Jib 0
QuoteWhat an "interesting" life you must lead. I've never felt the need to shoot, knife, or even hit anyone in my 57 years on Earth. And I've worked on the south side of Chicago for 25 years and go about my daily life completely unarmed.
Interesting? no, just going through corresponding ages two and a half decades after you. That, or I am quite barbaric and you are passively enlightened. I never have needed to resort to using a firearm or a knife to end a situation, but I have been trained and practice to use both effectively should a situation ever arise where nothing else will do. Actually, I don't necessarily need either, as most any object can be used against an aggressor.
I guess I picture situations like one that ended up in a plane crashing two miles from my parent's cottage in PA on 9/11/01. Some in a situation like that would sit back and wait for their fate or for someone else to act, whereas I would react upon any weakness in my enemy's defense. Fight or flight, I suppose.
"how can you know anything about yourself if you've never been in a fight?"
mike
Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.
. Some in a situation like that would sit back and wait for their fate or for someone else to act, whereas I would react upon any weakness in my enemy's defense. Fight or flight, I suppose.
I just think some people really don't see clearly Mike.
I don't get it...is he saying that since it's never happened in 57 years it never will?
Thats justification for being unprepared??
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
AndyMan 7
QuoteThats justification for being unprepared??
Sure. I am entirely unprepared for nuclear war. I am entirely unprepared for a natural disaster to wipe out Chicago. The list of scenarios that I am entirely unprepared for is endless. I'm do not prepare for those events simply for the reason that I do not forsee them happening anytime soon.
To spend my life preparing for those rare occaisions that these things things actually DO happen, seems a rather depressing way of living. Would you have me build a nuclear bombshelter in my backyard, too?
_Am
__
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
kallend 2,032
QuoteQuoteWhat an "interesting" life you must lead. I've never felt the need to shoot, knife, or even hit anyone in my 57 years on Earth. And I've worked on the south side of Chicago for 25 years and go about my daily life completely unarmed.
Interesting? no, just going through corresponding ages two and a half decades after you. That, or I am quite barbaric and you are passively enlightened. I never have needed to resort to using a firearm or a knife to end a situation, but I have been trained and practice to use both effectively should a situation ever arise where nothing else will do. Actually, I don't necessarily need either, as most any object can be used against an aggressor.
I guess I picture situations like one that ended up in a plane crashing two miles from my parent's cottage in PA on 9/11/01. Some in a situation like that would sit back and wait for their fate or for someone else to act, whereas I would react upon any weakness in my enemy's defense. Fight or flight, I suppose.
"how can you know anything about yourself if you've never been in a fight?"
No - I simply don't intend to go through life in fear of something that, considered objectively, is most unlikely to happen. There's many more likely and interesting things to prepare for.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Fear???? You seriously think I am afraid of something like that? Please. Standing on a ledge 800 feet off the ground with a piece of nylon on my back dictating how fast I make it to the ground puts fear in me. A pissed off girlfriend--that's pure fear for me too. But fear of a situation I am trained to react in? Naaaaah. It's a feel-good for you to think I am paranoid. I prefer to think I watch my back and am aware of my surroundings. It's called being prepared for whatever to happen. I only get paranoid when I am on the weed.
I have had rounds impacting walls three feet from my position on a few occasions. I gotta tell you, I was very aware, but fear was the farthest thing from my mind. I just reacted, keeping my rifle at the ready and taking pictures the whole time. I had every sense in my body working overtime, plus a few other senses I didn't know I had. Fear never entered into it. So pacify your complacency for survival on another notion, please. Maybe preparing for a dinner party is more important than preparing to save your life or the lives of those you love. Maybe we just have different priorities.
Peace and vegetable grease,
mike
Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.
I have had rounds impacting walls three feet from my position on a few occasions. I gotta tell you, I was very aware, but fear was the farthest thing from my mind. I just reacted, keeping my rifle at the ready and taking pictures the whole time. I had every sense in my body working overtime, plus a few other senses I didn't know I had. Fear never entered into it. So pacify your complacency for survival on another notion, please. Maybe preparing for a dinner party is more important than preparing to save your life or the lives of those you love. Maybe we just have different priorities.
Peace and vegetable grease,
mike
Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.
QuoteQuoteThats justification for being unprepared??
Sure. I am entirely unprepared for nuclear war. I am entirely unprepared for a natural disaster to wipe out Chicago. The list of scenarios that I am entirely unprepared for is endless. I'm do not prepare for those events simply for the reason that I do not forsee them happening anytime soon.
To spend my life preparing for those rare occaisions that these things things actually DO happen, seems a rather depressing way of living. Would you have me build a nuclear bombshelter in my backyard, too?
_Am
It is of course a sliding scale of preparedness...
Some of us prepare for what we believe through our life experience we may need to be ready for...
In our minds the cost of being ready is minimal compared to the cost of not being so.
You're comfortable knowing that you may not be as able to protect yourself as well as you might...because you haven't needed to.
That's great for you....
Again it's a sliding scale...
We all make a conscious decision as to what we are ready for? Snow tires for winter? Reserve parachutes?
Medicine for sickness? Car insurance? Life insurance?
We all know what we need to stay alive, safe, and happy....
If you feel you won't ever need the personal protection a firearm may offer, far be it from anyone to oppose your opinion.
Others lead quite different lives than that of yours in 'the South side of Chicago'.
Who they are, what they do, where THEY live may place a higher priority on the peace of mind gun ownership, combined with proper training may lend.
It's MY experience that I not only feel safer armed, I am safe knowing how to skillfully
use a relatively inexpensive tool, a firearm.
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
I see that people should be prepared for what would actually endanger them.
Where I live: a Nuke shelter would be more needed than a gun or house alarm( I'm not joking)
Where I work: I wear a "Point Blank" with stab plate.
>>It's best to realize that some people are living there lives as cattle. A kind and oblivious way of living but, they need to know what farm their on.
Those that are "Dairy Cows" have little to worry.
Those that are not.......
_______________________________
If I could be a Super Hero,
I chose to be: "GRANT-A-CLAUS". and work 365 days a Year.
http://www.hangout.no/speednews/
If I could be a Super Hero,
I chose to be: "GRANT-A-CLAUS". and work 365 days a Year.
http://www.hangout.no/speednews/
Quote
Is that some kind of geeky insult? How old are you?Cutting and pasting is a pain in the ass because of the ads, but here it is:
Cutting and pasting is a pain in the ass because of the ads, but here it is:Thanks for posting. I guess that was a geek psuedo-insult. But I am not very old.
Quote
For his part, Donohue said that right-to-carry laws may deter violent crimes, such as murder or robbery, in some situations, while encouraging them in others.
For example, he said, an attacker may wrest control of a handgun away from a victim, who may be less experienced in handling firearms, and use it against the victim.
Also, otherwise law-abiding citizens may become "emboldened to do bad things, some of them violent" in the heat of the moment, Donohue said.
I see a lot of hypothetical 'mays'
QuoteAccording to his research, 13 states that enacted right-to-carry laws after 1992 experienced steep increases in murder and other violent crime rates, compared with states without such laws.
So he is comparing the rates of state A after a CHL program to the rates of state B? That looks a little like apples and oranges to me. I would like to know how it changed my state.
By the way, the Brooking Institution is far from bi-partisan. Look at their funding and their published works. They are pretty far left, even I think for most gun-control activists on this forum. I am not saying that they have no valid numbers. But if the main argument is comparing two seperate states, as listed above, I dont think that is an accurate measurement. For all states I have seen referenced, after a CHL program went into effect, their violent crime rates dropped drastically.
I am spending too much weekend time on this thread--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.
kallend 2,032
QuoteQuote
Is that some kind of geeky insult? How old are you?
Thanks for posting. I guess that was a geek psuedo-insult. But I am not very old.Quote
For his part, Donohue said that right-to-carry laws may deter violent crimes, such as murder or robbery, in some situations, while encouraging them in others.
For example, he said, an attacker may wrest control of a handgun away from a victim, who may be less experienced in handling firearms, and use it against the victim.
Also, otherwise law-abiding citizens may become "emboldened to do bad things, some of them violent" in the heat of the moment, Donohue said.
I see a lot of hypothetical 'mays'QuoteAccording to his research, 13 states that enacted right-to-carry laws after 1992 experienced steep increases in murder and other violent crime rates, compared with states without such laws.
So he is comparing the rates of state A after a CHL program to the rates of state B? That looks a little like apples and oranges to me. I would like to know how it changed my state.
By the way, the Brooking Institution is far from bi-partisan. Look at their funding and their published works. They are pretty far left, even I think for most gun-control activists on this forum. I am not saying that they have no valid numbers. But if the main argument is comparing two seperate states, as listed above, I dont think that is an accurate measurement. For all states I have seen referenced, after a CHL program went into effect, their violent crime rates dropped drastically.
The gun lobby has been parroting Lott for some time now.
So why exactly do you think Lott's methodology any better than Donohue's? They are both reputable analysts. Is it possible that the data are really inconclusive and can be interpreted either way?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteThe gun lobby has been parroting Lott for some time now.
So why exactly do you think Lott's methodology any better than Donohue's? They are both reputable analysts. Is it possible that the data are really inconclusive and can be interpreted either way?
QuoteQuoteAccording to his research, 13 states that enacted right-to-carry laws after 1992 experienced steep increases in murder and other violent crime rates, compared with states without such laws.
So he is comparing the rates of state A after a CHL program to the rates of state B? That looks a little like apples and oranges to me. I would like to know how it changed my state.
Like I said above, comparing a statistic in state A to state B does not really illustrate the change made by the CHL. I think it makes much more sense to say "this is what the state looked like before, this is what it looked like afterwards" Comparing two different states adds way too many variables to isolate, ie. political changes in either states, police spending, prison capacity, etc. It is already difficult to pull those out for one state. But trying to compute the changes between two different states makes the standard deviation of a statistic very difficult to figure.
An example, if your raised the speed limit to 70 and wanted to know how it affected accidents, would you compare to your state's rates when the speed limit is slower? Or would you compare to another state that might have less roads, less cars, more people, more interstates, desolate like Nevada, etc, etc.
I am not saying that Donohue's statistics are not 'real' statistics. I just think that they are not as targeted at showing the difference we desire to see. If you have ever taken a statistics class (and yes I have taken several) you are taught that actually one of the hardest things to do is to target your desired variable.
--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.
kallend 2,032
QuoteQuoteThe gun lobby has been parroting Lott for some time now.
So why exactly do you think Lott's methodology any better than Donohue's? They are both reputable analysts. Is it possible that the data are really inconclusive and can be interpreted either way?QuoteQuoteAccording to his research, 13 states that enacted right-to-carry laws after 1992 experienced steep increases in murder and other violent crime rates, compared with states without such laws.
So he is comparing the rates of state A after a CHL program to the rates of state B? That looks a little like apples and oranges to me. I would like to know how it changed my state.
Like I said above, comparing a statistic in state A to state B does not really illustrate the change made by the CHL. I think it makes much more sense to say "this is what the state looked like before, this is what it looked like afterwards" Comparing two different states adds way too many variables to isolate, ie. political changes in either states, police spending, prison capacity, etc. It is already difficult to pull those out for one state. But trying to compute the changes between two different states makes the standard deviation of a statistic very difficult to figure.
An example, if your raised the speed limit to 70 and wanted to know how it affected accidents, would you compare to your state's rates when the speed limit is slower? Or would you compare to another state that might have less roads, less cars, more people, more interstates, desolate like Nevada, etc, etc.
I am not saying that Donohue's statistics are not 'real' statistics. I just think that they are not as targeted at showing the difference we desire to see. If you have ever taken a statistics class (and yes I have taken several) you are taught that actually one of the hardest things to do is to target your desired variable.
So you are an expert on statistics and the Brookings Institute hires morons to do their policy analysis?
I took my first statistics class in 1965, and now I teach it on occasion. Were you around in 1965?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteI took my first statistics class in 1965, and now I teach it on occasion. Were you around in 1965?
So what you're saying is that you're trapped by your own paradigm?
Who moved my cheese...
--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."
QuoteI see that people should be prepared for what would actually endanger them.
Where I live: a Nuke shelter would be more needed than a gun or house alarm( I'm not joking)
Where I work: I wear a "Point Blank" with stab plate.
>>It's best to realize that some people are living there lives as cattle. A kind and oblivious way of living but, they need to know what farm their on.
Those that are "Dairy Cows" have little to worry.
Those that are not.......
Well stated!
And you're obviously speaking from the point of experience and thoughtful reason....
I don't know what it is that you do, but I trust you will continue to take all possible practical measures to insure your well being.
Good luck to you, stay low and don't bunch up!
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
If you teach statistics then I am even more surprised and disappointed that you do not understand the difference between comparing a state to itself and another.
Did I or did I not write:
I did not even make an issue out of the fact that the Brooking Institution has as much of a bias as the NRA. I simply said
Still waiting for statistics that indicate a states crime rate is worse after CHL than before. And I am telling you they are not out there. These other statistics are jsut like the doom and gloom articles ever Christmas "The sky is falling, christmas spending is down. The sky is falling" Upon reading further.."oops what we meant was that the rate of increase is down. Last year spending increased 11%, this year it only increased 9%" Well, it was still 9% better than last year, wasn't it!!
Once again if you truly teach statistics, I am saddened that you do not see the difference.
No, I was not. But neither were scientific calculators, PCs, many of the equations we now use in math class, square parachutes, or CHL programs. That does not discredit them. Apparently a lot of reaaly good things have happened since then.
QuoteSo you are an expert on statistics and the Brookings Institute hires morons to do their policy analysis?
Did I or did I not write:
QuoteI am not saying that Donohue's statistics are not 'real' statistics. I just think that they are not as targeted at showing the difference we desire to see.
I did not even make an issue out of the fact that the Brooking Institution has as much of a bias as the NRA. I simply said
QuoteI just think that they are not as targeted at showing the difference we desire to see.
Still waiting for statistics that indicate a states crime rate is worse after CHL than before. And I am telling you they are not out there. These other statistics are jsut like the doom and gloom articles ever Christmas "The sky is falling, christmas spending is down. The sky is falling" Upon reading further.."oops what we meant was that the rate of increase is down. Last year spending increased 11%, this year it only increased 9%" Well, it was still 9% better than last year, wasn't it!!
Once again if you truly teach statistics, I am saddened that you do not see the difference.
QuoteWere you around in 1965?
No, I was not. But neither were scientific calculators, PCs, many of the equations we now use in math class, square parachutes, or CHL programs. That does not discredit them. Apparently a lot of reaaly good things have happened since then.
--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.
kallend 2,032
Quote
Still waiting for statistics that indicate a states crime rate is worse after CHL than before. And I am telling you they are not out there. These other statistics are jsut like the doom and gloom articles ever Christmas "The sky is falling, christmas spending is down. The sky is falling" Upon reading further.."oops what we meant was that the rate of increase is down. Last year spending increased 11%, this year it only increased 9%" Well, it was still 9% better than last year, wasn't it!!
Once again if you truly teach statistics, I am saddened that you do not see the difference.QuoteWere you around in 1965?
No, I was not. But neither were scientific calculators, PCs, many of the equations we now use in math class, square parachutes, or CHL programs. That does not discredit them. Apparently a lot of reaaly good things have happened since then.
Yes they have. However, YOU asked if I had taken statistics. My answer is that I had taken statistics before you were born, and have been using statistics pretty much ever since. And my experience suggests that the data are inconclusive, allowing advocates on wither side to interpret them to their advantage. By the way, Donohue is not the first researcher to contradict Lott and point out error's in Lott's methodology. It's just that the gun lobby web sites never mention that.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
And so you really think that comparing to other states increases is a better measure than comparing a state before and after?
--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.
Zenister 0
particularly since the increase in neighboring states may (theres that word again that makes any conclusion you care to have acceptable
i really worry about any study that uses that word as often as that one does
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
kallend 2,032
QuoteAnd so you really think that comparing to other states increases is a better measure than comparing a state before and after?
I already told you what I believe. I believe the data are inconclusive and open to interpretation either way.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
jfields 0
QuoteAnd no, Justin, just because you shot in the army, you don't know everything there is to know about guns. I am betting you coasted by with a bare minimum qual score and have never fired a handgun. I might be wrong, so enlighten me.
Consider yourself enlightened. Expert on M-16 and the 9mm. My issue weapon was a pistol, not a rifle. Just because people aren't advocating the unrestricted right to own weapons doesn't mean it is from fear of them or a belief that the weapon itself is dangerous.
I'm still not saying I know everything about handguns (or rifles). I know very little. But it isn't necessary to know the details you do. It isn't necessary to know much about them to actually buy them, or have a concealed carry permit, and that is part of the problem.
jfields 0
QuoteFear???? You seriously think I am afraid of something like that?
Yes, I do. Your fear of these scenarios is probably the reason that you are preparing for them and constantly training.
The alternative to you fearing them is even worse, which is that you look forward to altercations as justifications to use the skills you've developed.
QuoteMaybe preparing for a dinner party is more important than preparing to save your life or the lives of those you love.
Maybe we understand that the best way to save the lives of ourselves and those we love is to use our brains, instead of a gun.
QuoteI only get paranoid when I am on the weed.
And that is your testament to your responsible, safety-conscious approach to defending yourself and those around you?
Edited for spelling.
QuoteQuoteQuoteForcing a confrontation to escalate from a robbery to a gun battle???
Actually, yes. If you look at how many times the intent is simply to rob versus the "truly psycopathic" individuals who have premeditated killing, then it is safer to be allow yourself to be robbed. When you try to draw your weapon, you can force someone into a position of killing you so they won't be hurt themselves, even if that was not their intention.
The following are not actual proven statistics, just an illustration:
1 in 20 bad guys want to kill you, reason or not.
1 in 20 bad guys intends to rape or assault
12 in 20 bad guys want to rob you, but will definitely kill if provoked.
5 in 20 bad guys want to rob you, but wouldn't actually kill.
1 in 20 bad guys aren't actually bad, but you mistake them as such.
So, out of 20 hostile scenarios, 2 are likely to result in harm no matter what you do. Chance of passive victim being hurt/killed: 2 in 20.
Quick-Draw, the gun-owning target, sees the situations as justification to defend with deadly force. 6 bad guys would stop what they were doing without any violence. The other 14 end up in gun fights. If you win half of them, that leaves you dead 7 times in 20. If you are really good, well trained, say you win 2/3 of your fights, that still leaves you dead about 5 times in 20 encounters.QuoteI have no doubt what so ever that had I not had a handgun and known how to use it, I, the young lady with me, or both would have sustained personal harm.
Without knowing the details of the situation, I have doubts. There are very few situations with no alternative but the use of firearms. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.QuoteSimplified, you are a sheep or a wolf...it's flight or fight.
You have neglected to look at the possibilities for flight. While not heroic, glorious, or a justification for owning cool weapons, flight works pretty well to keep you alive.QuoteI would bet that Dave doesn't go around " hoping to use a gun to defend himself" any more than he jumps with a reserve hoping to use it.
Practicing certain actions over and over makes you more likely to repeat them when the situation arises. With skydiving emergency procedures, that is a good thing.
When it comes to rehearsing situations where you are drawing and firing your weapon, the same tendency is true. You are likely to perform the same actions, whether fully justified or not. The difference is that instead of saving your life or having an unecessary cutaway, you just shot and probably killed someone, or got yourself killed.Quotehistory is filled with examples of sheep "hoping" things will work out
History is also filled with cocky wolves scratching lions' balls.
-----------------------------------------------------------
What?!?!
Let me get this straight...You actually made up some bullshit statistics to 'illustrate' your point?
I bet you win ALL your debates with those tactics...formulate an opinion, then back it with some fantasy facts that you make up to "illustrate your point '.
If only everything in life were that easy!
Unfortunately here in the 'real world' they are not.
I'll reiterate my point about not being able to tell which of your contrived categories a given criminal may fall into. They don't often wear tee-shirts identifying the limit of their criminal intent...if they did, I'm sure SkyCop would not only feel safer at work, but his job would be considerably easier.
To illustrate my point, 100% of all the criminals that broke into my home, pistol whipped me, repeatedly put a loaded revolver against my temple and drew back the hammer, discussed sexually assaulting my companion-----caused me to feel as though our lives just might be in some danger...
No, you don't know the details-- so please don't be so quick to assume that ' flight ' from MY situation was an option...and in case you're unaware, there may be times ahead in your life where the well being of a loved one is in your charge... your decisions and actions while convenient for you may not be so for them.
I guess I could have tried to jump out of a 3rd story window, leaving my girlfriend to fend for herself...I wasn't brought up that way.
I'm glad you have the luxury to second guess the actions taken by others, in situations that you are not familiar with...it's called 'armchair quarterbacking'
I truly hope should you ever actually find yourself " in the game "
you will be able to pull something out of your playbook other than some ' made up bullshit statistics' to defend yourself with.
If given the choice, your Lion will ALWAYS dine on the sheep instead of the Wolf...
Wolves fight back!
...scratch this!
Justin-
In case you paged past this I'd like you to give a quick read...
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
> trying to educate children not to touch a firearm and to tell an adult
> if they find one?
4-H. Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts. Mercer County Sheriff children's programs. National Education Association Health Information Network. Mothers Against Violence. A ten second search will give you dozens of organizations that teach children about the danger of guns, and what to do when they find one.
Touche. Unfortunately, I didn't have the benefit of such programs growing up though I was in scouting through elementary school. (My understanding is that) the NRA's program is the largest and it is working to address concerns regarding children and guns. I don't hear comments about being unhelpful when people say there is no right to own a gun and they should all be banned.
--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt