault weapons" should be banned. The latter argument depends entirely on your interpretation of the Second Amendment and the reasoning behind it.
personally, if I was in the states I would willingly give up my right to carry a gun, even if it only saved 1 life. Maybe that makes you a better person than me. Maybe my psyche is too "savage" to become that pacifist. But that's not really the issue. You can make all the choices you want in your life, and that's fine. Where it becomes an issue is when you try to make choices for my life, and tell me how I can and cannot protect my children. Personally, I choose to dance with the devil, so my kids never have to see his face.
I have to head off to work, so feel free to flame away on my comments. That's the wonderful thing about this country that we live in, you can have your opinion, and I can have mine, and we both can voice them. And as long as we respect and value the opinion of the other person, things keep moving along. Trust me, I understand your viewpoint, and can definitely see the merits of it. We just don't quite agree on the implementation. But, if you feel that we need another "assault weapons ban", or a complete firearms ban, or even need to remove the Second Amendment from the Constitution, please do me one favor. Do it. Petition your congressman. Call your senator. Write to the President. Picket the NRA (actually, please do. I'm tired of their "two minutes hate" posts on my Facebook wall). Do whatever you can, to make your voice heard. Because that's how this democracy works. And if the day comes that you get what you want, then that's a good thing, because that's democracy in action. I won't agree with it, but that's the price we all have to pay to keep this great democracy alive.
so, by your logic, it's ok to gun down children as long as we don't exceed the amount killed by second hand smoke, right? Not at all. Actually, I never even mentioned kids in that post. Read my post before that one to see how I feel about this... individual... who shot those children. The reason I posted that statement was simply a response to Foxjack's post about drunk driving, and was adding another bit of information to his statement. But, if you want me to make a logic argument out of my statement, then let me ask this. If alcohol, smoking, drug abuse, and accidental poisonings (among others) are each responsible for more avoidable deaths than firearms, why are firearms the target? If you're looking to save lives, shouldn't you logically start at the deadliest "unnecessary" right and work your way down the list? What percentage of the people who are against guns have never fired a gun in their life, and are acting more out of a fear based on lack of knowledge, fear inducing media buzzwords (assault weapon, sniper rifle, automatic rifle, etc), or our Attorney General's "brainwashing" (his word, not mine)?If illicit drugs are illegal, drunk driving is illegal, and alcohol used to be illegal, but nothing changed, why will making guns illegal be the one prohibition that works?Why aren't smoking and civilian availability of poisons targeted? Both of them are good for only one thing: killing. There is a difference in intent, and She is right about that. But I own guns, I use them responsibly, and I have no "intent" to kill anybody. So the argument is being based on the "intent" of the criminals, not of the law abiding citizens, which doesn't seem fair, regardless of what the topic is. I've read so much over the past few days that I can't remember where I read it, so if this point is regurgitating something that someone else on here said, I apologize, but it is a good point:Using 2009's numbers, roughly 30,000 people were killed with guns. FBI stats say that approximately 3/4 of those involve legally owned firearms, so about 22,750. Banning guns would probably only save a fraction of that; a murderer uses a gun because it's easier, and if there's no guns, they'll use the next best thing. Obviously, you and others think that if banning firearms could save a fraction of that 22,750, then it's worth it. Let me ask you this though, which other rights would you be willing to give up to save that fraction? Would you be willing to give up your Fourth Amendment rights, and allow the government or it's entities to take you, your family, or your possessions with no justification? Would you be willing to give up your Fifth Amendment rights, and be locked away, or even executed without due process? Would you give up your Sixth Amendment rights, and be held for an indeterminable amount of time, in secret, without a lawyer?What about the First Amendment? Would you give that up to save a fraction of 22,750? Would you allow yourself to lose the freedom to voice your thoughts, worship as you please, gather together with your friends peaceably?If you would, I would be very interested to hear your viewpoint on things. Also, you may be interested in North Korea. I hear they have unicorns! ()But if you wouldn't, why is the Second Amendment allowed? Right after the Founding Fathers enumerated the freedom of speech, religion, and the press, the next most important right they wanted to protect was the right to bear arms. And honestly, if the Second Amendment were about protecting the rights of hunters and recreational shooters, then the Bill of Rights would be full of references to other things they enjoyed in their free time, like pies and prostitutes.Ugh. I hate working with numbers like that, because it tends to trivialize the deaths. These were 30,000 people, each year, who lost their lives. 30,000 sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters, who their families will never get back. Obviously, something needs to be done, I just don't think gun control is the answer.
Drunk driving deaths exceed gun deaths (at least as of 2009) According to the CDC, second hand smoke kills 4 times more people than firearm related homocides.
