Contentname:hackersafe_home
|
"Just have to say that the service I have received from NCIX is great. I live in the E. Kootenays and was ali..."
|
|
Contentname:adv_top_banner
 |
TKSS
|
Dec 22, 2012 08:33 AM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like (2) |
Top | Bottom |
|
|
DJZ
|
Dec 22, 2012 08:46 AM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like (1) |
Top | Bottom |
|
Quote: (TKSS m Dec 22 2012, 08:33 AM)
The statement about the majority of weapon owners leaving their weapons unsecured is bigotry.
Cite me on that. I mentioned that some do. "The majority"? Not even close. And even if I had said that, it would still not be a proper use of the word bigoted. Learn your own language.
Quote: (TKSS m Dec 22 2012, 08:33 AM)
If I was to take the time to go over every one of your posts in this thread, I more than likely could make a substantial list. Bigotry isn't specific to racism and we both know that. One can be bigoted in their political or social views as well as many other aspects.
Bigot - big·ot [big-uh t]
noun
1. a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
2. a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race.
I harshly criticize political views which are incompatible with mine, which is not to say I'm bigoted, unless you're willing to give the definition of the word an extremely large meaning that makes it lose all of its semantic weight. If you're willing to do that then yes, I'm bigoted against Islamists who want to implement the Sharia, I'm bigoted against Christians who think abortion doctors should be murdered.
I mean let's take your first definition of bigotry, I can be argued to be "utterly intolerant" of the opinion that the Sharia is good. I may very well be utterly intolerant in the belief that Apostasy should be punishable by death. Does this make me a bigot?
So there are two dimensions to this:
1- Being intolerant of ANY belief is bigotry? I don't think so.
2- Being strongly opposed to a belief is bigotry? I don't think so. I have grounds to stand on, I don't hate anybody, I don't intend to do anything rash. I discuss issues, sometimes with a bit of zeal because of my principles.
Honestly if you're willing to slap the term bigot on me based off of a minimalist definition, be assured you also just shot yourself in the foot, along with all those peoples who hate liberals as a whole. That said, I'll admit that one of my failures it to appear to generalize too much in my posts when I try to target specific ideologies and specific issues. I put conservatives in a big lump there, and that's not a nice thing to do - but I think that's the general "feel" of it.
This message was modified by the poster at 12 22, 2012 09:05 AM
Tip Posting |
My Postings (5239) | My Reviews (42)
| View Source
|
|
|
Analbumcover
|
Dec 23, 2012 09:55 AM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like |
Top | Bottom |
|
Interview with NRA Chief on Meet the Press Dec 23, 2012
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/23/16101856-nra-chief-if-putting-armed-police-in-schools-is-crazy-then-call-me-crazy?lite
You should see the propaganda put out by the NRA and you can believe Americans are going to believe it.
Let's point out the logical fallacy of course. The NRA blames mental health and says there's nothing that can be done about crazy people. Then why are you proposing putting cops in schools? That would only deter a sane person. Then there is the person who is determined to die who is just going to shoot the cop first and move on. I know this is a shocker but yes cops can die from guns too.
Then the NRA goes on a rant about criminals, gangs, and drug dealers and tougher punishment on these people to put them in prison. Anyone who isn't brainwashed is thinking WTF does that have to do with Adam Lanza? Adam Lanza was none of those people. Adam Lanza wasn't openly social but to say whether he was crazy or not is a hard judgment call. He was sane enough to be able to plan and carry the shootings.
Then there's the "Patriot" movement that claim guns are for fighting the government/police state. Yes, guns prevent a police state so the solution is to put more police into schools. And we all know a government armed with bombers, drones with missiles, tanks, and nukes cower in fear of your gun. Yes, your gun is all that is stopping the government from using these weapons. Of course, you ask when this big "Patriot" rebellion is going to occur and they can't tell you.
The NRA curses and brings up every excuse under the sun but never once wants to limit guns' effectiveness or ownership. One of the last remaining industries in the USA is the gun manufacturers. BIG BUSINESS. Yes, bigger than porn. Lots and lots of money. It's good business too. Was your family killed by a gun? Oh well then you should buy a gun. Don't want to buy a gun? Here buy a bulletproof vest. Don't want any of those things? We can provide a security guard armed with a gun. Whatever gun related problems you have, we have a gun related solution.
This message was modified by the poster at 12 23, 2012 10:34 AM
Tip Posting |
My Postings (1286) | My Reviews (1)
| View Source
|
|
|
Notree (bobby_c)
|
Dec 23, 2012 06:09 PM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like |
Top | Bottom |
|
|
DJZ
|
Dec 23, 2012 06:31 PM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like |
Top | Bottom |
|
|
Sir Nerdalot
|
Dec 23, 2012 06:32 PM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like |
Top | Bottom |
|
|
Analbumcover
|
Dec 23, 2012 06:32 PM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like |
Top | Bottom |
|
|
Analbumcover
|
Dec 23, 2012 06:37 PM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like |
Top | Bottom |
|
|
Soundwave
|
Dec 23, 2012 06:45 PM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like (1) |
Top | Bottom |
|
|
Sir Nerdalot
|
Dec 23, 2012 06:57 PM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like |
Top | Bottom |
|
|
Analbumcover
|
Dec 23, 2012 07:00 PM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like |
Top | Bottom |
|
|
Sir Nerdalot
|
Dec 23, 2012 07:04 PM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like |
Top | Bottom |
|
|
Analbumcover
|
Dec 23, 2012 07:35 PM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like |
Top | Bottom |
|
|
derek_w
|
Dec 23, 2012 08:12 PM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like |
Top | Bottom |
|
|
Notree (bobby_c)
|
Dec 24, 2012 12:05 AM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like |
Top | Bottom |
|
|
Terwax
|
Dec 24, 2012 01:45 AM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like |
Top | Bottom |
|
After reading the comment of having a gun on your head, i thought i should share my experience.
When I was little, I was held as a hostage. I had the gun on my head for quite a long time. This was also in front of my family. After that event, my dad did purchase a gun for safety but it was never used, for any reason. There were at least 5-7 of them and they were never caught. As "sir" said, we gave them our wallet instead of pulling the gun out (if we had) and I was saved.
If you ask me, what side I'll choose, I'd say Anal's (please change your name?). The less guns out there, the less bad guys.
But hey, in US, with millions of people, what happens is natural. No matter what, there will be murder. However, removing guns will mean less chance of people dying. As someone pointed out, knife takes a while in order to kill whereas with a gun, one can simply shoot. In one minute, a class with 40 people be wiped out but if a guy comes in with a knife, even 5 people will be enough to empower him and the bad guy can at most take down 5 guys while the rest of the class escapes.
There will be time when there will be 2+ people doing such attacks. Would you then say you had your gun? If they expect a gun, they'll come prepared. Then what's the plan, wear vest, have marty dome (grenade) etc?
This message was modified by the poster at 12 24, 2012 01:58 AM
Tip Posting |
My Postings (5643) | My Reviews (49)
| View Source
|
|
|
Soundwave
|
Dec 24, 2012 03:35 AM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like |
Top | Bottom |
|
Quote: (Notree (bobby_c) @ Dec 24 2012, 12:05 AM)
Id rather defend myself or others then just let someone shoot me or anyone around me. Some ppl just don't like defending themselves I guess and they'd rather get hurt and wait for police .. No thanks.
There is a difference between defending oneself and jumping to the most lethal form of defence available to you. Maybe I have a different outlook because I'm trained in non-lethal and lethal defence techniques, and had the consequences of taking a life driven into me. I've been through basic (reserves), as well as years of martial arts (hapkido mostly.) I still wouldn't pull a gun unless there was zero chance that compliance would not arrive with my family in safety.
You assume that if you don't do anything people will get hurt. Guess what, statistics say that most causalities occur when people escalate the situation. By pulling a gun on someone you only raise the stakes, considerably, for both you and the assailant. You point a gun at someone who is already desperate enough to point one at you, someone's going to get shot. Likely you.
I doubt given the opportunity you would be able to actually shot someone effectively. Most shots (statistically) are non-lethal, let alone when the gun is being handled by someone who has zero combat experience. If someone is training to go on a killing spree, you bet you are not going to be effective against them, unless you've trained too. You only put your family at further risk.
In recent shootings some of the first people to die were those who tried to attack the gunman. It takes a swat team to take these guys down, and you think you're going to whip out your glock and take them down in a shot to the head, CoD style? Going to quick scope them from your bed? How fat is your head?
Terwax, I am glad that you brought that point of view to the conversation, ad unfortunate as it is. Goes to show that when someone actually has to consider the situation, beyond ideal boasting and fantasizing, there is a lot to learn.
Tip Posting |
My Postings (3627) | My Reviews (1)
| View Source
|
|
|
DJZ
|
Dec 24, 2012 07:14 AM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like |
Top | Bottom |
|
|
Needmobo
|
Dec 24, 2012 08:54 AM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like |
Top | Bottom |
|
|
Notree (bobby_c)
|
Dec 24, 2012 12:46 PM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like |
Top | Bottom |
|
|
DJZ
|
Dec 24, 2012 01:59 PM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like |
Top | Bottom |
|
|
FragYourFriends
|
Dec 24, 2012 02:14 PM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like (1) |
Top | Bottom |
|
|
Notree (bobby_c)
|
Dec 24, 2012 03:48 PM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like (1) |
Top | Bottom |
|
|
derek_w
|
Dec 24, 2012 07:16 PM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like (1) |
Top | Bottom |
|
Quote: (FragYourFriends @ Dec 24 2012, 02:14 PM)
You can make the issue a wash with conversation, but you can't ignore statistics and facts. 1/3 the USA population here in Canada? Yeah, well, we probably have %0.0003 of the killings in the USA.
Um, Canadian population is around 33m, USA 313m. ?????
I've tried to ignore these types of threads in the past, but hey, it's Christmas, and with time off work, it can be kind of boring.
It's also a statistical fact that the states with the toughest gun laws tend to have the most violent gun offenses and incidents, so the idea that tougher laws automatically curb violence is simplistic and not really borne out by the facts.
Having said that, although I am a gun owner and support the freedom to bear arms, I think that it's insane for a country like America to have stood idly by while tens of millions of their citizens (many of whom are irresponsible twits) arm themselves with automatic assault rifles that would threaten some military personnel. I have yet to hear a SINGLE rational and well constructed argument for assault weapon ownership. There is simply no justification for them on this continent.
However, if you're an American, you're screwed because there are so many scary weapons (yes, they are weapons) out there that it will be impossible to ban them now. Good luck trying to pry them from the cold dead hands of NRA zealots. I would never live in America, and I would never raise my children there.
Tip Posting |
My Postings (1798) | My Reviews (2)
| View Source
|
|
|
Terwax
|
Dec 24, 2012 11:06 PM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like |
Top | Bottom |
|
|
DJZ
|
Dec 24, 2012 11:11 PM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like |
Top | Bottom |
|
|
Soundwave
|
Dec 24, 2012 11:19 PM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like |
Top | Bottom |
|
|
Analbumcover
|
Dec 24, 2012 11:21 PM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like |
Top | Bottom |
|
|
Q-Ball 7
|
Dec 25, 2012 02:55 AM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like |
Top | Bottom |
|
Quote: (derek_w @ Dec 24 2012, 07:16 PM)
arm themselves with automatic assault rifles that would threaten some military personnel. I have yet to hear a SINGLE rational and well constructed argument for assault weapon ownership. There is simply no justification for them on this continent.
Having weaponry that would threaten military personnel is explicitly outlined in their Constitution for that specific purpose. Amendment 2. IIRC, no other country has that- it's foolish to assume a government will last forever (as history shows).
What, like the 2 (yes, 2) murders committed with legal fully-automatic weapons since 1934? There are 250K legal FA weapons in the US, not "tens of millions" as you suggest. From then, there have been a grand total of ~10 crimes committed with them, 2 of which have been murders (I've posted evidence earlier in this thread; and there are citations on that website- I believe it's on page 4 of this thread).
Murders that likely would have been committed by some other gun had the one in question been banned (the presence of the giggle-switch on the weapon did not itself make the person pick it up and kill another), I might add. Besides- automatic fire/burst fire is pretty useless unless you're going for suppression. If you're in the military and trying to actively kill the enemy, your rifle is not on "Auto/Burst", it's on "Semi", so you can hit what you shoot at.
We don't need to justify owning them; you need to justify us NOT owning them. The statistics do not support your fear; therefore, we should be allowed them. That's not to say the current control scheme for them is a failure (except for the whole registry-being-closed-in-1986 law, of course), though.
We don't need to justify having them; we're free, remember?
Quote: (derek_w @ Dec 24 2012, 07:16 PM)
many of whom are irresponsible twits
Citation needed. "Many" isn't a number.
But then again, that's how that pesky presumption of innocence works. In the case of concealed carry, they had to pass a test proving that we can trust them with that item around other people. Yet we rarely hear of accidental discharges (regardless of casualty) from CCW holders. Perhaps this trust is not, in fact, misplaced.
I can't believe we still have that- we trust random everyday citizens to obey the law and then punish the ones who break the law only after they break the law!
That's crazy!
How is that ever going to prevent crime?
(To DJZ)
What did the bad guys say in that video?
Did one of them do something off-camera that could have changed how the situation was likely (as far as anyone else knew) going to play out for the defender or someone else in the store? Did one threaten to shoot some or all of the people after finishing the robbery?
We don't know and can't tell from that video- but what we can tell is this:
A robber pointed a gun at someone; that means that they are intending to destroy that person. There is no mind-reading capable of detecting whether that bad guy will pull that trigger, either on purpose or by accident.
So the good guy snuck up behind the bad guy and shot him. Remember, the good guy knows that there is only one gun in play right now- otherwise the bad guy with the bat would have a gun out instead.
Now the most dangerous part of the situation is defused- bats don't hold up well against guns (or many other people for that matter).
This elderly man assessed the threat properly, in accordance with the training every Florida citizen has to go through in order to carry concealed legally (the bad guy, however, had a gun but none such training- he committed several crimes in addition to the robbery). He passed the point of no return in drawing his weapon, as he took a knee to assume a stable shooting position, and shot the bad guy. He succeeded in removing the threats from the area with as minimal casualties and damage as possible.
(To poor SNL reference name)
Yeah, being a police officer is dangerous business.
Yes, you can get shot on patrol. Yes, sometimes you're short-staffed (the last reference you have is a case of this).
No, that doesn't mean you're necessarily going to die (as slightly less than half of your post shows non-fatal gunshot wounds).
But could those crimes have happened even with gun restrictions (i.e. only manual-action firearms)?
Sure. (Your stats to prove otherwise, please.)
It's a strange dichotomy.
You either sit back, unable to fight a bad guy who is highly likely to hurt you (or others); or you use the tool you have and are suddenly an "action hero", motivated only by the desire to play that part. We desire to be safe, and to make sure that (in doing so) others remain as safe as possible, so that when the time arises to do something it will be done properly.
Action heroes do not pass CCW courses.
Tip Posting |
My Postings (1032) | My Reviews (4)
| View Source
|
|
|
DJZ
|
Dec 25, 2012 07:04 AM |
Reply |
Bookmark
Like |
Top | Bottom |
|
|
PREV
|
NEXT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
|
Contentname:Forums_Bottom
|
Widgets Magazine
Contentname:NCIX_Weekly_Special_Side
Widgets Magazine
Contentname:ncix-home-RIGHT-Launch
Contentname:quicklinks
Contentname:memory_finder
|
|
VIEW CART
Canada
){kind=link}