NRA video on the UK

[Sledge]

Wow. This is quite the dumbest thing I've seen you write. Without considering what the situation might be, you're going to say you'd submit to the will of any yahoo with a gun? "Right, please stand there with your hands up while I torture your wife to death." "Please stand their whilst I blow up this orphanage."

 

Unlikely? Sure. But I'm not the one calling people stupid without having a full outline of the situation.

 

[PILMAN]

Agreed. I'm all for gun ownership, as my growing collection attests to. But where the NRA and I fall out is that I want logical attempts to define why I want to own a gun (because I sure as hell don't NEED to), and the NRA resorts to bluster and emotion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That goes 2 ways, Sarah Brady anyone?

 

Anyways a lot of people feel if the SWAT invaded their home that they would probably have no chance against them. Does anyone remember the ATF and the FBI in Waco? They had one hell of a time and it was pretty much a national embarrasment on tv for the ATF and FBI. Just a bunch of rednecks who were able to put up a hell of a fight before getting burned to death in their home.

[Crazy_Harry]

sledge,

 

as established, there's a gunman standing behind you, with gun in hand, pointing at you. You do not have your gun in hand.

 

what planet are you on that makes you think you have a fighting chance of doing anything?

 

me, and I'm no expert in this, but if my wife is in potential danger, I'd prefer NOT to get myself shot in the first second for being so fool-hardy as to resist without first taking stock of the situation and attempting to steer it to the point whereby I might actually have some advantage to defend ourselves with.

 

you've started from the assumption that if I surrender my "first chance to draw" to an armed assailant, I've somehow surrendered all options I have to resist. this is idiocy. You never know how this sort of thing will go down, but you can make a few educated guesses. Blindly, thoughtlessly reacting when you have no idea of your true situation will more than likely get you killed, your wife raped, and the orphanage blown to hell.

 

Every single person I've ever spoken to, whether during martial art training or firearms discussions who have had extensive personal defence training agrees with this line. I'm frankly gob-smacked that you of all people can't grasp it.

 

My opinion, which you call stupid, is based on knowledge, discussion, and in some cases, training. I've no clue where your opinions, which I call idiocy, come from, because I have never, EVER heard or witnessed them outside of the movies.

[PILMAN]

sledge,

 

as established, there's a gunman standing behind you, with gun in hand, pointing at you. You do not have your gun in hand.

 

what planet are you on that makes you think you have a fighting chance of doing anything?

 

me, and I'm no expert in this, but if my wife is in potential danger, I'd prefer NOT to get myself shot in the first second for being so fool-hardy as to resist without first taking stock of the situation and attempting to steer it to the point whereby I might actually have some advantage to defend ourselves with.

 

you've started from the assumption that if I surrender my "first chance to draw" to an armed assailant, I've somehow surrendered all options I have to resist. this is idiocy. You never know how this sort of thing will go down, but you can make a few educated guesses. Blindly, thoughtlessly reacting when you have no idea of your true situation will more than likely get you killed, your wife raped, and the orphanage blown to hell. 

 

Every single person I've ever spoken to, whether during martial art training or firearms discussions  who have had extensive personal defence training agrees with this line. I'm frankly gob-smacked that you of all people can't grasp it.

 

My opinion, which you call stupid, is based on knowledge, discussion, and in some cases, training. I've no clue where your opinions, which I call idiocy, come from, because I have never, EVER heard or witnessed them outside of the movies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I know this isn't directed towards me however in a situation where you are being held up or robbed at gun point and the guy is completely focused on you, then it's generally not a good idea to try anything because you will get shot. If you have the opportunity to use your gun without risk to your life and you cannot retreat, then that would be perfectly understandable. In a situation where you know you are going to die and the bad guy has every intent, most people say watch for distractions in the gunman though that is very risky in it's self. There are plenty of bad guys who prey on fear.

[Crazy_Harry]

Pilman- precisely. blimey, if it meant I'd distract a guy sufficiently for me to get a good solid blow in, I'd happily drop whatever weapon I was carrying and start begging for my life- its not cowardice, its strategy.

 

in such a situation, you're only chance is to put yourself in a position where the assailant no longer considers you as an immediate threat and can therefore be expected to be more easily distracted. Yes, its highly dangerous, but so is anything regarding high-tension weapons situations. Reducing your chances of IMMEDIATE death is the only way you have of saving yourself and those around you. sure, if you get the chance to do it with some degree of hope of success, shoot the guy. but otherwise, you're FAR better off waiting and using your wits and your brains to maneovre the assailant into a position of weakness which you can then capitalise on.

[PlasticMag]

That goes 2 ways, Sarah Brady anyone?

 

Anyways a lot of people feel if the SWAT invaded their home that they would probably have no chance against them. Does anyone remember the ATF and the FBI in Waco? They had one hell of a time and it was pretty much a national embarrasment on tv for the ATF and FBI. Just a bunch of rednecks who were able to put up a hell of a fight before getting burned to death in their home.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I never said I agreed with the Brady Campaign either. Frankly, I think the gun-argument groups are all blathering idiots.

 

And if you're going to make a case against the Federal Goverment, I'd hardly call a decade+ old incident to the witness stand. Koresh was a FANATICAL anti-government radical who specifically instructed his people to prepare for combat AGAINST the government. They weren't your usual AR-15.net types, people who moan about being ready to fight .gov but couldn't if they tried - these were people who WANTED to fight and be martyred. Over 150 weapons were on sight with god knows how much ammo.

 

The raid lost tactical surprise because of a reporter who was tipped off and asked Koresh's brother-in-law for directions, and turned into a nasty gun battle. The ATF commander on the scene made some interesting decisions, to be sure, but the people in that compound were NOT representative of the average gun owners. They weren't rednecks, they were radicalized cultists, just like those Islamic terrorists and radical Jewish settlers making trouble in the Middle East. I don't want the Branch Davidians used as an argument relating to gun laws, do you?

[Banzai]

Dont need the illuminati with corporations also semi-buying all the intelligence services that feed the US Govt all the BS it needs to operate...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Didn't the US founding father for the most part consist of Free masons (illuminati is a sect of theirs) ?

 

Its just good ol American spirit!

 

[Jagdraben]

The Illuminati were not a part of the Free Masons, they were a seperate sect that was wiped out by the Spanish Inquisition. While a large number of the Founding Fathers and a large number of US Presidents have been Free Masons, most of them were not. And if the Free Masons (or some other secret society) want to run the world, well... there's nothing you can do about it and you probably wouldn't much notice it anyway, so there's no sense worrying about it. But I highly doubt that the Free Masons would have any wish to try to control the god-awful mess that is the world.

[sekiryu]

What religion were the Founding Fathers? There's an awful lot of confusion about them being either Deist or Christian.

[PlasticMag]

Most were Deist or Agnostic. Some simply didn't give a *fruitcage* and were Atheists.

[sekiryu]

The problem is, though, all the Atheists say that, but then all the Christians say "no, no, they were Christian".

 

Is there any non-biased historical documentation of their religious views?

[chickenzomby]

The problem is, though, all the Atheists say that, but then all the Christians say "no, no, they were Christian".

 

Is there any non-biased historical documentation of their religious views?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wouldn't be able to pull one up right now, but I do know that at least 2 of them (Thomas Jefferson was one) were deists. Most were Christian, though. Just look at some of the documents that they wrote.

 

Now, I really think that gun ownership is not necessarily related to resistance against the government, but is more related to protection of oneself. You can't have someone protecting you all the time, you instead have to have some means of protection. But if any criminal came into my home, I would want the best to fight him off, not a knife or sword or bow, though they would work equally as well. As a matter of fact, anyone can kill with most common items. Clothing will choke someone to death, though the feasibility of such a weapon is something to be desired. Point is, I want to have some kind of way to protect myself from criminals and those who wish me harm.

 

And wouldn't a gun carrying redneck have been able to stop 9/11 or any other instance of terrorism? I think so.

[PILMAN]

What religion were the Founding Fathers? There's an awful lot of confusion about them being either Deist or Christian.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I had heard most were escaping religious persecution in Europe, probably Agnostic or Atheist.

[Kraut]

And wouldn't a gun carrying redneck have been able to stop 9/11 or any other instance of terrorism? I think so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[PILMAN]

do what the criminal says

 

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3879.html

 

By Tim Inwood

 

I have followed the sad news story of what has happened to the family of Dr. William Petit Jr. in Cheshire, Connecticut. Observing the coverage in newsprint and electronic media, I have wondered aloud if the "Culture of Sheep" has killed again. As the facts emerge it is becoming pretty clear that it has.

