Beemaster's International Beekeeping Forum

MEMBER & GUEST INTERACTION SECTION => THE COFFEE HOUSE ((( SOCIAL - ROOM ))) => Topic started by: cidersabuzzin on May 23, 2017, 06:43:23 pm

Title: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: cidersabuzzin on May 23, 2017, 06:43:23 pm
22 Killed, scores injured by a suicide bomber at a pop concert at the Manchester Arena. Most of the audience were young people, the youngest fatality a girl of 8!
No amount of "non gun control or non-knife control" would have prevented this!
Lets hope MB and KP do not make anymore fatuous comments this time please
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: kathyp on May 23, 2017, 06:48:25 pm
I don't know why you would think that I would.  This is the thing we all fight against.  Having people armed in this case would have made not difference so it's not an issue.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: iddee on May 23, 2017, 09:11:15 pm
Not a gun control situation, but rather an open border situation. Now tell us a closed border could not have prevented it.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: beecanbee on May 24, 2017, 06:49:26 am
Not a gun control situation, but rather an open border situation. Now tell us a closed border could not have prevented it.

Since it seems he was born there, a closed border wouldn`t have prevented it.  Not sure what would have though.  Same for the Richard Collins U. Of Maryland slaying.  How does a civil society prevent these?  Maybe all that we can expect is that they are infrequent.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: iddee on May 24, 2017, 07:29:30 am
Not a gun control situation, but rather an open border situation. Now tell us a closed border could not have prevented it.

Since it seems he was born there, a closed border wouldn`t have prevented it.  Not sure what would have though.  Same for the Richard Collins U. Of Maryland slaying.  How does a civil society prevent these?  Maybe all that we can expect is that they are infrequent.

Did his parents teach him to do it, or was he converted by immigrants who should have not been allowed into the country?
Yes, closed borders could have prevented it.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on May 24, 2017, 09:56:23 am
Yes, closed borders could have prevented it.

No closed borders would not have prevented it.  Getting our ass out of the Middle East where it doesn't belong would have prevented it.  Do you think closed boarders would have prevented us from getting into the second world war?  Iddee, if the boarders were closed you wouldn't be here because you ain't native american.  However if the Indians had closed the boarder I am sure the Europeans would have found a way in.  So will Isis.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Captain776 on May 24, 2017, 10:29:17 am
Think about thi.
What penalty do they face anywhere in the world, no matter where they are or what they do?
ANSWER IS: None.
I lived and worked in the Middle East for 6.5 yrs and was immersed in their culture and had 14,000 employees on one project in Kuwait, so I know them well.
My knowledge of them is first hand, not from CNN.
They are consommate COWARDS, only tough in a group and even then, still COWARDS.
Once you start killing them, and they are facing consequences, they will RUN for the border.
UK has lost already, the Arab Muslims are taking over, London has a Arab Muslim mayor. WHY? Because there is already enough Arab Muslims there to influence the election, Parliament is next, and the entire country will be a Muslim stronghold by 2032, myself, I don't think it will take that long.
Look at Dearborn Michigan, that is spreading like an out of control cancer.
We need to STOP the black and white conflict and the 2 party system and unite and eradicate Arab Muslms, they are the true threat.
It is beyond my comprehension that in the 21st century, there is still black n white conflict in America, that is embarrassing.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on May 24, 2017, 01:45:36 pm
It is beyond my comprehension that in the 21st century, there is still black n white conflict in America, that is embarrassing.

Wow!  I can feel your lips a flapping.  We sill have a black and white conflict because there are still people like you.  It is exactly why we have a Christian and Muslim problem in the 21st century.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: iddee on May 24, 2017, 02:13:26 pm
Ace, you are so full of it your eyes are brown. WAKE UP.

The information below had red flags all over it. Americans should take heed that this could be our future. It?s like a war zone over in the UK with armed guards everywhere. The British people let this happen with open borders and unlimited refugee resettlement. Please read below and note this family NEVER became a part of their new country.

NO ASSIMILATION AT ALL!

The Manchester bomber Salman Abedi, 22, had made trips to Libya and had just returned from there ?days ago?. A school friend said, ?He went to Libya three weeks ago and came back recently, like days ago.?

Authorities looked into his connections with al-Qaeda and Islamic State in his parents? homeland of Libya. It?s being reported that he went through a secret terror training in Syria prior to his return home.

THE SON OF REFUGEES RADICALIZED RECENTLY:
Abedi born in Manchester and grew up in tight-knit Libyan community that was known for its strong opposition to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi?s regime.

?The family is super religious. They have about 10 kids and you never see any of the girls,? one neighbour, who did not want to be named, said. ?I only ever saw the mother once or twice in 10 years. She always stayed in the house and whenever I saw her she was wearing a veil.?

Salman had become radicalized recently ? it is not entirely clear when ? and had worshipped at a local mosque that has, in the past, been accused of fundraising for jihadi
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: cidersabuzzin on May 24, 2017, 03:55:34 pm

"The information below had red flags all over it. Americans should take heed that this could be our future. It?s like a war zone over in the UK with armed guards everywhere. The British people let this happen with open borders and unlimited refugee resettlement. Please read below and note this family NEVER became a part of their new country."

iddee
Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers, We get blamed for not letting in many refugees from Syria! Preferring to help with camps closer to their home country.
iddee, when was the last time you were in the UK? To make such a sweeping statement as the UK being a war zone is being a little unkind. Having been in the US a few weeks ago the thought of the potential crazies carrying concealed firearms, a war zone could break out at anytime!(and that's just the ones with permits) factor in the criminal element and its a wonder society has not broken down already. Having had the experience I know where I would sooner live.
Tin hat on and down  in the bunker!
 Regards
cider :wink:
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: iddee on May 24, 2017, 05:31:00 pm
If there aren't armed guards everywhere, I think your leaders are even dumber than I thought before.

A concealed carry permit is issued to very few, if any, crazies. I don't remember any mass shooting or armed robbery carried out by a conceled carry permittee. Could you give me an example?

Also, explain why there are fewer shootings where gun control is lax and more where gun control is strictest.

In the USA, that is.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on May 24, 2017, 06:07:42 pm
Gun control is strictest in areas that have high crime rates.  If the laws were relaxed shooting wouldn't go down it would go up.  There is also the case where a mother had the permits but the crazy son got the guns and shot people up.  There are unfortunately many cases where people rightfully have a gun and the wrong person gets a hold of it.  Then there are accidents that happen routinely.  Hopefully that will never happen in your family iddee.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: iddee on May 24, 2017, 07:22:27 pm
""Gun control is strictest in areas that have high crime rates.""

No, Ace, you are backward as usual.  High crime rates are where the gun control is strictest. Crime does go down when gun control in relaxed in an area. There are always going to be accidents, guns or otherwise. It has happened in my family, Ace. Oldest brother laid over a deer rifle and pulled the trigger. Next older brother's son used a .22 caliber rifle

Neighbor tried to borrow a rifle, but when we said no, he walked out in a pond and drowned. Guns were only the tool used. The deaths would have come anyway.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: jvalentour on May 24, 2017, 10:12:05 pm
Wow!  I can feel your lips a flapping.  We sill have a black and white conflict because there are still people like you.  It is exactly why we have a Christian and Muslim problem in the 21st century.  Acebird

Ace you are totally out of line.  Take your anger somewhere else.  And learn to spell.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: jvalentour on May 24, 2017, 10:24:41 pm
iddee
Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers, We get blamed for not letting in many refugees from Syria! Preferring to help with camps closer to their home country.
iddee, when was the last time you were in the UK? To make such a sweeping statement as the UK being a war zone is being a little unkind. Having been in the US a few weeks ago the thought of the potential crazies carrying concealed firearms, a war zone could break out at anytime!(and that's just the ones with permits) factor in the criminal element and its a wonder society has not broken down already. Having had the experience I know where I would sooner live.
Tin hat on and down  in the bunker!
  Cider

Cider,
I laugh at folks like you.  While you were in the states you probably sat or walked next to half a dozen or more men and women packing.  You didn't even know it.  You probably even opened a door for one or two for them.
The UK is not a war zone but it has NoGo zones.  And you know it. 
And oh yeah, when was the last time you had a member of your military, in country, have his head cut off and his body repeatedly run over by an immigrant?    Just sayin'.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: beecanbee on May 25, 2017, 12:43:04 am
  It is beyond my comprehension that in the 21st century, there is still black n white conflict in America, that is embarrassing.

And yet you said Buckwheat?  Or did I misread that?
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Captain776 on May 25, 2017, 10:24:17 am
  It is beyond my comprehension that in the 21st century, there is still black n white conflict in America, that is embarrassing.

And yet you said Buckwheat?  Or did I misread that?

Obama deserves it, for what he did to this country and is still doing.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Dallasbeek on May 25, 2017, 01:23:30 pm
For nearly a thousand years, Islam tried on numerous occasions to conquer Europe, until the Ottoman Empire's siege of Vienna was broken in a decisive battle in 1683 and after the Turkish troops had been routed, Polish, German, Spanish and others slaughtered many of the remaining combatants.  The Islamic jihad has never deviated from its goal of conquest, but the path to vistory has changed from military might to a more devious way of destroying our resistance.  The ultimate goal of Islam is to convert, enslave or annihilate any who do not embrace Islam.  We are fools to allow them into our countries, because they will never relent.  They are as dangerous to our way of life as any we have ever faced.  And we and our leaders are allowing them to overrun all western nations.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: bwallace23350 on May 26, 2017, 09:54:12 am
For nearly a thousand years, Islam tried on numerous occasions to conquer Europe, until the Ottoman Empire's siege of Vienna was broken in a decisive battle in 1683 and after the Turkish troops had been routed, Polish, German, Spanish and others slaughtered many of the remaining combatants.  The Islamic jihad has never deviated from its goal of conquest, but the path to vistory has changed from military might to a more devious way of destroying our resistance.  The ultimate goal of Islam is to convert, enslave or annihilate any who do not embrace Islam.  We are fools to allow them into our countries, because they will never relent.  They are as dangerous to our way of life as any we have ever faced.  And we and our leaders are allowing them to overrun all western nations.

For the most part this is a very correct statement. I just want to give it a bump for the truth is speaks.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on May 26, 2017, 02:17:23 pm
They are as dangerous to our way of life as any we have ever faced. 

You mean that way of life to go to distant lands and conquer the people there and take away their gold and valuable resources (now mostly oil), enslave the people they found and take them away from their homeland or push them off into a useless piece of land?  These were predominantly self righteous Christians that did this.   What Muslim country comes to our land (ours now because we stole it from the Indians) with war machines and troupes, kills our citizens, blows up our buildings and claims they are helping us on a daily basis?
We have an educational system that is government funded up until the high school level, even have required core subjects such as history and geography and some how come out the dumbest people that ever walked the earth.  How can that be?
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: cidersabuzzin on May 26, 2017, 05:50:20 pm
If there aren't armed guards everywhere, I think your leaders are even dumber than I thought before.

A concealed carry permit is issued to very few, if any, crazies. I don't remember any mass shooting or armed robbery carried out by a concealed carry permittee. Could you give me an example?

Also, explain why there are fewer shootings where gun control is lax and more where gun control is strictest.

In the USA, that is.
Iddee
 Could you explain why you feel it necessary to carry a concealed firearm? Are you scared of the people around you, of your local Nurse, Doctor would you take a weapon into an hospital/church/school or is it more about ego? The feeling of power that other people don't know your carring a concealed gun and you could easily kill them at anytime! Not that I think you would contemplate such a thing, but presumably such a thing has happened. Just sayin'as someone posted on this thread.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: iddee on May 26, 2017, 07:46:42 pm
Cider, why do you buy insurance? Is it so you can create a tragedy and get paid for it? I don't think so. I think you buy it hoping it will be a waste of money that you never collect on, but it does make you sleep better knowing you have it. I carry a weapon for the same reason I buy insurance. Hoping I never need it, but want to be sure I have it if it is ever needed. A nurse here was just recently charged with another murder.   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4544982/Angel-Death-nurse-indicted-baby-s-death.html

There are crazies everywhere, so yes, I carry anywhere I can legally do so. You never know where a tragedy may strike.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: jvalentour on May 27, 2017, 02:21:56 am
Cider,
In our country Iddee has the right to carry a firearm for any reason he chooses. 
Unlike the UK, we have a Bill of Rights.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: sawdstmakr on May 27, 2017, 07:33:49 am
Cheer,
I spent more than 1/2 of my adult life protecting your rights. One of them is the right to bear arms. It is the one right that protects the rest of your rights. It is insurance that we hope that we never need.
I was sitting in a restaurant with my shooting buddies one night after practice. One guy was a federal marshal. For some unknown reason, maybe because it was hot and his clothes could not conceal it very well. that night he carried his pistol exposed. Three men walked in the front door with long coats on and walked all the way around the restaurant. He watched them and when they saw his gun, they walked out the emergency exit door.
If he was not carrying open, it probably would have been a very bad scene.
Al lot of good men died for your rights. Don't ever let anyone ever take them away.
Japan decided not to attack mainland US because we had more guns in the hands of avenge citizens than they had in their military. Their citizens were not allowed to own them. That alone is a good reason to have guns.
Jim
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on May 27, 2017, 08:46:40 am
Cider,
In our country Iddee has the right to carry a firearm for any reason he chooses. 

No he doesn't.  The rights are not inclusive for all parts of our country.  Having the right to carry and having the right to use it are two different things.  What makes people nervous is that some of of the people that are given permits don't know the difference.  In some instances this results in a citizen with rights becoming a criminal with no rights.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: iddee on May 27, 2017, 09:23:49 am
Ace, yes I do. In some areas it may be concealed, in others it may be exposed. In some areas, it may need to be a pistol, in other areas it may be a long arm. In all areas, outside forbidden pieces of property, it is legal to carry in all 50 states.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on May 27, 2017, 09:28:47 am
Are you or were you a member of law enforcement?
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: iddee on May 27, 2017, 09:53:58 am
NO, unless you consider military as being law enforcement, which I don't.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on May 27, 2017, 10:04:49 am
Quote
If you got non-resident permits in all the four, you would only be able to travel in 41 out of 50 states with a legal concealed carry pistol.
CA and DE do not allow out of state permits.
http://concealednation.org/2015/12/federal-concealed-carry-permits-do-they-exist-for-citizens/

Military is law enforcement.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: iddee on May 27, 2017, 01:18:06 pm
Carrying a weapon  includes concealed, open., pistols and long arms. The discussion is on carrying a weapon, not just concealed pistols.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on May 27, 2017, 06:06:49 pm
Quote
The City of New York has its own set of laws and requires permits to own any long gun or pistol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York
You can't walk down Manhattan with a long gun.  I doubt if you can do it in many large cities.  When I was young rifles and shot guns were hanging in the back of the truck.  Not so much anymore.  Different world today.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: kathyp on May 28, 2017, 11:16:22 pm
Quote
No he doesn't.  The rights are not inclusive for all parts of our country.  Having the right to carry and having the right to use it are two different things.  What makes people nervous is that some of of the people that are given permits don't know the difference.  In some instances this results in a citizen with rights becoming a criminal with no rights.

It is true that different states have different laws, but the SCOTUS has found that ALL states must allow gun ownership in a reasonable way.  So yes, we have the right to be armed wherever we are even if those rights are different from state to state.

Quote
Military is law enforcement.

It is not US law enforcement except to the extent it is sworn to defend the constitution.  To that end, it might well be something far different that law enforcement in the US if it ever came down to it.  The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things...in other countries.

Quote
Could you explain why you feel it necessary to carry a concealed firearm? Are you scared of the people around you, of your local Nurse, Doctor would you take a weapon into an hospital/church/school or is it more about ego? The feeling of power that other people don't know your carring a concealed gun and you could easily kill them at anytime! Not that I think you would contemplate such a thing, but presumably such a thing has happened. Just sayin'as someone posted on this thread.

I, too, have a concealed carry permit.  We all have different reasons for getting them.  Fear is not among mine.

Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: jvalentour on May 29, 2017, 12:41:37 am
Brian,
Splitting hairs to make a point makes a weak point.
Move on to a topic you know something about.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on May 29, 2017, 09:58:32 am
The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things...in other countries.

No actually the purpose of the military is to protect us from foreign invasion.  It did not happen in pearl Harbor, it did not happen on 911.  It has been used as a police force on many occasions on college campuses, during hurricanes, airports, toppling regimes and imperialistic maneuvers in foreign countries and just recently used as a political maneuver to reassure voters.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on May 29, 2017, 10:06:13 am
Cider,
In our country Iddee has the right to carry a firearm for any reason he chooses. 
Unlike the UK, we have a Bill of Rights.

May I remind you that you are the one that insulted a British gentleman on this forum and I am merely pointing out how wrong you are.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Psparr on May 29, 2017, 12:06:43 pm
We do have the right to carry period!
It's the states and the Supreme Court that pervert the constitution and try to limit that RIGHT.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on May 29, 2017, 12:30:04 pm
This guy had a right too and now 8 people are dead.
https://apnews.com/09b4067f71b9405d84b6d43911191098
He is right about one thing "I ain't fit to live" unfortunately that won't happen.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Dallasbeek on May 29, 2017, 12:39:18 pm
They are as dangerous to our way of life as any we have ever faced. 

.   What Muslim country comes to our land (ours now because we stole it from the Indians) with war machines and troupes, kills our citizens, blows up our buildings and claims they are helping us on a daily basis?
We have an educational system that is government funded up until the high school level, even have required core subjects such as history and geography and some how come out the dumbest people that ever walked the earth.  How can that be?

It is not a Muslim COUNTRY that is invading us, of course.  If you understood Islam, it is not a nation state, but a political religion whose adherents are directed to conquer the world in the name of Allah. If the immigrants moved to other countries with the intention of becoming British or French or Americans, etc., there'd be no problem; in a couple of generations they would be assimilated just as the Irish, Poles, Italians and others have done.  But they have no such intention (earlier immigrants from the Mideast excepted, for the most part).

As for the education system, I agree to some extent.  Better schools might even have taught you to spell, though your errors may simply be typing errors.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Dallasbeek on May 29, 2017, 12:50:22 pm
This guy had a right too and now 8 people are dead.
https://apnews.com/09b4067f71b9405d84b6d43911191098
He is right about one thing "I ain't fit to live" unfortunately that won't happen.

Yes, he had a right to possess and even carry, but not to murder.  Most of us who carry do so to defend and protect.  And yes, I was once in law enforcement, have been vetted, fingerprinted more times than I could count, have had security clearances and have carried a firearm most of my life.  None of which gives me the right to shoot innocent people, but I would gladly have shot this guy and hope I would have had better bullet placement than whoever injured this mutt.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: iddee on May 29, 2017, 01:22:26 pm
So what's your point? These guys didn't have a right to carry and there are dozens dead and over a hundred wounded. It was guns that stopped it from going farther, though.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26402367

Guns have nothing to do with murder. It is no more than a tool.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on May 29, 2017, 03:21:19 pm
Guns have nothing to do with murder. It is no more than a tool.

But it is a tool that gets used for murder more often then not because there is not yet enough restrictions on who gets the right for having them.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: iddee on May 29, 2017, 04:18:49 pm
100% wrong.

If it is the most used, it is because of the ease and efficiently, NOT accessibility.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: cidersabuzzin on May 29, 2017, 04:30:06 pm
Quote
No he doesn't.  The rights are not inclusive for all parts of our country.  Having the right to carry and having the right to use it are two different things.  What makes people nervous is that some of of the people that are given permits don't know the difference.  In some instances this results in a citizen with rights becoming a criminal with no rights.

It is true that different states have different laws, but the SCOTUS has found that ALL states must allow gun ownership in a reasonable way.  So yes, we have the right to be armed wherever we are even if those rights are different from state to state.

Quote
Military is law enforcement.

It is not US law enforcement except to the extent it is sworn to defend the constitution.  To that end, it might well be something far different that law enforcement in the US if it ever came down to it.  The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things...in other countries.

Quote
Could you explain why you feel it necessary to carry a concealed firearm? Are you scared of the people around you, of your local Nurse, Doctor would you take a weapon into an hospital/church/school or is it more about ego? The feeling of power that other people don't know your carring a concealed gun and you could easily kill them at anytime! Not that I think you would contemplate such a thing, but presumably such a thing has happened. Just sayin'as someone posted on this thread.

I, too, have a concealed carry permit.  We all have different reasons for getting them.  Fear is not among mine.
[/b]

Then what is it?I suppose there may be the odd Puma/Bear that needs putting down that is aroaming downtown Boring! :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: iddee on May 29, 2017, 04:44:06 pm
Cider, why do you keep a spare tire in your car? Are you deathly afraid of having a flat, or is it just because you want to be prepared if you do?

Do you have a fire extinguisher in your home?  WHY?  Is it just paranoia?
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on May 29, 2017, 06:40:04 pm
33 % of gun deaths in America are suicides.  Suicide is a mental illness.  The mentally ill should not get guns even though it is just another tool.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: kathyp on May 29, 2017, 06:49:43 pm
Quote
But it is a tool that gets used for murder more often then not because there is not yet enough restrictions on who gets the right for having them.

Other than suicide, most gun murders are committed by gang bangers and another criminal who already are prohibited from gun ownership by law.  About 80% of the homicides by gun are gang related according to the CDC.  Do you think more gun laws will impact the illegal use of firearms?  If laws were going to change things for criminals wouldn't the laws on the books have done that already?

Quote
Then what is it?

It is as Iddee says, insurance.  I will probably never need to shoot anyone, but if I do, I can.  I have no problem/fear hiking, camping, or wandering my property alone because I know I have this additional means of protecting myself. 
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: kathyp on May 29, 2017, 06:54:56 pm
Quote
33 % of gun deaths in America are suicides.  Suicide is a mental illness.  The mentally ill should not get guns even though it is just another tool.

This is not a problem brought about by those of us who are supporting the 2nd amendment.  This is a problem that exists in the medical/mental health community because of reporting restrictions.  There is no good mechanism for either the mental health professional or the law enforcement to act.
If there were to be changes in laws they would need to be very narrowly constructed or everyone who went to the doc and complained of feeling down would end up on a no sell list.  Because we can't trust the anti-gun nuts we are cautious about allowing more laws that offer the chance for abuse. 

Obamas SSI order was one such gun grab.  Even the ACLU was against it. 
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on May 29, 2017, 07:11:58 pm
If laws were going to change things for criminals wouldn't the laws on the books have done that already?
Kathy the laws on the books are greatly influenced by the NRA trying to gain membership.  It is politically driven by money.  They sing a song about protecting people's "rights" and that improves their bottom line.  I think if was more difficult and more expensive to own certain types of guns it would reduce their numbers.  Reducing their numbers will reduce crime.

Quote
I have no problem/fear hiking, camping, or wandering my property alone because I know I have this additional means of protecting myself.

The reality is trained professionals (law enforcement) have a hard time protecting themselves and others even though most carry a gun.  It is not easy to win a gun battle when the opposition thinks they have nothing to lose and you do.  Most likely Kathy if someone wanted you dead while you were walking your property you would be even if you had your gun.  The only thing that might change that scenario is if it was more difficult for this nut case to get his hands on a gun.  Then yours might give you some protection.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Dallasbeek on May 29, 2017, 07:40:12 pm

Quote

The reality is trained professionals (law enforcement) have a hard time protecting themselves and others even though most carry a gun.  It is not easy to win a gun battle when the opposition thinks they have nothing to lose and you do.  Most likely Kathy if someone wanted you dead while you were walking your property you would be even if you had your gun.  The only thing that might change that scenario is if it was more difficult for this nut case to get his hands on a gun.  Then yours might give you some protection.

If they feel they have nothing to lose, you may be right.  But like I once told a man who threatened me, they'd better make the first shot count because after that it's my turn.  He backed off, by the way, so I guess he felt like he had something to lose. 
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: kathyp on May 29, 2017, 08:15:53 pm
Quote
Kathy the laws on the books are greatly influenced by the NRA trying to gain membership.  It is politically driven by money.

The NRA lobbies on our behalf.  That's what we pay them to do, so yes money is important.  If not for them people like you would have all the influence.  Since we realize there is strength in numbers and that fighting people like you takes money, we are members. 

Quote
The reality is trained professionals (law enforcement) have a hard time protecting themselves and others even though most carry a gun.  It is not easy to win a gun battle when the opposition thinks they have nothing to lose and you do.  Most likely Kathy if someone wanted you dead while you were walking your property you would be even if you had your gun.  The only thing that might change that scenario is if it was more difficult for this nut case to get his hands on a gun.  Then yours might give you some protection.

yes, if someone wants you dead they will probably kill you.  Since most crimes are committed either for goods or for something like sexual assault, I am not too worried that a sniper is out there trying to kill me. The gun may or may not make a difference, but having one on me evens up the odds and as Dallas points out, having one is often enough to dissuade attack.  If not, at least I will have given myself the best chance.   
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on May 30, 2017, 08:54:08 am
The NRA lobbies on our behalf.  That's what we pay them to do, so yes money is important.

The problem is "our behalf" includes all the nut cases.  They make no determination on who should have guns.  They sing a song that if guns are restricted than only criminals will have them.  This is completely false.  What they are actually doing is guaranteeing that criminals will have them.  What they should be doing is guaranteeing that responsible people have them and criminals don't.  The whole attitude about gun laws would change drastically if the NRA was responsible.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: sawdstmakr on May 30, 2017, 12:07:37 pm
Brian,
You are right. If the NRA had their way, there would be not gun laws, only accountability for your actions when you use them in the wrong way.
It does not matter what laws you put on the books, only the good people are going to obey them.
Jim
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Psparr on May 30, 2017, 12:22:35 pm
Here's something that explains the gun thing pretty well. https://youtu.be/pAfcaO_wtII
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: kathyp on May 30, 2017, 12:49:47 pm
Quote
You are right. If the NRA had their way, there would be not gun laws, only accountability for your actions when you use them in the wrong way.
It does not matter what laws you put on the books, only the good people are going to obey them.

This is the only constitutional right that must be pre-approved by the State.  Suppose we decided that some speech was potentially harmful and required a license to speak?  Or that some religions were potentially harmful and required a license to practice our beliefs. 
We could probably make that argument using the same anti-gun logic with Islam right now.  Should we do a background check and license all Mulsim speakers and Imams because we know that some people in the religion are violent?

What if we required all press to be pre-approved by the government because some press might do harm to the nation by not being accurate, or even by lying?  What if we banned the reading of Pravda because it's Russian and they are not our friends? 

The mayor of Portland wants to ban a pro-Trump rally because some racist nutter killed a couple of people;  not in the name of Trump, but in the name of his Norse heritage.  The mayor, in his infinite wisdom, decided that a pro-Trump rally would be harmful to the psyche of the city after the tragedy.  Yeah....he's a leftist.  They are the ones who always want to restrict your rights in the name of your safety and comfort. 
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: herbhome on May 30, 2017, 05:46:54 pm
.[/quote]

Other than suicide, most gun murders are committed by gang bangers and another criminal who already are prohibited from gun ownership by law.  About 80% of the homicides by gun are gang related according to the CDC.  Do you think more gun laws will impact the illegal use of firearms?  If laws were going to change things for criminals wouldn't the laws on the books have done that already?

Quote

This is absolutely true. These street corner drug dealers and gang bangers get their guns from the same place they get the drugs-the black market.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on May 30, 2017, 06:25:57 pm
Brian,
You are right. If the NRA had their way, there would be not gun laws, only accountability for your actions when you use them in the wrong way.
It does not matter what laws you put on the books, only the good people are going to obey them.
Jim

Jim I'm reading more song writing.  If 33% of gun deaths are suicide then are you including them in the good people or not?  The NRA thinks they should have guns (as long as they pay their dues).  There is no accountability for the NRA they blame it on the people not the gun.  Well OK I can sing that song, now lets not give the guns to those people.  Sometimes those people kill other people before they take their own life.  Can you honestly tell me that you are not in favor of lowering the gun deaths in this country by 33% simply by not letting people with mental illness have guns?
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on May 30, 2017, 06:39:03 pm
I just went back to this page.  It is not 33% it is 66%.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: kathyp on May 30, 2017, 11:22:53 pm
Quote
There is no accountability for the NRA they blame it on the people not the gun.

It is the people, not the gun.  I have a bunch and not one has ever jumped up and shot someone.  If you have an issue with mental illness and guns then you need to talk to the medical establishment and those who support HIPAA.  I don't think you'll find any sane gun owners who think it's a good idea for nutty people to have guns.

That said, nuts kill with hammers, knives, bats, and their hands.  The real solution is to reopen mental institutions and lock up the nuts.  If you are not willing to do that, they will keep killing...Just as the one here killed two and seriously injured one on public transportation...with a knife.  Unfortunately no one else on the train was armed.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: jvalentour on May 31, 2017, 12:47:20 am
Brian Cardinal,
Who do you want to decide the insane?
Today, I would say you are insane...  (of course you would say you don't want a gun).  But what about your other rights?
Do you trust politicians to decide sanity?
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: beecanbee on May 31, 2017, 05:40:52 am
... The mayor of Portland wants to ban a pro-Trump rally because some racist nutter killed a couple of people;  not in the name of Trump, but in the name of his Norse heritage. 

Actually - it seems from his court appearance, that he did it the name of free speech.  Certainly agree that he is a nutter, and not representative of Trumpers.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on May 31, 2017, 09:53:15 am
Brian Cardinal,
Who do you want to decide the insane?

Psychiatrist.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: sawdstmakr on May 31, 2017, 01:25:23 pm
Brian Cardinal,
Who do you want to decide the insane?

Psychiatrist.

Who ever said that every nut job out there is or ever has seen a Psychiatrist. Most of them refuse to see a doctor until something happens and the law forces them to see one.
If I am a member of government and I do not like the way you talk about me or my party and I find out that you are seeing a Psych, all I have to do is tell him to take your rights away.
Jim
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on May 31, 2017, 02:14:19 pm
If I am a member of government and I do not like the way you talk about me or my party and I find out that you are seeing a Psych, all I have to do is tell him to take your rights away.
Jim

Common Jim if the government had the power to do that they could declare you a nut job and just put you in an institution and give you shock therapy.  The person that is afraid to have an exam is the one you need to worry about with a gun.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: kathyp on May 31, 2017, 02:16:09 pm
Quote
Psychiatrist.

You just got through bashing doctors and what they don't know, on another thread   :wink:
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: kathyp on May 31, 2017, 02:19:10 pm
Quote
Actually - it seems from his court appearance, that he did it the name of free speech.

There's a bunch of stuff out on him now.  He hates Jews, Christians, Muslims, appears to have like Bernie on his FB page, has attended rallies for all kinds of people, and claims his Norse ancestors were slaughtered by all of the above.  Nutter  :grin:
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on May 31, 2017, 02:20:04 pm
Quote
Psychiatrist.

You just got through bashing doctors and what they don't know, on another thread   :wink:

They are trained to detect illnesses not develop drugs.  Do you think someone else is better suited to detect mental illness?  What is your choice?
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: kathyp on May 31, 2017, 02:29:14 pm
Quote
Do you think someone else is better suited to detect mental illness?

who makes the call on what "mental illness" removes a constitutional right?
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on May 31, 2017, 06:05:09 pm
Psychiatrist.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Dallasbeek on May 31, 2017, 06:39:11 pm
Psychiatrist.

Whose psychiatrist?  They're like beekeepers -- get two of them and you get two opinions.  Three and you have three opinions ( but in shrinks' case it depends on who pays the bill). 
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: cidersabuzzin on May 31, 2017, 07:25:40 pm
Has this OP got lost along the way? Why in the American psyche doe's everything return to guns? :sad:
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: kathyp on May 31, 2017, 08:47:21 pm
Quote
22 Killed, scores injured by a suicide bomber at a pop concert at the Manchester Arena. Most of the audience were young people, the youngest fatality a girl of 8!
No amount of "non gun control or
non-knife control" would have prevented this!
Lets hope MB and KP do not make anymore fatuous comments this time please

Quote
Has this OP got lost along the way? Why in the American psyche doe's everything return to guns?
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: cidersabuzzin on June 01, 2017, 04:21:57 pm
Kathy
What I am referring to is in another thread nearly the first thing mentioned was guns, or in your case knives.
Now in this thread it has degenerated into people slagging each other off about, you guessed it, Guns! :sad:
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on June 01, 2017, 05:57:10 pm
A concealed carry permit is issued to very few, if any, crazies. I don't remember any mass shooting or armed robbery carried out by a conceled carry permittee. Could you give me an example?

Google has quite a few.  This is one link.
http://concealedcarrykillers.org/mass-shootings-committed-by-concealed-carry-killers/

You do realize that our military is responsible for creating the highest number of mental issues cases that result in violence from the returning veterans?  The VA barely scratches the surface for treatment.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: little john on June 02, 2017, 04:47:38 pm
Kathy
What I am referring to is in another thread nearly the first thing mentioned was guns, or in your case knives.
Now in this thread it has degenerated into people slagging each other off about, you guessed it, Guns! :sad:

It's an inherent characteristic of the forum.  If you look at the list of sub-fora, you'll see two in particular: "The Constitution" & " The 2nd Amendment" - neither of which is in any way related to beekeeping.  I've no idea why these subjects were chosen, but I would have thought that the consequence of their inclusion by fostering extreme polarised views was fairly predictable.

An equivalent on a British Forum might be: "The Aristocracy" & "The European Union".  Another case of 'light the blue touch-paper, and retire immediately ... '
LJ
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: kathyp on June 02, 2017, 06:29:22 pm
Quote
It's an inherent characteristic of the forum.  If you look at the list of sub-fora, you'll see two in particular: "The Constitution" & " The 2nd Amendment" - neither of which is in any way related to beekeeping.  I've no idea why these subjects were chosen, but I would have thought that the consequence of their inclusion by fostering extreme polarised views was fairly predictable.

Oh good grief.  That WHY we have the coffee house.  To keep these kinds of things out of the beekeeping forums.  You are not required to read or participate in the coffee house.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: cidersabuzzin on June 02, 2017, 06:46:30 pm
Kathy
What I am referring to is in another thread nearly the first thing mentioned was guns, or in your case knives.
Now in this thread it has degenerated into people slagging each other off about, you guessed it, Guns! :sad:

It's an inherent characteristic of the forum.  If you look at the list of sub-fora, you'll see two in particular: "The Constitution" & " The 2nd Amendment" - neither of which is in any way related to beekeeping.  I've no idea why these subjects were chosen, but I would have thought that the consequence of their inclusion by fostering extreme polarised views was fairly predictable.

An equivalent on a British Forum might be: "The Aristocracy" & "The European Union".  Another case of 'light the blue touch-paper, and retire immediately ... '
LJ
I agree, but its good fun whilst the paper is alight  (excepting what happened in Manchester obviously)
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: cidersabuzzin on June 02, 2017, 07:05:41 pm
Quote
It's an inherent characteristic of the forum.  If you look at the list of sub-fora, you'll see two in particular: "The Constitution" & " The 2nd Amendment" - neither of which is in any way related to beekeeping.  I've no idea why these subjects were chosen, but I would have thought that the consequence of their inclusion by fostering extreme polarised views was fairly predictable.

Oh good grief.  That WHY we have the coffee house.  To keep these kinds of things out of the beekeeping forums.  You are not required to read or participate in the coffee house.
Ah there we have it, 'The Coffee House' is for the select few! :cheesy: (Thousands of posts required to have an opinion?)
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Psparr on June 02, 2017, 08:05:48 pm
Quote
It's an inherent characteristic of the forum.  If you look at the list of sub-fora, you'll see two in particular: "The Constitution" & " The 2nd Amendment" - neither of which is in any way related to beekeeping.  I've no idea why these subjects were chosen, but I would have thought that the consequence of their inclusion by fostering extreme polarised views was fairly predictable.

Oh good grief.  That WHY we have the coffee house.  To keep these kinds of things out of the beekeeping forums.  You are not required to read or participate in the coffee house.
Ah there we have it, 'The Coffee House' is for the select few! :cheesy: (Thousands of posts required to have an opinion?)

No. He has every right to his opinion, as does Kathy. That's what makes this freedom of speech thing so much fun.
Now as long as we can stay within the forum boundaries. . .
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: kathyp on June 02, 2017, 10:36:32 pm
Quote
Ah there we have it, 'The Coffee House' is for the select few! :cheesy: (Thousands of posts required to have an opinion?)

If you had read what I wrote, the coffee house is for anyone to discuss non-beekeeping stuff so that we keep that stuff out of the beekeeping forums.  You are here.  Has anyone ever said you shouldn't be?  Ace is here and has contributed a lot!

Little John seems to think there is a problem with having discussions about things that might be polarizing.  I submit that it is the lack of discussion that causes most problems.  If he can't take it, then not coming here is a good option for him, but no one would keep him out, or even suggest it. 

Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: little john on June 03, 2017, 05:31:40 am
Quote
It's an inherent characteristic of the forum.  If you look at the list of sub-fora, you'll see two in particular: "The Constitution" & " The 2nd Amendment" - neither of which is in any way related to beekeeping.  I've no idea why these subjects were chosen, but I would have thought that the consequence of their inclusion by fostering extreme polarised views was fairly predictable.

Oh good grief.  That WHY we have the coffee house.  To keep these kinds of things out of the beekeeping forums.  You are not required to read or participate in the coffee house.

Kathy, in your comment about the role of The Coffee House you appear a little confused, as at no time have I mentioned this particular sub-forum. My earlier comments were directed at the sub-forums 'The Constitution' and 'The 2nd Amendment' only, these being political subject areas, and subjects highly specific to the United States.

Discussing political subjects - as with religion - is pretty-much guaranteed to engender division and stimulate conflict, for people tend to adopt highly polarised opinions on such matters - far more so that in other subject areas.
The fact that they are included within a list of forums for discussion, is - in a sense - an invitation to become embroiled within subject areas for which there will NEVER be consensus. 

You appear to hold the view that the discussion of particular subjects can be contained within their designated forums, but as can be witnessed within this current thread, this is clearly not the case - for political discussions in particular become so inflammatory that they have a tendency to stray over into other discussions.
This thread was intended to focus on the tragedy in Manchester, but instead is being used as a springboard to discuss contentious American issues such as gun control, Islamic conflict and American foreign policy.

Your abrasive comment "You are not required to read or participate in the coffee house" not only indicates that you have completely failed to understand my previous post, but also hints at a denial of the same right of free speech that you yourself enjoy, and that so many people in free countries around the world so jealously guard and uphold.
LJ
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: kathyp on June 03, 2017, 11:17:53 am
Quote
Kathy, in your comment about the role of The Coffee House you appear a little confused, as at no time have I mentioned this particular sub-forum. My earlier comments were directed at the sub-forums 'The Constitution' and 'The 2nd Amendment' only, these being political subject areas, and subjects highly specific to the United States.

Discussing political subjects - as with religion - is pretty-much guaranteed to engender division and stimulate conflict, for people tend to adopt highly polarised opinions on such matters - far more so that in other subject areas.
The fact that they are included within a list of forums for discussion, is - in a sense - an invitation to become embroiled within subject areas for which there will NEVER be consensus. 

You are correct, they are separate.  If you have been on other sites, beekeeping or other hobbies, you may notice that politics bleeds into the main discussion on a regular basis.  Beemaster sought to avoid this by creating separate sections for these discussions.

I am not sure why you think there should be a consensus on much of anything.  There certainly isn't in beekeeping.  Again, the reason these are separate discussion is so that people who are bothered by them can avoid them. You are not required to read or participate, but you are welcome to if you wish.  I am not sure how that impacts your free speech.  Maybe that idea means something different to you?

 



Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: iddee on June 04, 2017, 12:21:29 pm
Hey, Cider, this is why the good guys need guns. 8 minutes is time to kill and wound many.

http://100percentfedup.com/londonbridge-unarmed-london-police-ran-away-from-knife-wielding-terrorists/
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on June 04, 2017, 12:57:01 pm
All patrol police need is a taser or a dart gun to bring perpetrators down.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: cidersabuzzin on June 04, 2017, 03:54:13 pm
Hey, Cider, this is why the good guys need guns. 8 minutes is time to kill and wound many.

http://100percentfedup.com/londonbridge-unarmed-london-police-ran-away-from-knife-wielding-terrorists/
[/quote)
Hey iddee
If they had guns/assault weapons how many would have been killed? The average concealed gun carrier would be crapping themselves in fear of becoming a target of the terrorists or the police when they arrive. How would the police know who is whom? Get real! In a fluid situation there can be lots of unexpected consequences, better off to stay in your armchair iddee :sad:
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: iddee on June 04, 2017, 04:36:23 pm
Ace, how fast can you reload a taser when there are 3 or more assailants?

Cider, Yeah, you sit in your armchair while 7 die and 50 are wounded. I would rather have 6 conceal carriers and hope the outcome would be better.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: cidersabuzzin on June 04, 2017, 06:10:22 pm
Iddee
I'll treat that with the contempt it deserves.
Yours in dispair
Cider :sad:
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: iddee on June 04, 2017, 06:27:19 pm
I'm not surprised, and I would bet you would be screaming if a half dozen concealed carriers had been there and reduced it to 3 dead and 8 wounder, if one of the wounded were hit by a cc bullet.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Anybrew2 on June 04, 2017, 08:16:35 pm
I'm with you iddee
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Dallasbeek on June 04, 2017, 08:18:45 pm
I with you iddee

Me too.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: kathyp on June 04, 2017, 09:45:43 pm
me too.

One CC carrier could have taken out the guy trying to get into the bar and one less person might have been stabbed in that establishment. 
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Dallasbeek on June 05, 2017, 01:11:49 am
Some people just need killing and a clean head shot settles the issue (and sometimes sends the problem child where he belongs). Sorry if that's cold-blooded, but people who wear suicide vests don't usually plan on tomorrow, and the sooner the day ends for them the beter it is for some other folks.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: beecanbee on June 05, 2017, 05:49:54 am
I hadn`t heard of Community Police, so wiki to the rescue?

Quote
It is also accepted that PCSOs do not have to intervene in high risk situations and it is reasonable if they decide to withdraw from one. This is due to the non-confrontational purpose of their role.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_community_support_officer#Equipment

ref...

http://100percentfedup.com/londonbridge-unarmed-london-police-ran-away-from-knife-wielding-terrorists/
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on June 05, 2017, 09:48:13 am
Ace, how fast can you reload a taser when there are 3 or more assailants?
How many police and how many rounds did it take to kill 3 assailants without guns?

How many average citizens with a cc could hit the broad side of a barn in that situation?  Trained police have died proving a target range is completely different than an individual with nothing to lose coming at you in full attack.
Not for nothing in this situation where there was no guns and the attackers were out numbered a can of bear spray would have disabled the attackers and the patrons could have brained them with a bar stool.

It is my understanding that some patrons got hit by friendly fire.  The gun enthusiast call that collateral damage.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Hops Brewster on June 05, 2017, 01:24:34 pm
Pepper spray and tasers are not superior to knives.  I have personally witnessed a police training session in which a determined man continued fighting after being sprayed with mace twice.  He was able to get in several potentially lethal strikes before being subdued with paintball rounds delivered to lethal areas of the body (remember, a training session). 

Most police officers are not gun aficionados.  Many train only to meet qualifying minimums.  Said minimum qualification is not all that stringent.  Many recreational shooters are far superior in shooting skill than the average police officer.   There are popular competitive shooting drills that mimic real life defensive situations.  There are many, many highly qualified civilian shooters that take continuing defensive shooting classes, in which they are put in realistic scenarios in which they must choose whether to fight, witness, or flee, and shooting in a wide variety of situations that require instant critical judgment.   These games and training courses are, in some cases, more stringent than the training programs of many U.S. police training courses.  Of course, there are exceptions on both sides, but your assumption that a police officer is always more qualified than a citizen is absolutely absurd.  And lest you forget, many citizens are military veterans with a high degree of training behind them.  Which brings me to another absurd assumption, that veterans are all in need of psychiatric treatment.  A purely bigoted viewpoint.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: sawdstmakr on June 05, 2017, 01:28:59 pm
Pepper spray and tasers are not superior to knives.  I have personally witnessed a police training session in which a determined man continued fighting after being sprayed with mace twice.  He was able to get in several potentially lethal strikes before being subdued with paintball rounds delivered to lethal areas of the body (remember, a training session). 

Most police officers are not gun aficionados.  Many train only to meet qualifying minimums.  Said minimum qualification is not all that stringent.  Many recreational shooters are far superior in shooting skill than the average police officer.   There are popular competitive shooting drills that mimic real life defensive situations.  There are many, many highly qualified civilian shooters that take continuing defensive shooting classes, in which they are put in realistic scenarios in which they must choose whether to fight, witness, or flee, and shooting in a wide variety of situations that require instant critical judgment.   These games and training courses are, in some cases, more stringent than the training programs of many U.S. police training courses.  Of course, there are exceptions on both sides, but your assumption that a police officer is always more qualified than a citizen is absolutely absurd.  And lest you forget, many citizens are military veterans with a high degree of training behind them.  Which brings me to another absurd assumption, that veterans are all in need of psychiatric treatment.  A purely bigoted viewpoint.
Thanks Hops.
Well said.
Jim
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on June 05, 2017, 01:45:11 pm
Pepper spray and tasers are not superior to knives.  I have personally witnessed a police training session in which a determined man continued fighting after being sprayed with mace twice.  He was able to get in several potentially lethal strikes before being subdued with paintball rounds delivered to lethal areas of the body (remember, a training session). 
Bear spray is designed to turn away grizzlies.  No human being is going to continue fighting after being hit with it.
https://www.pepper-spray-store.com/pages/mace-vs-pepperspray

Quote
Many recreational shooters are far superior in shooting skill than the average police officer.

And that would amount to less then 1% who own guns.  That is what you want for a police force?  Not me.
Quote
but your assumption that a police officer is always more qualified than a citizen is absolutely absurd.
  I didn't say always.
Quote
Which brings me to another absurd assumption, that veterans are all in need of psychiatric treatment.
I never said that.  Today most veterans have never seen combat.  I said there is a problem (just like with VietNam) with fighting in foreign countries when we are NOT at war with them and have no purpose for being there.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: sawdstmakr on June 05, 2017, 01:52:32 pm
Realllllly Brian.
I thought you lived in New York where they have all of those druggies pulped up with who knows what. Did you forget about the guy that was shot in the face with pepper spray and still continued to attack the police officer last year?
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: iddee on June 05, 2017, 02:43:55 pm
Thanks, Hops. Good post.

Ace, there are documented instances of soldiers fighting after taking a bullet through the heart, and you don't think a drug crazed criminal can withstand a shot of spray that may have hit him with his eyes closed or missed his eyes totally? Maybe you have been smoking or shooting something even stronger than what he has.

1%?  HA, HA, HA. I was out shooting the local cops when I was 12. I would say closer to 99% of regular sport shooters.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: cidersabuzzin on June 05, 2017, 03:27:30 pm
Ace, how fast can you reload a taser when there are 3 or more assailants?
How many police and how many rounds did it take to kill 3 assailants without guns?

How many average citizens with a cc could hit the broad side of a barn in that situation?  Trained police have died proving a target range is completely different than an individual with nothing to lose coming at you in full attack.
Not for nothing in this situation where there was no guns and the attackers were out numbered a can of bear spray would have disabled the attackers and the patrons could have brained them with a bar stool.

It is my understanding that some patrons got hit by friendly fire.  The gun enthusiast call that collateral damage.

Ace,
 I fully agree except for the bear spray (not much call for it in UK)  Unfortunately one person was accidentally shot.

If you have screaming terrorists wearing suicide vests (now known to be fake) running at you shooting with an assault weapon (in the US they are easily available) Most c/con  permit holders, some undoubtedly elderly and infirm and that has previously been stated couldn't hit the proverbial barn door. Can you imagine the 'collateral damage' before they were gunned down by the police as they assume they are part of the ongoing incident.
PS The police in London have already shot and killed, the proverbial 'head shot' so loved by the c/con afficcionardos, The Brazillian electrician was on his way to work on the tube, they thought he had a bomb in his backpack. So anyone seen waving a gun around in that situation would last milliseconds.
cider
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: bwallace23350 on June 05, 2017, 04:17:51 pm
Ace, how fast can you reload a taser when there are 3 or more assailants?
How many police and how many rounds did it take to kill 3 assailants without guns?

How many average citizens with a cc could hit the broad side of a barn in that situation?  Trained police have died proving a target range is completely different than an individual with nothing to lose coming at you in full attack.
Not for nothing in this situation where there was no guns and the attackers were out numbered a can of bear spray would have disabled the attackers and the patrons could have brained them with a bar stool.

It is my understanding that some patrons got hit by friendly fire.  The gun enthusiast call that collateral damage.

Ace,
 I fully agree except for the bear spray (not much call for it in UK)  Unfortunately one person was accidentally shot.

If you have screaming terrorists wearing suicide vests (now known to be fake) running at you shooting with an assault weapon (in the US they are easily available) Most c/con  permit holders, some undoubtedly elderly and infirm and that has previously been stated couldn't hit the proverbial barn door. Can you imagine the 'collateral damage' before they were gunned down by the police as they assume they are part of the ongoing incident.
PS The police in London have already shot and killed, the proverbial 'head shot' so loved by the c/con afficcionardos, The Brazillian electrician was on his way to work on the tube, they thought he had a bomb in his backpack. So anyone seen waving a gun around in that situation would last milliseconds.
cider

Oddly enough with all the mass shootings in the US not one instance of what you have said has happened on a large scale.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: cidersabuzzin on June 05, 2017, 05:19:08 pm
Ace, how fast can you reload a taser when there are 3 or more assailants?
How many police and how many rounds did it take to kill 3 assailants without guns?

How many average citizens with a cc could hit the broad side of a barn in that situation?  Trained police have died proving a target range is completely different than an individual with nothing to lose coming at you in full attack.
Not for nothing in this situation where there was no guns and the attackers were out numbered a can of bear spray would have disabled the attackers and the patrons could have brained them with a bar stool.

It is my understanding that some patrons got hit by friendly fire.  The gun enthusiast call that collateral damage.

Ace,
 I fully agree except for the bear spray (not much call for it in UK)  Unfortunately one person was accidentally shot.

If you have screaming terrorists wearing suicide vests (now known to be fake) running at you shooting with an assault weapon (in the US they are easily available) Most c/con  permit holders, some undoubtedly elderly and infirm and that has previously been stated couldn't hit the proverbial barn door. Can you imagine the 'collateral damage' before they were gunned down by the police as they assume they are part of the ongoing incident.
PS The police in London have already shot and killed, the proverbial 'head shot' so loved by the c/con afficcionardos, The Brazillian electrician was on his way to work on the tube, they thought he had a bomb in his backpack. So anyone seen waving a gun around in that situation would last milliseconds.
cider

Oddly enough with all the mass shootings in the US not one instance of what you have said has happened on a large scale.

Could you be a little more specific? ie what part of what I said and what you mean by "large scale"
cider
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: bwallace23350 on June 05, 2017, 05:26:46 pm
If you have screaming terrorists wearing suicide vests (now known to be fake) running at you shooting with an assault weapon (in the US they are easily available) Most c/con  permit holders, some undoubtedly elderly and infirm and that has previously been stated couldn't hit the proverbial barn door. Can you imagine the 'collateral damage' before they were gunned down by the police as they assume they are part of the ongoing incident........................ This part. There have been lots of active shooter situations where the police stormed in and there have not been lots of collateral damage.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: cidersabuzzin on June 05, 2017, 05:45:50 pm
If you have screaming terrorists wearing suicide vests (now known to be fake) running at you shooting with an assault weapon (in the US they are easily available) Most c/con  permit holders, some undoubtedly elderly and infirm and that has previously been stated couldn't hit the proverbial barn door. Can you imagine the 'collateral damage' before they were gunned down by the police as they assume they are part of the ongoing incident........................ This part. There have been lots of active shooter situations where the police stormed in and there have not been lots of collateral damage.
)[/b]

The collateral damage would probably come from the 'helpful shooters' who mistake people for barn doors! Would you want to be seen shooting by police who have seconds to decide whom to target? Especially after a suicide bomber had just killed a lot of men, women and children. I'm afraid I would not fancy your chances.
cider
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: iddee on June 05, 2017, 06:23:40 pm
If there are several CC's there, the incident will be over and calm before the police ever arrive, so there won't be any police shooting helpers.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Psparr on June 05, 2017, 08:33:21 pm
So in cider and aces world we should only defend ourselves or others with sporks and bear spray?

I think I'll take my chances with the crazy old vets with guns.

What would be an absolutely wonderful case study, and put to rest the idea that liberals have it figured out, would be to split the country in two. Have conservatives live and govern in one half and liberals live and govern in the other. And see what happens.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Hops Brewster on June 05, 2017, 09:17:26 pm
Pepper spray and tasers are not superior to knives.  I have personally witnessed a police training session in which a determined man continued fighting after being sprayed with mace twice.  He was able to get in several potentially lethal strikes before being subdued with paintball rounds delivered to lethal areas of the body (remember, a training session). 
Bear spray is designed to turn away grizzlies.  No human being is going to continue fighting after being hit with it.
https://www.pepper-spray-store.com/pages/mace-vs-pepperspray

Quote
Many recreational shooters are far superior in shooting skill than the average police officer.

And that would amount to less then 1% who own guns.  That is what you want for a police force?  Not me.
Quote
but your assumption that a police officer is always more qualified than a citizen is absolutely absurd.
  I didn't say always.
Quote
Which brings me to another absurd assumption, that veterans are all in need of psychiatric treatment.
I never said that.  Today most veterans have never seen combat.  I said there is a problem (just like with VietNam) with fighting in foreign countries when we are NOT at war with them and have no purpose for being there.
I havepersonally witnessed effective fighting by a man after being sprayed twice with mace, which is 10% capsasin pepper spray.  Are you calling me a liar?
Bear spray is also pepper spray, only 2% capsasin.  As is Halt II dog spray, 2% capsasin.  Mace is 10% capsasin.  Pepper spray can be effective when deployed correctly, and under good conditions.  It is NOT a cure-all against crime. Police carry mace, and/or a taser, but also a firearm.  Why?  Because they know that less-than-lethal weapons can fail at the worst possible moment.   I carry bear spray when in the woods, but I also carry a magnum revolver.   I carry Halt II dog spray when walking my dog in town, but I also carry a firearm.   I have had to spray a couple dogs, both times before I began carrying.  THe first time, it was effective against a black lab.  He ran back home after a short burst to the face.  The second time it was less than effective against a pit bull mix, even after the full can was sprayed in its face.  My dog got chewed up and still bears the scars on his throat.  It was a neighbor with a pistol that saved my dog's life.

"And that would amount to less then 1% who own guns."  What is your source? 
what is your point?  Regardless, even if your "statistic" is anywhere near accurate, 1% of millions is still a substantial number.

Just because a veteran has never seen combat does not mean that he/she has not been trained in firearms.  Many have received advanced training, but have never seen combat.   One of my instructors also trains federal law agencies and local police forces.  She was initially trained by the USMC.  She has never seen combat.  Most police officers have never fired their weapons on the job either. 
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on June 05, 2017, 09:29:55 pm
Ace,
 I fully agree except for the bear spray (not much call for it in UK)  Unfortunately one person was accidentally shot.
That doesn't mean it doesn't exist and the foot police couldn't carry a canister of it or even the bar tender having one under the counter.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on June 05, 2017, 09:38:14 pm
I havepersonally witnessed effective fighting by a man after being sprayed twice with mace, which is 10% capsasin pepper spray.  Are you calling me a liar?
I am not calling you a liar you are just not comparing apples to apples.  Mace is not bear spray.  Bear spray is meant to deter a grizzly.  Pit bulls are pups compared to a grizzly.  Yes, you use mace on labs.  Mace is a joke.  You use it to keep St Bernard's from pooping on your lawn.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on June 05, 2017, 09:42:27 pm
Most police officers have never fired their weapons on the job either.

Those are the ones that live to retirement. :wink:
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: cidersabuzzin on June 06, 2017, 05:33:38 am
If there are several CC's there, the incident will be over and calm before the police ever arrive, so there won't be any police shooting helpers.
Iddee
Still waiting for info of CCs stopping a terroist incident, especially 72yr old myopic ones.
Cider
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: cidersabuzzin on June 06, 2017, 09:07:53 am
So in cider and aces world we should only defend ourselves or others with sporks and bear spray?

I think I'll take my chances with the crazy old vets with guns.

What would be an absolutely wonderful case study, and put to rest the idea that liberals have it figured out, would be to split the country in two. Have conservatives live and govern in one half and liberals live and govern in the other. And see what happens.
Isn't that what the GT is trying to do?
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Hops Brewster on June 06, 2017, 11:02:56 am
I havepersonally witnessed effective fighting by a man after being sprayed twice with mace, which is 10% capsasin pepper spray.  Are you calling me a liar?
I am not calling you a liar you are just not comparing apples to apples.  Mace is not bear spray.  Bear spray is meant to deter a grizzly.  Pit bulls are pups compared to a grizzly.  Yes, you use mace on labs.  Mace is a joke.  You use it to keep St Bernard's from pooping on your lawn.
Apples to apples;
Bear spray is only 2% capsasin.  MACE is available in up to 10% capsasin.  Joke that!  Bear spray is deployed in a fog spray that annoys a curious or bluffing bear enough to give you (hopefully) time to evacuate.  It probably will not stop a seriously charging bear.  Mace is deployed in a stream intended to get in the assailant's eyes and nose.  As already discussed, it is not always effective against a determined (or high on PCP or meth) man.

I spend time in bear country, both black bear and grizzly, every year.  I carry bear spray.  I know how to use it, I know what's in it.  I have also practiced with mace.  I know what's in it and how to use it.  I also carry a gun.  I also practice know how to use it, too. 

We already know that you used a shotgun for hunting, and that you gave it up.  You might  be able to defend yourself,  if you had one available.  But I would wager that you have never carried any type of pepper spray product at any level of capsasin content, and that your lecturing is only so much ignorant blustering.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on June 06, 2017, 01:12:47 pm
Apples to apples;
Bear spray is only 2% capsasin.  MACE is available in up to 10% capsasin.  Joke that!  Bear spray is deployed in a fog spray that annoys a curious or bluffing bear enough to give you (hopefully) time to evacuate.  It probably will not stop a seriously charging bear.  Mace is deployed in a stream intended to get in the assailant's eyes and nose.  As already discussed, it is not always effective against a determined (or high on PCP or meth) man.

Ok you win, I stand corrected.  Pepper spray, mace is more powerful than bear spray and is better used in self defense situations.  In the case of a police officer trying to subdue an attacker there might be some damage a determined individual could do.  I can't believe any person will be an effective attacker if they got hit with pepper spray and you are trying to leave and not engage that person.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: bwallace23350 on June 06, 2017, 03:34:48 pm
If you have screaming terrorists wearing suicide vests (now known to be fake) running at you shooting with an assault weapon (in the US they are easily available) Most c/con  permit holders, some undoubtedly elderly and infirm and that has previously been stated couldn't hit the proverbial barn door. Can you imagine the 'collateral damage' before they were gunned down by the police as they assume they are part of the ongoing incident........................ This part. There have been lots of active shooter situations where the police stormed in and there have not been lots of collateral damage.
)[/b]

The collateral damage would probably come from the 'helpful shooters' who mistake people for barn doors! Would you want to be seen shooting by police who have seconds to decide whom to target? Especially after a suicide bomber had just killed a lot of men, women and children. I'm afraid I would not fancy your chances.
cider

Yeah that does not happen for some reason. There is not a lot of collateral damage from people who can't shoot. Typically it is only the highly trained or desperate who fire back. Your scenario just does not happen and I say this as a person who things guns should be regulated a lot more than they are.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: kathyp on June 06, 2017, 03:41:28 pm
Quote
Just because a veteran has never seen combat does not mean that he/she has not been trained in firearms.  Many have received advanced training, but have never seen combat.   One of my instructors also trains federal law agencies and local police forces.  She was initially trained by the USMC.  She has never seen combat.  Most police officers have never fired their weapons on the job either. 

I never saw combat but you can bet the USMC didn't let me carry without making sure I spent a lot of time on the range with various weapons and showed proficiency in all of them.

Quote
Iddee
Still waiting for info of CCs stopping a terroist incident, especially 72yr old myopic ones.
Cider

We have been fortunate not to have so many incidents to allow for a test.  most of the attacks we have had, have been done in gun free zones.  Ft Hood, San Bernardino, etc.  Boston was not stopped by anyone including the armed police that were there.  In attacks other than terrorism, most take place in gun free zones.  Orlando nightclub was also a gun free zone.

http://crimeresearch.org/2016/09/uber-driver-in-chicago-stops-mass-public-shooting/
Some other links in here.

http://rare.us/rare-politics/issues/guns-rare-politics/the-hero-who-stopped-the-st-cloud-terrorist-reminds-us-that-armed-citizens-are-the-best-defense-against-domestic-attacks/

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2016/12/29/20-times-bad-guys-guns-stopped-armed-citizens-2016/
In this one you have some of those wobbly old people and a couple of kids defending themselves.

http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/

These are only a few.





Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: iddee on June 06, 2017, 04:17:30 pm
Thank You, Kathy. I knew they were there, but didn't consider it worth my time searching them down.  Some of the recent posts I have read makes me wonder what mentality we are debating with here.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: cidersabuzzin on June 06, 2017, 04:23:51 pm
Thank You, Kathy. I knew they were there, but didn't consider it worth my time searching them down.  Some of the recent posts I have read makes me wonder what mentality we are debating with here.

I wonder that too :cry:
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Psparr on June 06, 2017, 08:36:13 pm
Ace, why is it someone should look for a less than lethal means of defense? If someone is hell bent on hurting you or someone else, they have it coming and on the plus side, it will save the taxpayers a lot of money.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Anybrew2 on June 07, 2017, 02:30:33 am
Mmmmm I have used capsasin spray in anger against Baddies and work colleagues alike.(it generally helped as it caused panic but sometimes just blind rage too) We were trained to work through the pain and near blindness of the spray to complete the task at hand, which was usually an arrest and handcuffing of a colleague. At the same time after being sprayed we would complete other tasks like Baton strikes and or find safety.
Its great stuff most of the time......not all the time.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on June 07, 2017, 08:31:14 am
Ace, why is it someone should look for a less than lethal means of defense? If someone is hell bent on hurting you or someone else, they have it coming and on the plus side, it will save the taxpayers a lot of money.

99% of the time I agree with you but there is always that oops.  We live in a country that has rights.  One of those rights is a jury of your peers.  We do not have the right to be judge and jury on an individual basis even when the evidence is pretty convincing.  You do have the right to protect yourself but not the right to kill the person because you are angry.  How could that happen?  Well if two people came at you with knives and you shot one of them and he went down.  The other one runs away from you.  You do not have the right to shoot him in the back running away and you do not have the right to go over to the downed attacker and finish him off.  This is how a hero can turn into a criminal.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Hops Brewster on June 07, 2017, 10:54:44 am
Ace, why is it someone should look for a less than lethal means of defense? If someone is hell bent on hurting you or someone else, they have it coming and on the plus side, it will save the taxpayers a lot of money.

  Well if two people came at you with knives and you shot one of them and he went down.  The other one runs away from you.  You do not have the right to shoot him in the back running away and you do not have the right to go over to the downed attacker and finish him off.  This is how a hero can turn into a criminal.
You're right on that one, Ace.  And the cases in which that happens are so rare that they make the news all over the country, even internationally.  The vast majority of self defense shootings are nothing like that at all, but are legally and morally justifiable, and never make the news because it does not fit the anti-gun networks' agenda.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on June 07, 2017, 01:40:00 pm
Hops, I gave the example because the way the question was put to me it appears to me that Psparr has the intent to kill without even being in the situation.  I suspect he has a hand gun and I hope he never gets confronted.  I fore see it becoming an ugly mess.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on June 07, 2017, 01:51:54 pm
The vast majority of self defense shootings are nothing like that at all, but are legally and morally justifiable, and never make the news because it does not fit the anti-gun networks' agenda.

I know you don't agree with me but I feel that the restrictions help make the defenses shootings legal and justifiable.  I will go back to the NRA fighting for EVERYONE should have a hand gun based on the second amendment is the worst enemy for your cause.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Michael Bush on June 07, 2017, 05:15:14 pm
I would guess that 99% of the time when a gun is used to hold off a criminal, no shots are fired and no report is made.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Hops Brewster on June 08, 2017, 10:48:51 am
Percentage may be slightly off, but not by much.  There is no way to track the numerous instances wherein a good guy used a gun to stop a crime but without a shooting, and police were never called.

Scaring the bad guy away is an admirable result, and the one most common, with the caveat that if you do draw your weapon, you'd better be prepared to use it if the scare factor does not work.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Michael Bush on June 08, 2017, 01:23:33 pm
I certainly was not implying you should not be prepared to use it,  but you should also be prepared to not use it or use it as the situation unfolds.  But my point is that most of the times that a gun protects someone it is without firing it and often without a police report.  No one wants to get arrested for threatening someone (even a criminal) with a gun.  A gung ho DA may put you in jail...
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: kathyp on June 08, 2017, 03:35:30 pm
Quote
I will go back to the NRA fighting for EVERYONE should have a hand gun based on the second amendment is the worst enemy for your cause.

Please find me an NRA quote to back what you are saying.

Quote
I would guess that 99% of the time when a gun is used to hold off a criminal, no shots are fired and no report is made.

I am sure you are correct.  There's also an unknowable % of things that never happen because the bad guys drive by and see an NRA sticker on the car and move on. 
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Hops Brewster on June 08, 2017, 06:07:57 pm
I certainly was not implying you should not be prepared to use it,  but you should also be prepared to not use it or use it as the situation unfolds.  But my point is that most of the times that a gun protects someone it is without firing it and often without a police report.  No one wants to get arrested for threatening someone (even a criminal) with a gun.  A gung ho DA may put you in jail...
I know that's you point.  I was simply trying to help clarify that thought for those who believe that every gun owner in USA is on a mission to gun down poor helpless criminals.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: kathyp on June 08, 2017, 08:02:26 pm
As much as my state if VERY blue, it is very gun friendly.  The other day the dog and I went for a hike and I open carried.  On the way out of the canyon, I ran into another lady starting down.  As we stood and chatted about our dogs she never batted an eye that I was obviously armed.  This is as it should be. 
I just wonder how long it will last in my state.....
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on June 09, 2017, 09:36:22 am
There's also an unknowable % of things that never happen because the bad guys drive by and see an NRA sticker on the car and move on.

OH please Kathy that is like putting a sticker on your car that you donated to the police benevolent association thinking your not going to get a ticket.

So what does it mean that everyone living is such a sparse area of the country as a canyon is comfortable with you wearing a gun?  Do you honestly believe that would be the case in areas of high population?
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on June 09, 2017, 09:54:17 am
Quote
I will go back to the NRA fighting for EVERYONE should have a hand gun based on the second amendment is the worst enemy for your cause.

Please find me an NRA quote to back what you are saying.
Here is their site.
https://membership.nrahq.org/5245/default.aspx?src=camo&ek=T7BJ11GS&gclid=CjwKEAjwjunJBRDzl6iCpoKS4G0SJACJAx-VslKluG3-pLdllAFIn1xjR-lHg9w0rcx7f6aPc271ChoCIPnw_wcB

Absolutely no vetting.  All it takes is a credit card (that could be stolen).  It is the National "Rifle" Association but most of it's lobbying is for war machines and hand guns.  Why, because nobody has any objections to a shot gun, deer rifle or a varmint rifle.  Most states have regulations on where you can use them.  Most of the deaths associated with these types of guns are accidents where hunters shoot hunters or other family members.  Occasionally they get lucky and hit an animal their hunting for and then there is a big celebration.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: beecanbee on June 09, 2017, 10:45:53 am
I would guess that 99% of the time when a gun is used to hold off a criminal, no shots are fired and no report is made.

I agree.  I did that myself once.  As soon as the twerps saw my hunting rifle being passed to me thru the car window, they took off running.  Didn`t even need to point it.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Hops Brewster on June 09, 2017, 10:50:26 am
Quote
I will go back to the NRA fighting for EVERYONE should have a hand gun based on the second amendment is the worst enemy for your cause.

Please find me an NRA quote to back what you are saying.
Here is their site.
https://membership.nrahq.org/5245/default.aspx?src=camo&ek=T7BJ11GS&gclid=CjwKEAjwjunJBRDzl6iCpoKS4G0SJACJAx-VslKluG3-pLdllAFIn1xjR-lHg9w0rcx7f6aPc271ChoCIPnw_wcB

Absolutely no vetting.  All it takes is a credit card (that could be stolen).  It is the National "Rifle" Association but most of it's lobbying is for war machines and hand guns.  Why, because nobody has any objections to a shot gun, deer rifle or a varmint rifle.  Most states have regulations on where you can use them.  Most of the deaths associated with these types of guns are accidents where hunters shoot hunters or other family members.  Occasionally they get lucky and hit an animal their hunting for and then there is a big celebration.

First of all, why would ANY organization, such as the NRA, the National Hot Rod Association, the Society for Creative Anachronism or even the Demorat party have the need to "vet" membership?  It's freedom of association, Brian.  Like-minded people gathering together.  It's possible some stolen credit card numbers have been used to pay for Demorat party membership, too.

Please provide your source for "Most of the deaths associated with these types of guns are accidents where hunters shoot hunters or other family members". 

"Occasionally they get lucky and hit an animal their [sic] hunting for and then there is a big celebration."  is absurd.  Simply absurd.  You might have been that poor of a shot during your hunting days, and celebrated when your blind luck resulted in a hit, but most hunters have enough respect for their game to make an accurate shot, and take pride in their skill.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: bwallace23350 on June 09, 2017, 11:54:51 am
"Occasionally they get lucky and hit an animal their [sic] hunting for and then there is a big celebration."  is absurd.  Simply absurd.  You might have been that poor of a shot during your hunting days, and celebrated when your blind luck resulted in a hit, but most hunters have enough respect for their game to make an accurate shot, and take pride in their skill.


I don't hunt but I know a lot of hunters. They take pride in their shooting. First off on a practical level they want the kill as clean as possible so they don't have to chase and track a wounded but dying animal. Second most hunters actually respect wildlife and don't like to see them suffer, and finally for another practical reason most hunters eat what they kill. Cleaning a gut shot or other bad shot kill makes it harder to clean and makes it smell
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: kathyp on June 09, 2017, 11:58:40 am
Quote
So what does it mean that everyone living is such a sparse area of the country as a canyon is comfortable with you wearing a gun?  Do you honestly believe that would be the case in areas of high population?

They should be.  That's the point. 


Quote
You might have been that poor of a shot during your hunting days, and celebrated when your blind luck resulted in a hit, but most hunters have enough respect for their game to make an accurate shot, and take pride in their skill.

 :grin:



Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on June 09, 2017, 02:04:45 pm
most hunters have enough respect for their game to make an accurate shot, and take pride in their skill.

I would say that about bow hunters for sure.
Year after year we get the great white hunters in the Adirondacks  coming up from the city (east coast).  Some get lost in the woods and have to be rescued.  Some blast away at noise which most often are the ones shooting their friends and family.  Or if you are in a hunting party you hear rounds zinging over your head because of some darn fool shooting in the trees.  Hunting season is the most dangerous time to enter the woods up here.  I wouldn't mind going bow hunting.  I kind of chuckle at the idea of a high powered rifle with a scope against a defenseless animal being called a sport.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on June 09, 2017, 02:22:11 pm
Kathy, when I was a kid I could hit a frog 12 ft away with a target arrow.  We ate a lot of fresh frog legs when I was a kid.  Hitting one that was under water took quite a bit of practice.  You have to compensate for the refraction angle. :wink:
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Michael Bush on June 13, 2017, 09:49:22 am
> It is the National "Rifle" Association but most of it's lobbying is for war machines and hand guns.

"War machines"?  I assume you mean the most popular rifle in the US?  The AR15?  Since most riflemen in the US are buying them it would make sense that an association of riflemen (which is what the NRA is) would want to defend their right to own the most popular rifle...  I'm still trying to understand the appeal of the AR15, but I think I'm beginning to get it.  It's a very modular system where you can buy interchangeable barrels and parts.  You can have several different calibers that are useful for different purposes and just pop them on and off.  That concept is appealing.  However, I think they are ugly and they are of little use to me personally.  I recently went to a gun show and almost everything there was AR15s and parts for them.  I realized then that I really don't find any guns interesting that were designed since the 19th century.   I much prefer single shots, bolt actions, lever actions and revolvers.  I have never found semi-autos appealing at any level.

>Why, because nobody has any objections to a shot gun, deer rifle or a varmint rifle.

Luckily, though I've never understood why.  A handgun is a defensive weapon.  It's design criteria is defend yourself by stopping a threat.  It was not designed to kill and usually doesn't succeed at killing the majority of the time.  If you get shot by a pistol you have a 70% chance of survival.  If you get shot with a deer rifle you have a 1% chance of survival.  Because deer rifles are designed to kill a basically human sized animal quickly and humanely.  The deer rifles are all based off of WWII and WWI designed battle rifles that were originally designed to be offensive weapons to kill humans.  Assault rifles (M16 etc.) were designed to wound the enemy as opposed to WWI and WWII rifles that were designed to kill the enemy.  The AR15 is a semi auto version of an assault rifle.  So it's a basically a wimpy version of a wimpy gun.  As Jeff Cooper would say, "a poodle shooter".   So the anti gun people are all about trying to outlaw guns that were designed to wound while ignoring guns that were designed to kill.  But then thinking rationally was never high on the priorities of that group.

>Most states have regulations on where you can use them.  Most of the deaths associated with these types of guns are accidents where hunters shoot hunters or other family members.  Occasionally they get lucky and hit an animal their hunting for and then there is a big celebration.

Having hung out with hunters all my life and never known any hunter who shot anyone I think that would be a claim very hard to substantiate.  Only a couple of times in my life have I even read an account in the news where a hunter killed a hunter and it was always from somewhere back East and made national news... it was never a local story.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Hops Brewster on June 13, 2017, 10:47:20 am
As many times we have proven them otherwise, the rabid anti-gun plebes continue to use the tired, old platitude that "everyone approves of hunting guns, but no one approves of war guns".  The 2nd amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting, and everything to do with survival of the personal liberty established in this country.  That is a fact.

Last week, the Democratic Socialist Club at University of Florida openly advocated the beheading of Republicans.  That in and of itself is total justification for the 2nd Amendment.  For when the future leaders of this country (and who doubts that current students are the future leaders or, rather, rulers) advocate the execution of anyone outside their mindset, a free people MUST be ready, willing and able to defend their own lives and beliefs with whatever weapons are at their disposal.  That is the core of the 2nd amendment.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on June 13, 2017, 10:51:11 am
Only a couple of times in my life have I even read an account in the news where a hunter killed a hunter and it was always from somewhere back East and made national news... it was never a local story.

That is because back East is where all the people are.  In my area it happens on an annual basis.  Where you live Mike you could strap an AR15 on a turret in a jeep and drive from one side of the state to the other and never hit anybody.  That is not the case on the East coast.

It is the bullet that determines the kill not the gun.  You are not going to drop a deer with bird shot.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on June 13, 2017, 11:01:11 am
a free people MUST be ready, willing and able to defend their own lives and beliefs with whatever weapons are at their disposal.  That is the core of the 2nd amendment.

Absolute total BS.  Where do you draw the line between defend and terrorism?  Should we all have a stash of nucs and biological weapons in our basement?  Our for fathers had not a clue what the future would bring.  They never once thought of an air plane, missile or nuclear war head as a defense.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: iddee on June 13, 2017, 11:46:35 am
Poor, poor Ace. You really need to get some help. Ceasar never dreamed of guns, either, but they came about and wars have been won against them. When a free people give up and quit fighting, they are no longer free.

First, with the best weapons they can get, then right down to rocks and spears if that is all they have. A free people will always fight to the end.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Dallasbeek on June 13, 2017, 11:50:42 am
a free people MUST be ready, willing and able to defend their own lives and beliefs with whatever weapons are at their disposal.  That is the core of the 2nd amendment.

Absolute total BS.  Where do you draw the line between defend and terrorism?  Should we all have a stash of nucs and biological weapons in our basement?  Our for fathers had not a clue what the future would bring.  They never once thought of an air plane, missile or nuclear war head as a defense.

Whether the forefathers envisioned such devices and weapons or not is irrelevant.  Had they had them available, they would have used airplanes, missiles, repeating rifles or whatever (excluding nukes) in the rebellion.  If you would not, it says more about you than it does about them.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: kathyp on June 13, 2017, 12:51:55 pm
Quote
Where do you draw the line between defend and terrorism?

I would posit that if you do not know the difference then you are one of those people who should not be armed.  I am good with that.

Quote
Had they had them available, they would have used airplanes, missiles, repeating rifles or whatever (excluding nukes) in the rebellion.

The first repeating rifles were developed in the 1600's.  The Chinese used balloons in war as early as the 3rd century.  missiles were used in the 4th century.

Since the founders were historians and pretty smart guys, and did not exempt or list any acceptable weapons, it is reasonable to think the were not inclined to exempt any weapons. 
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on June 13, 2017, 01:41:43 pm
it is reasonable to think the were not inclined to exempt any weapons.

It is reasonable for you but not for me.  The Indians had weapons.  Superior weapons have always been used for aggression and concurring other lands and people.  Hardly ever used for defense.
BTW the colonist had inferior weapons to the British empire.  We won our independence because they didn't have air planes to supply their troupes.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Psparr on June 13, 2017, 02:06:55 pm
As many times we have proven them otherwise, the rabid anti-gun plebes continue to use the tired, old platitude that "everyone approves of hunting guns, but no one approves of war guns".  The 2nd amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting, and everything to do with survival of the personal liberty established in this country.  That is a fact.

Last week, the Democratic Socialist Club at University of Florida openly advocated the beheading of Republicans.  That in and of itself is total justification for the 2nd Amendment.  For when the future leaders of this country (and who doubts that current students are the future leaders or, rather, rulers) advocate the execution of anyone outside their mindset, a free people MUST be ready, willing and able to defend their own lives and beliefs with whatever weapons are at their disposal.  That is the core of the 2nd amendment.
And the sad part is, they will argue with you over this post and believe in their heart they are right.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: kathyp on June 13, 2017, 02:54:51 pm
Quote
BTW the colonist had inferior weapons to the British empire. 

You make an excellent argument for an armed population.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Michael Bush on June 13, 2017, 03:32:30 pm
>t is the bullet that determines the kill not the gun.  You are not going to drop a deer with bird shot.

Bird shot is not a bullet.  It is shot.  For that you need some kind of scatter gun, but yes, you can kill a deer quite dead with bird shot at 20 yards.  At 20 yards it is hard to beat a 12 gauge for deadliness.  It is the gun that determines many things about the bullet.  It's diameter, it's possible velocity and energy and these things determine how deadly it is at what range.  There is a lot of difference in deadliness between a .22LR and a .220 swift though the bullet is almost the same diameter.  There is even more difference between a .223 and a .378 Weatherby or a .50 BMG.  The odds of surviving a shot from a .223 are much higher than the odds of surviving a .30-06.  FBI data shows that 322 people were murdered with rifles in 2012.  No differentiation was made between "Assault rifles" and other rifles.  Crime, including murder, is at a 20 year low.  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/21/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/  https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-26/us-crime-rate-rises-slightly-remains-near-20-year-low The Homicide rate is at a 51 year low. https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low.  So I'm having trouble understanding what the hoopla is about...
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on June 13, 2017, 04:17:33 pm
You make an excellent argument for an armed population.

This country will not be taken over by bullets.  The bullets we have will not protects us from attacks.  It hasn't so far and certainly will not in the future.  Osama Bin Laden and Russia have demonstrated how easily it is to attack us.  We will be outdone because of a stupefied population that is now in the making.  Bullets, guns and armament will not stop the attacks.  And we will lose.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Dallasbeek on June 13, 2017, 04:21:59 pm

That is because back East is where all the people are.  In my area it happens on an annual basis.  Where you live Mike you could strap an AR15 on a turret in a jeep and drive from one side of the state to the other and never hit anybody.  That is not the case on the East coast.

It is the bullet that determines the kill not the gun.  You are not going to drop a deer with bird shot.

I cannot imagine such abysmal ignorance.  Ace, have you ever been west of New York?  Do you really believe the nonsense you write?  The stuff you right about beekeeping is so right on, but when you write about guns you seem to lose any semblance of objectivity.

Respects
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on June 13, 2017, 04:39:40 pm
Ace, have you ever been west of New York?
Just came from Cody Wyoming, Yellowstone, and the Grand Tetons.  Amazing beautiful country.  Interesting demographics ... the billionaires from CA are pushing out the millionaires (mostly ranchers) with almost no middle class.  It is pretty much filthy rich serviced by the dirt poor.  All the ranchers have guns.  They thought they needed them to protect their property but they didn't anticipate the billionaires.

In my life I have been to LA, Santiago, The Grand Canyon, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, South Dakota.  Not all of the west but some of it.  Now I have added Wyoming and Montanan.

Bird shot is practically useless in Upstate NY.  The woods and brush are to thick.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Dallasbeek on June 13, 2017, 05:13:35 pm
Woods and brush are reclaiming much of the land cleared by the early settlers in the east. We go to New England frequently and I have seen the difference in the past 30 years. Woods now stand where an open field once lay on a piece of land in Connecticut where my wife once lived.  Giant maples still stand around the perimeter, but I don't know what kind of trees are in the field.  Huge stones dug from the land form a fence around the field.  The owner rebuilt the fence about 20 years ago and said he wore out two comealongs doing it.  Some of the boulders were the size of Volkswagens.   Imagine the frontiersmen who cleared the land 400 or more years ago with just a mule or two.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on June 13, 2017, 05:35:29 pm
This year with all the rain the vegetation is unbelievable thick.  We used to see the high power lights from the bill board sign shine through the tree.  Now I can't see anything at midnight.  The sign is totally dark.

This is the sign when it was first put there.
http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv333/acebird1/Friday%2013%20Devide%202012/Thedevide4Friday-13002.jpg

Now you can't see it from the house.
http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv333/acebird1/Bee%20flowers/Plants019.jpg
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Hops Brewster on June 13, 2017, 06:31:16 pm
a free people MUST be ready, willing and able to defend their own lives and beliefs with whatever weapons are at their disposal.  That is the core of the 2nd amendment.

Absolute total BS.  Where do you draw the line between defend and terrorism?  Should we all have a stash of nucs and biological weapons in our basement?  Our for fathers had not a clue what the future would bring.  They never once thought of an air plane, missile or nuclear war head as a defense.
Absolute nonsense!  The line between defense and terrorism is perfectly clear.  It always will be.  The Democratic Socialist Club's statements of using guillotine to behead Republicans is terrorism. 
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Psparr on June 13, 2017, 06:50:23 pm
You make an excellent argument for an armed population.

This country will not be taken over by bullets.  The bullets we have will not protects us from attacks.  It hasn't so far and certainly will not in the future.  Osama Bin Laden and Russia have demonstrated how easily it is to attack us.  We will be outdone because of a stupefied population that is now in the making.  Bullets, guns and armament will not stop the attacks.  And we will lose.
Ace I actually agree with you, but I'm sure we won't agree on whose ideas will bring us down.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Jim 134 on June 15, 2017, 04:50:32 am
a free people MUST be ready, willing and able to defend their own lives and beliefs with whatever weapons are at their disposal.  That is the core of the 2nd amendment.

Absolute total BS.  Where do you draw the line between defend and terrorism?  Should we all have a stash of nucs and biological weapons in our basement?  Our for fathers had not a clue what the future would bring.  They never once thought of an air plane, missile or nuclear war head as a defense.


   Just curious are you going to use a catapult to launch your own nucs ?




            BEE HAPPY Jim 134  :smile:


Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on June 15, 2017, 08:39:59 am
Just curious are you going to use a catapult to launch your own nucs ?

A catapult?  You can buy a drone almost anywhere that can deliver a dirty bomb with pin point accuracy.  That fact makes me a little nervous.  The FAA has restrictions on the use of these "toys" but has no way to enforce the restrictions until after the law is broken.  Pretty much like the use of any weapon.  The disturbing thing about a drone is you haven't got a clue where the attacker is located.  Not so much with a gun.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Hops Brewster on June 15, 2017, 10:50:07 am
Just curious are you going to use a catapult to launch your own nucs ?

A catapult?  You can buy a drone almost anywhere that can deliver a dirty bomb with pin point accuracy.  That fact makes me a little nervous.  The FAA has restrictions on the use of these "toys" but has no way to enforce the restrictions until after the law is broken.  Pretty much like the use of any weapon.  The disturbing thing about a drone is you haven't got a clue where the attacker is located.  Not so much with a gun.

I guess I'll go to the corner 7-11 and snag a military drone capable of carrying a dirty bomb weighing a hundred pounds or more.  Oh, I'll take a dozen pounds of plutonium to go with that, please.  What?  You're out of plastique?  I guess I'll have to go to the hardware store for that.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Michael Bush on June 15, 2017, 12:26:11 pm
>Not so much with a gun.

The gun could be a mile away...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_recorded_sniper_kills
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Jim 134 on June 16, 2017, 07:47:59 am
       Nucs it's not even in the dictionary. This kind of Nuke is in a dictionary. If you would like some used up nuke rod from a fuel plant ? There many truckloads of it ..About half-a-mile where I keep my honeybees.  :wink:


         BEE HAPPY Jim 134   :smile:
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on June 16, 2017, 08:30:21 am
There is radio active material just about everywhere.  Every dentist has an x ray machine.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Hops Brewster on June 16, 2017, 10:37:46 am
Keep a'going Ace, you're illustrating my point brilliantly.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: beecanbee on June 17, 2017, 08:58:48 am
...   Imagine the frontiersmen who cleared the land 400 or more years ago with just a mule or two. 

Don`t forget the slaves...
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: iddee on June 17, 2017, 09:09:33 am
Just how many slaves do you think they had here in 1617 and before?
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Michael Bush on June 21, 2017, 10:00:17 am
>Don`t forget the slaves...

In the south only 25% of people had any slaves at all.  In the north it was lower.  Most of the pioneers had none.  Very few had some.  By the time of the homestead act the 13th Amendment had passed.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on June 21, 2017, 10:17:53 am
>Don`t forget the slaves...

In the south only 25% of people had any slaves at all.  In the north it was lower.  Most of the pioneers had none.  Very few had some.  By the time of the homestead act the 13th Amendment had passed.

In many cases the wives they had were considered slaves and couldn't vote.  Slavery and ownership of a human being goes back to the beginning of the bible.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Michael Bush on June 21, 2017, 03:22:42 pm
>In many cases the wives they had were considered slaves and couldn't vote.

States granting women the right to vote prior to the 19th Amendment:

Wyoming 1890
Colorado 1893
Utah 1896
Idaho 1896
Washington 1910
California 1911
Arizona 1912
Kansas 1912
Oregon 1912
Montana 1914
Nevada 1914
New York 1917
Michigan 1918
Oklahoma 1918
South Dakota 1918

Full Voting Rights before 19th Amendment and before statehood

Territory of Wyoming 1869
Territory of Utah 1870
Territory of Washington 1883
Territory of Montana 1887
Territory of Alaska 1913

Gained Voting Rights only after the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920:

Vermont
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
Delaware
Maryland
West Virginia
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Alabama
Florida
Mississippi
Louisiana
Arkansas
Texas
New Mexico
Kentucky

Looks like the pioneers had more respect for their women than back east...
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on June 21, 2017, 04:57:24 pm
There is only one state more east then New York and that is Maine which I don't see listed.

It could be that the cowboys that went west were more desperate because there weren't to many unmarried women that went west.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Dallasbeek on June 21, 2017, 11:06:02 pm
A few years ago I toured the Wadsworth-longfellow home in Portland, Maine, and was floored when the tour guide referred to the slave quarters.  As a Texan, I had grown up  believing Yankees were slave traders, but had kept their own home states squeaky clean of such evils.  I guess a lot of the stuff we learned growing up is total hogwash.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Dallasbeek on June 21, 2017, 11:16:34 pm
There is only one state more east then New York and that is Maine which I don't see listed.

It could be that the cowboys that went west were more desperate because there weren't to many unmarried women that went west.

It may be that the women who went west were in a better bargaining position than their sisters who stayed in the east, but by the time women in the west got the vote they were the daughters and grand-daughters of those who went west and they were often the equals of the men.  I was privileged to know some of those women fifty years ago in New Mexico.  Fern Sawyer, for example, was as shrewd as any man who ever ran a major ranching operation and served with me on a governor's commission.
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Jim 134 on June 22, 2017, 12:08:14 am
There is only one state more east then New York and that is Maine which I don't see listed.

It could be that the cowboys that went west were more desperate because there weren't to many unmarried women that went west.

      I see you've missed all the rest of the New England states east of New York. Oh well


            BEE HAPPY Jim 134  :smile:
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: Acebird on June 22, 2017, 08:31:35 am
I see you've missed all the rest of the New England states east of New York.
Which ones are they Jim?
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: kathyp on June 22, 2017, 11:53:16 am
Quote
Which ones are they Jim?

http://mrnussbaum.com/united-states/united_states/
Title: Re: Manchester Atrocity
Post by: herbhome on June 22, 2017, 01:15:20 pm
Quote
Which ones are they Jim?

http://mrnussbaum.com/united-states/united_states/

 :cheesy: