akarunway 1 #1 July 12, 2008 Who would have thought. One down 49 to go. Been here 3 weeks. Lovin it. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jul/11/only-nevada-aclu-opposes-gun-control/I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #2 July 12, 2008 Outstandingwww.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Leapinglizardto 0 #3 July 12, 2008 very . now onto the other 49 as you stated. It's pretty pathetic when you have to TELL people you're fucking cool Skymama «narrative»This thread will lock in 3..2.. What a load of narrow-minded Xenophobic Bullshit!-squeak Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #4 July 13, 2008 Fuckin' A! "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #5 July 13, 2008 It's logical, as it reflects the prevailing subculture in that state. IMO, so much of the debate over gun rights/laws stems from the variances in regional subcultures & lifestyles, yet nobody - on either side of the issue - seems to be willing to acknowledge that, in either themselves or their issue-opponents. There's a lot of intellectual dishonesty on each side of this debate. Fortunately, I am above it all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #6 July 13, 2008 Quote IMO, so much of the debate over gun rights/laws stems from the variances in regional subcultures & lifestyles, yet nobody - on either side of the issue - seems to be willing to acknowledge that, in either themselves or their issue-opponents. The right to self defense is pretty universal. Has nothing to do with lifestyle. Same for freedom of religion and of a free press. Or any rights for suspected criminals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #7 July 13, 2008 I stand by my point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #8 July 14, 2008 QuoteI stand by my point. there's a big fucking surprise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #9 July 14, 2008 QuoteIMO, so much of the debate over gun rights/laws stems from the variances in regional subcultures & lifestyles, yet nobody - on either side of the issue - seems to be willing to acknowledge that, in either themselves or their issue-opponents. Okay, I'll bite. I acknowledge that. Now what? Does that give the anti-gun folks the right to deny everyone else the means to self-defense in their homes and elsewhere? They are free to live their lives their way. They should leave others alone to live their lives their different way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #10 July 14, 2008 My point simply being: People in Houston, TX aren't "gun nuts", they're just people who've grown up with and around guns all their lives, and live in a region where it's very common for most average households to have at least 1 gun, so they understand them. So their attitudes on the issue are shaped by that. and... People in White Plains, NY aren't "gun-o-phobes", they're just people who live in a region where it's quite uncommon for average people to own guns, most of whom have never held or fired a gun, or had any live exposure to guns other than glimpsing a policeman's holstered service weapon. So their attitudes on the issue are shaped by that. ...and each group tends to judge the other group with hostility right out of the box, much the way people from 2 different countries judge each other's attitudes, food and clothing harshly, instead of recognizing that the core differences are mainly cultural, and trying to find some common ground for peaceful coexistence. Can't we all just get along? No, huh? Well, it was worth a shot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #11 July 14, 2008 QuoteMy point simply being: People in Houston, TX aren't "gun nuts", they're just people who've grown up with and around guns all their lives, and live in a region where it's very common for most average households to have at least 1 gun, so they understand them. So their attitudes on the issue are shaped by that. and... People in White Plains, NY aren't "gun-o-phobes", they're just people who live in a region where it's quite uncommon for average people to own guns, most of whom have never held or fired a gun, or had any live exposure to guns other than glimpsing a policeman's holstered service weapon. So their attitudes on the issue are shaped by that. ...and each group tends to judge the other group with hostility right out of the box, much the way people from 2 different countries judge each other's attitudes, food and clothing harshly, instead of recognizing that the core differences are mainly cultural, and trying to find some common ground for peaceful coexistence.. Can't we all just get along? Yes, I acknowledge all that. The problem is when the people from White Plains, NY, try to tell the people from Houston, TX, that they shouldn't be allowed to own guns any more. If the New Yorkers would just mind their own business, then, yes, we could all just get along peacefully. Meanwhile, the Texans aren't trying to take anything away from the New Yorkers or force anything upon them - they just want law-abiding people to have the right to own guns if they make that personal choose. Thanks for the thoughtful and well-written posting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #12 July 14, 2008 QuoteQuoteMy point simply being: People in Houston, TX aren't "gun nuts", they're just people who've grown up with and around guns all their lives, and live in a region where it's very common for most average households to have at least 1 gun, so they understand them. So their attitudes on the issue are shaped by that. and... People in White Plains, NY aren't "gun-o-phobes", they're just people who live in a region where it's quite uncommon for average people to own guns, most of whom have never held or fired a gun, or had any live exposure to guns other than glimpsing a policeman's holstered service weapon. So their attitudes on the issue are shaped by that. ...and each group tends to judge the other group with hostility right out of the box, much the way people from 2 different countries judge each other's attitudes, food and clothing harshly, instead of recognizing that the core differences are mainly cultural, and trying to find some common ground for peaceful coexistence.. Can't we all just get along? Yes, I acknowledge all that. The problem is when the people from White Plains, NY, try to tell the people from Houston, TX, that they shouldn't be allowed to own guns any more. If the New Yorkers would just mind their own business, then, yes, we could all just get along peacefully. Meanwhile, the Texans aren't trying to take anything away from the New Yorkers or force anything upon them - they just want law-abiding people to have the right to own guns if they make that personal choose. Thanks for the thoughtful and well-written posting. But the personal decision should be an informed one. “there is little or no need for a gun for self-protection because there’s so little risk of crime. People don’t believe it, but it’s true. You just can’t convince most Americans they’re not at serious risk.” Gary Kleck, interview in US News and World Report, Aug 15, 1994. The best effort yet to collect accurate information was by the CDC, and this was shut down in 1996 by Congress at the urging of the gun lobby.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #13 July 14, 2008 QuoteBut the personal decision should be an informed one. Indeed. For example, the information available has led me to deduce that the best weapon for home defense is a sawed off shotgun. One need not be extremely accurate, it is effective at close range, and there is little risk of the shot goign through the walls, etc., and injuring people that way. Quote“there is little or no need for a gun for self-protection That's not a fact. That's an opinion. Quotebecause there’s so little risk of crime. Oh, indeed. At least in my neighborhood. Could the same be said about places like Washington D.C.? How about classrooms? The risk of being a victim of any shooting is so remote that a person should never be concenred about his or her own safety, right? QuoteYou just can’t convince most Americans they’re not at serious risk.” Indeed! Because try as you might, we all have televisions and access to the news. And though politicians try, you also just can't convince Americans that the right to protect themselves should be abolished. Take a look at Flint, Michigan - the 2006 violent crime rate was 2.6% in that year. Thus, take any 50 people, and one was a victim of violent crime. Seeing as how most of us actually know a lot of people, pretty much everyone in Flint had an acquaintance who was a victim of a violent crime. SO, yeah, when you know someone who was injured by a violent criminal, it makes it pretty difficult to suggest that the risk is pretty remote. I've never been involved in a vehicle collision. It doesn't mean I don't wear a seatbelt or get a car with a 5-Star Safety rating. QuoteThe best effort yet to collect accurate information was by the CDC Again, that seems to be a matter of qualitative opinion. Not necessarily "fact." hat is an acceptable risk for one may not be acceptable for another. For my family, nothing less than a 5-Star safety rating will do. For yours? Perhaps fuel economy is more important. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #14 July 14, 2008 QuoteIndeed. For example, the information available has led me to deduce that the best weapon for home defense is a sawed off shotgun. One need not be extremely accurate, it is effective at close range, and there is little risk of the shot goign through the walls, etc., and injuring people that way. "sawed off" is a rather generic term and while it is legal to "saw off" and shorten a shotgun barrel as long as it is kept at 18"(barrell length) and 26? overall, or the owner obtains a class 3 permit for the weapon, the term usually implies an illegal shotgun. The DC thread died after it turned into a pissing match off topic. I was going to mention the revolver that I would register in compliance with their registration requirements. I almost bought one for a different purpose last year, but after learning more about it realized it did not fit my need. It would be a great home defense pistol however and it is very inexpensive. The Taurus "Judge". Do yourself a favor and check it out. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #15 July 14, 2008 QuoteThe DC thread died after it turned into a pissing match off topic. Exactly. "I don't like guns, so you shouldn't, either." "Well, I DO like guns, and so should you - commie." "Well, I don't need guns, and you shouldn't need one, gun nut." "Well, I need a gun, and you should carry one too, pinko." "All guns should be banned." "You may think that, but the Constitution disagrees." "You think that, but it's only meant for the militia." Ad nauseum. But John Rich has a point - only one side is looking at taking something away. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #16 July 14, 2008 Quote People in White Plains, NY aren't "gun-o-phobes", they're just people who live in a region where it's quite uncommon for average people to own guns, most of whom have never held or fired a gun, or had any live exposure to guns other than glimpsing a policeman's holstered service weapon. So their attitudes on the issue are shaped by that. ...and each group tends to judge the other group with hostility right out of the box, much the way people from 2 different countries judge each other's attitudes, food and clothing harshly, instead of recognizing that the core differences are mainly cultural, and trying to find some common ground for peaceful coexistence. Can't we all just get along? You're right! The good people of Mississippi had only known blacks as slaves and then the low paid hired help. The idea of letting them vote is totally foreign, so that shaped their attitudes and lead them to hang those who tried to increase black voting. How dare we treat them with hostility just because we believe in guaranteed civil rights! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #17 July 14, 2008 Whoa. So much for getting along. Who pissed in your cornflakes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #18 July 14, 2008 Quote Quote But the personal decision should be an informed one. Indeed. For example, the information available has led me to deduce that the best weapon for home defense is a sawed off shotgun. One need not be extremely accurate, it is effective at close range, and there is little risk of the shot goign through the walls, etc., and injuring people that way. Quote “there is little or no need for a gun for self-protection That's not a fact. That's an opinion. Yes, the opinion of Prof. Gary Kleck, whose other opinions and extrapolations on self-defense are taken as gospel truth by the gun-o-philes. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #19 July 14, 2008 Quote Quote Quote But the personal decision should be an informed one. Indeed. For example, the information available has led me to deduce that the best weapon for home defense is a sawed off shotgun. One need not be extremely accurate, it is effective at close range, and there is little risk of the shot goign through the walls, etc., and injuring people that way. Quote “there is little or no need for a gun for self-protection That's not a fact. That's an opinion. Yes, the opinion of Prof. Gary Kleck, whose other opinions and extrapolations on self-defense are taken as gospel truth by the gun-o-philes. Most != "all". MOST drivers won't NEED their airbag or seatbelt on any given day. MOST skydivers won't NEED their RSL / AAD / reserve on any given day. The converse of that "proof" is that when you need it, you NEED it right THEN. You've spent umpteen posts recently talking about how Kleck had it all wrong - a bit hypocritical to suddenly use the same information as "gospel" only when it supports your argument, don't you think?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #20 July 14, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote But the personal decision should be an informed one. Indeed. For example, the information available has led me to deduce that the best weapon for home defense is a sawed off shotgun. One need not be extremely accurate, it is effective at close range, and there is little risk of the shot goign through the walls, etc., and injuring people that way. Quote “there is little or no need for a gun for self-protection That's not a fact. That's an opinion. Yes, the opinion of Prof. Gary Kleck, whose other opinions and extrapolations on self-defense are taken as gospel truth by the gun-o-philes. Most != "all". MOST drivers won't NEED their airbag or seatbelt on any given day. MOST skydivers won't NEED their RSL / AAD / reserve on any given day. The converse of that "proof" is that when you need it, you NEED it right THEN. You've spent umpteen posts recently talking about how Kleck had it all wrong - a bit hypocritical to suddenly use the same information as "gospel" only when it supports your argument, don't you think? My argument? What argument would that be? Not my fault if the guy you keep quoting makes statements like “there is little or no need for a gun for self-protection". Just in case any of those space aliens turn up on your doorstep.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #21 July 14, 2008 Quote Just in case any of those space aliens turn up on your doorstep. I'll take the risk... perhaps you can show me Criminology's peer review of Hemenway's rebuttal (Kleck's work was), or tell me what year Hemenway received the Hindelang reward for his work on criminological surveys (Kleck's was in 1993). For that matter, professor, why don't you show us where Kleck is working with HCI / VPC (Hemenway is).Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #22 July 14, 2008 Quote Quote Just in case any of those space aliens turn up on your doorstep. I'll take the risk... perhaps you can show me Criminology's peer review of Hemenway's rebuttal (Kleck's work was), or tell me what year Hemenway received the Hindelang reward for his work on criminological surveys (Kleck's was in 1993). For that matter, professor, why don't you show us where Kleck is working with HCI / VPC (Hemenway is). You're not by ANY chance making an ad-hominem argument there, are you, Chief? PS Journals don't peer review articles, people do.No beanie - the aliens might already have you under their control!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #23 July 14, 2008 QuoteYes, the opinion of Prof. Gary Kleck, whose other opinions and extrapolations on self-defense are taken as gospel truth by the gun-o-philes. So his opinions are not to be trusted? Or are his conclusions not to be trusted? Or are his data not to be trusted? Please, expound. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #24 July 14, 2008 Quote Journals don't peer review articles, people do. I see - then you have no problems with M&M's peer review, even though it wasn't published in Nature, then - glad to see you finally coming around. Quote No beanie - the aliens might already have you under their control! Not likely. Unlike some, I reside in the reality-based community.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #25 July 14, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote But the personal decision should be an informed one. Indeed. For example, the information available has led me to deduce that the best weapon for home defense is a sawed off shotgun. One need not be extremely accurate, it is effective at close range, and there is little risk of the shot goign through the walls, etc., and injuring people that way. Quote “there is little or no need for a gun for self-protection That's not a fact. That's an opinion. Yes, the opinion of Prof. Gary Kleck, whose other opinions and extrapolations on self-defense are taken as gospel truth by the gun-o-philes. Most != "all". MOST drivers won't NEED their airbag or seatbelt on any given day. MOST skydivers won't NEED their RSL / AAD / reserve on any given day. The converse of that "proof" is that when you need it, you NEED it right THEN. You've spent umpteen posts recently talking about how Kleck had it all wrong - a bit hypocritical to suddenly use the same information as "gospel" only when it supports your argument, don't you think? My argument? What argument would that be? Not my fault if the guy you keep quoting makes statements like “there is little or no need for a gun for self-protection". Just in case any of those space aliens turn up on your doorstep.You're presenting this as if that is truth like the sky being blue during the day....... Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