 

Click 'Read More' for the entire commentary.

 

 

 

Most frustrating has been watching police officers or former police officers coming on these news programs advising if attacked to submit. Do what the criminals demand, do not make eye contact, show no resistance. They advised that if you do this you will survive. I was stunned. This very behavior is pretty much what got the Petit women killed. I keep seeing so called professionals repeating the very advice that gets people killed over and over again, and it infuriates me. The Culture of Sheep strikes again.

 

As those of you who have been following this subject know, I have been exploring the dangers of our “indoctrination” to be passive, something I have referred to as the “Culture of Sheep”.

 

As to the specific case at hand, in the wee hours of July 23rd two career criminals out on parole broke into the home of Dr. William Petit Jr. and his family. The time was roughly 3AM and the family was asleep. The thugs Joshua Komisarjevsky, age 26, and Steven Hayes, age 44, then pummeled the good doctor into obedience and tied him up. For the next six hours the doctor, his wife Jennifer Hawke-Petit, age 48, and their daughters, 17-year-old Hayley and 11-year-old Michaela, were terrorized by these animals as they demanded money. At some point the daughters were sexually assaulted. One drove Jennifer to their bank around 9:30AM so she could withdraw the family savings. The thug stayed in the family car waiting so as to not arouse suspicion. I am sure he reminded her of his partner holding the rest of the family, so not to try anything.

 

Nevertheless while in the bank Jennifer did the right thing and told the tellers so they could call the police. Upon getting back to the house, the thugs strangled Jennifer to death and set fire to the house to cover their tracks. At this time, the police were arriving and caught the criminals as they tried to ram through their barricade with the Petit family SUV. Sadly, Dr. Petit was the sole survivor of this savage crime, with his wife strangled and his molested daughters dead of smoke inhalation.

 

In all the stories covering this sad event I noted no mention of a home security system or a firearm in the house. I am left with the question, why? Did the Petit family feel that in this “safe” community there was no need for any precautions? Safe communities are a myth, my friends. Awful crimes take place just about everywhere. I am tired of reading stories about how horrible things like this don’t happen in quiet good communities like this one; they do all too often.

 

Did the difficult gun laws of Connecticut play a role? Connecticut, despite being the home of great gun manufacturers like Colt, has some of the worst guns laws in the United States. The Brady Campaign grades Connecticut gun laws at an A- , which speaks volumes to how restrictive things are.

 

Did the hassle of all the additional required paperwork and permit requirements keep Dr. Petit from owning a gun? I don’t know, but I do know that for many the additional requirements and headaches involved would be a hurdle many would rather not go through, hence they do not bother.

 

Dr. Petit is a 50 year-old man, while I will grant this is not young it certainly does not suggest one is too feeble to put up a defense.

 

Take for instance this interesting case in contrast.

 

In El Dorado Arkansas, 93 year old Willie Lee Hill was attacked in his home by a criminal who beat him in the head with a soda can. Taking at least 50 blows to the head, Hill was knocked unconscious. When he awoke, his assailant Douglas Williams Jr. attacked again; this time Hill drew his .38 caliber revolver and shot Williams through his throat, dropping him. Police now have Williams, who survived, albeit paralyzed, in custody.

 

The firearm is always the great equalizer, as that story of a 93 year-old man putting down a strapping 24 year-old miscreant illustrates. Did Willie Hill submit, as the police would advise? No. Is he alive because he fought back? YES!

 

I continue to be amazed to see the so-called “experts” come out and continue to tell us to submit and all will be fine. Rubbish. Two months ago I told you the story of Jeff May.

 

The Jeff May story got little attention until “The Talkmaster” Neal Boortz brought it to national attention with his radio show. Jeff May fought off a school shooter who had killed several people using only a number 2 pencil. His actions saved lives. I am compelled to say submission frequently equals death. The experts are clearly wrong. Look at all the students who followed the commands of Cho Seung-Hui in the Virginia Tech Massacre. He ordered them to line up against the wall and walked down the line shooting them in the head. They did not fight back, and with that incident we saw the worst school massacre in American history.

 

I blame the cultural indoctrination to be sheep. To submit to criminals can, and frequently will, get you killed. I urge all reading this to do the responsible thing for you and your family. Purchase a firearm, if you have not done so already, and get the proper training. It might well be that you will find yourself the victim of a crime. So be prepared and survive the ordeal.

 

We at BFA offer our prayers and sympathy to Dr. William Petit Jr. and his family at this difficult time.

 

Post Script:

 

On a side note, a friend argued that perhaps I should use the term “Eloi” instead of sheep when dealing with this subject.

 

For those of you who have not read the H.G.Wells classic “The Time Machine”, the Eloi were people who were provided food and clothing by the subterranean dwelling Morlocks who fed upon them. The Eloi were conditioned to seek the underground shelters when they heard the blast of ancient air raid sirens. When the Morlocks took enough Eloi underground for the slaughter, the doors shut. The Eloi who went underground submitted to their fate without a fight. The rest were left to breed until the next Morlock feeding frenzy.

 

My friend’s analogy does apply if you look at it this way. We have been conditioned to be passive, and like good obedient Eloi when commanded by the Morlocks to do as we are told, we obey. What am I talking about? I am talking about how we have been conditioned to passively allow the Government to take our rights, restrict our freedoms like free speech and the right to bear arms for self-defense. Also appalling is how more than half our earnings are taken via heavy taxation so they, the bureaucrat elite, can be generous with our money for their purposes. Every April they blast the siren and we send in our money…unlike the Morlocks though, the Government’s appetite seems insatiable.

 

Considering we are descendent of people who revolted for minor taxes on stamps and tea, we have certainly devolved into something much more docile when it comes to these issues that would have sparked revolt by our ancestors. So I will concede the term Eloi or sheep is equally acceptable when speaking on this issue, however while everyone knows what sheep are, only those who are familiar with “The Time Machine” will have any idea what Eloi represent.

 

Tim Inwood is the current Legislative Liaison and Past President of the Clinton County Farmers and Sportsmen Association, an Endowment Member of the NRA, Life Member of OGCA, and a volunteer for Buckeye Firearms Association.

[hardboiledcop]

I had heard most were escaping religious persecution in Europe, probably Agnostic or Atheist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Surely they were puritan?

 

There is no way the founding fathers of a country which links religion so closely to politics, even so much so that Presidents can claim to speak to god without being giving the boot, is one born from agnostic/aetheist views.

[PlasticMag]

Sure there is. The seperation of Church and state is a VERY loosely defined clause and widely reinterpreted to suit anyone's fancy. Just because the founding fathers were deists, agnostic, atheist, or christian doesn't mean that the current political climate has to be the same way.

 

Hell, those same founders owned slaves yet talked about the rights of man.

[Chimpy]

PILMAN - As nasty as those stories are there are probably a fair few that go the other way and lead to people being killed by their own guns. Stories are just stories at the end of the day and are not data.

 

We got semi-auto rifles and handguns banned over here due to two incidents, statistically they are insignificant, not a problem, a couple of blips but the emotional response they caused was massive and hence the ban. So think before resorting to the same level.

[sekiryu]

We just had a local incident:

 

Idiot left loaded gun, round chambered, and cocked, open on a table. His dog, a Great Dane, wagged his tale and knocked off the gun. The gun fired on contact with the ground, shooting the owner in the back.

 

*fruitcage* idiot.

[supercilious]

Stupid people are not a reason to enact stupid laws.

[sekiryu]

*Mods remove if in violation of rules*

 

Ok, I have been forwarded to a (rather disturbing) audio clip that records an elderly lady's last moments, because she decided to trust her life to the police instead of a home-defense firearm.

 

Viewer discretion, is advised

[Sale]

I just had to pretty much skip the previous two pages. I hope you can keep track here.

 

Sale- as we've discussed time and time again, the fact that one town has low gun crime is not necessarily due to lax or tough gun laws. A myriad reasons exist for the presence or lack of violent crime within a society, so much so that placing the blame at one reasons door isn't fair.

Agreed, and I don't think I said otherwise lately.

 

Legally owned guns may have a positive effect against violent crime, or it is neutral at most. It has nowhere been proven to increase crime even at a correlative level. Even though drops in crime rates have multiple reasons behind them, isn't it a funny coincidence it usually takes place after relaxing gun laws?

 

But even if it had a negative effect, I would say it's an acceptable price to pay. All freedoms come at a price: Freedom of speech and opinion gets people killed all the time. The L.A. Riots would have most likely not ignited, at least not at that scale, if it weren't for publishing the Rodney King beating tape and publicly aquitting the officers involved. At least 53 people died in those riots, but do I support restricting the press or freedom of speech because of this? No.

 

Firearms bear the potential to resist tyranny against the people, whether it's domestic or foreign, or committed by terrorist or criminal groups. It is unlikely to be a target for this, yes, but so are school shootings. It is unlikely that Finland would go to war against anyone right now, but that doesn't mean we can abolish the FDF, is it?

 

And when we go to individual level instead of statistics, again as I have argued, an individual's chances of surviving an unlawful attack are far higher if they (he/she) are armed.

 

This rant does not support carrying that much, but ownership is where I draw the bare minimum line, and these are is my arguments for it.

 

I for one would have absolutely NO problem in widespread gun ownership if, and only if, education levels across the board were higher, ppoverty rates were dramatically decreased, urban slums weren't allowed to develop, more focus was placed on maintaining and expanding the job market across the board, and class and race obstacles were done away with.

A lot of the time people aren't talking about the social outcasts when they argue against gun-ownership and carrying by common people. They say normal people would start settling their neighbourhood arguments with guns, or commit "passion-crime" more often. (Such as walking in on your wife in bed with another man.) Surely this isn't about the socio-economics? You would imagine that in a town of 30 000 people there would be enough jealous husbands or neighbours with a temper. Still, Kennesaw GA hasn't seen a bullet would fatality in 25 years. I think 30 000 is statistically valid number to prove the point that gun ownership does not turn regular law-abiding people into rampaging rednecks.

 

If all those problems would be solved at once, the need for gun ownership would be reduced as well. I don't think having guns prevents development in the good direction. Maybe one day when the society is better, people would get rid of their guns as unnecessary weight on the belt. Until that day I would rather allow them to have the pieces.

 

Its not the presence of guns that causes violent crime. However, I will say that the presence of guns, legal or illegal DOES allow violent crime to be more violent and more prolific- as the USMC chappy so rightly points out, guns are the great equaliser, but that works both ways. a 90 pound weakling with a gun is not going to have as big a problem about attacking a 200 pound 6-footer (from, for the sake of argument, behind, rather than striding up to a man with a holster and telling him to go for his gun) than if he didn't have one. and if the 200 pounder is openly carrying a gun? no offence, but unless he's got someone watching his back, it's not like he's not vulnerable if someone is determined.

 

You argued with Sledge about this, and I understood you think it's a hopeless situation if someone pulls the gun on you first. Well, quite recently John Lovell (71) had two thugs pull the gun on him and they were forcing him into the restroom of the Subway where he had been eating. (Most likely not for a slash and to wash his hands.) When they were moving there, he got a chance to pull his pistol, and he shot both his attackers, killing one. Criminals aren't professionals when it comes to gun handling, and even cops and other professionals make mistakes all the time.

 

Further, while criminals succesfully avoid the police when they mug people, there's a substantially higher probability that another civilian stumbles upon the situation. Normally these are called witnesses. I would rather call them samaritans, who do something instead of just provide a good description to the police when they arrive. If I were held at gun point right next to my attacker, I'd rather have a CCW licence holder than the police arrive first on scene. The former are less likely to shoot me by mistake.

 

-Sale

[chickenzomby]

Gunfacts.

[Insanejoe]

Good post slae, but don't ever use the words cops and professionals relating to guns in teh smae sentence :-( . Most cops I've talked to have gotten the bare minimum firearm training and it's quite frankly scary.

[Sale]

Good post slae, but don't ever use the words cops and professionals relating to guns in teh smae sentence :-( . Most cops I've talked to have gotten the bare minimum firearm training and it's quite frankly scary.

 

The definition of professional means that the person is getting paid to do something, that it's his job. It doesn't necessarily mean they are good at it.

 

Yes, the police have a bare minimum of firearms training in a lot of places. A firearm is simply a tool to them, and they need a vast amount of other skills as well. The firearm is not their first answer to any situation, so it's not that high up the priority list when their training schedule is decided.

 

Of course more training would solve the problem of not being able to focus on all aspects enough, but a more highly trained person would be entitled to a higher pay as well, and it would increase the costs.

 

-Sale