I know I'm late to this discussion, but after I heard the story on the news, I went to my kids, held them close, and spent most of the week being grateful for what I have. This site was the last thing on my mind. But, I want to at least share my opinion. Before I do though, I want to clarify something. There is no "gun show loophole". If you buy a gun from a dealer, which make up the vast majority of booths at a gun show, you are still required to fill out a 4473 form, and go through the background check. The only way to not go through the background check at the point of sale when buying from a dealer is to have a concealed weapons permit, which you cannot get without a background check. Any dealer who sells a gun without obtaining and verifying a 4473 will lose their federal firearms license and be facing serious charges. Anyway, the day after the shooting, my dad lashed out on Facebook, saying that "gun toting conservatives" were responsible for this horrible tragedy, and that it was their fault that we were "a nation of savages." This was my response.----As a "gun toting conservative", I guess I'm being roped into this one.Truth be told, I personally refused to say anything in the wake of this tragedy, and planned to defriend anybody yesterday who mentioned either side of the issue. We as a nation need to come together under a banner of unity and solidarity, and this endless back and forth vitriol is usless and just.. tiring.But, you asked, so here goes.First things first. When talking about this, I refuse to refer to the shooter as a "man". He is not a man. Men have rules of engagement. We "fight someone our own size". This person (even that is stretching it) is a coward. Cowards look for opportunity. They look for somebody who is weaker and defenseless. Cowards are the type of individuals who do horrible shit like this.This was a school. Schools are one of the very few places where possession of a firearm is 100% banned. You cannot legally carry a firearm into a zone 1000ft surrounding a school. You cannot carry on the sidewalk across the street from a school. You cannot have a gun in your home if you live within that zone. It is the epitome of what people who are against firearms would like the entire US/world to be.But, this hasn't made them safer, it has made them targets in tragedies like this. I am unable to recall any recent shooting event that was not in a "gun free zone", with the exception of the Tucson shooting. Why? Because these perpetrators are cowards. They know the people inside will be defenseless. Nobody will be able to fight back. The cowards will have complete control and power.A murderous coward like this isn't going to get his gear together, get himself psyched up, drive to his target, but see the "No Guns Allowed" sign and think "Oh, shucks, well, nevermind I guess." For somebody cowardly and deranged enough to do something like this, a charge of misconduct with a weapon is not an issue. All these gun free zones do is make sure that the law abiding responsible gun owners disarm themselves, and render them unable to protect themselves and their loved ones.And that brings me to my second point. Last night, I was in tears, crying as I brushed my daughters hair, and helped her brush her teeth. I even took a picture of me brushing her hair, because I never want to forget this one fact: I am a lucky, lucky man.Last night, the parents of 20 kids were not able to do that. The parents of 20 kids were not able to kiss their children good night. The parents of 20 kids were not able to wake up in the middle of the night, go to their kids rooms, and watch them sleep, just to make sure they were OK.Forget the 2nd amendment as a stopcheck against a tyrannical government. Forget the 2nd amendment as a protection for hunters. THIS is why I carry.In my job, I get threatened by these cowards on a regular basis. Myself, and my kids. 8 year ago, my responsibilities changed. My one and only job in this world is to provide for, and protect my kids. Anything and everything else is secondary to that one purpose.I do not carry a gun because I want to kill somebody. I pray every day, to what's left of the God I believe in, that I never have to. But if one of these cowards threatens my children, I will protect them, by any means necessary. If the coward forces it to escalate to a situation where one of the two of us die in the process, so be it. But I have no intention of it being me, and I train and will do everything in my power to make sure it isn't.If guns are banned, I'll buy a bigger knife. If knives are banned, I'll be in the front yard gathering rocks. If rocks are banned, I'll be on my patio, sharpening sticks. Since time immemorial, cowards have looked for ways to gain an advantage over others. And as long as I have my children, I will do everything in my power to protect my kids from these cowards, and make sure they can grow up to be anything they want to be. Because yesterday, some coward stopped 20 kids from reaching their potential. 20 kids were taken from this world, before they had a chance to even live. And I will die before I allow that to happen to my kids.Si vis pacem, para bellum.
I couldn't tell you what day it was, or even the month with any certainty. All I know is tonight seemed a lot colder than it had been. I pulled the blanket tighter around my body, and put another log on the campfire. Shit. I only had a couple logs left, and it felt like the night had just started. I'm going to have to go search for some more firewood soon. The only problem is once that chill...
Added 11 Dec 2012 | Category Love Stories
| Votes 4 | Avg Score 4.75
| Views 2,111
Attach a note to this member, which only you can see.
Please tell us why you think this profile page is inappropriate.