|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 26, 2013 11:43:44 GMT -5
"ALTHOUGH HIS REASON FOR MAKING THE STATEMENT WAS TO DEFEND THE BAN ON "SCARY GUNS" WHICH I DEFINITELY DO NOT AGREE WITH....."
There, said it a little louder. Looking for the tools to make it a brighter color and larger font, if needed 8^).
No, I didn't miss the point. I'm a lifer in the NRA since '75 and a staunch defender of the RKBA, and politically an "extremist in the defense of liberty" since '64.
Just pointing out the lone scrap of good sense that is sometimes to be found in even a quote from the most liberal opponent, if we look hard enough.
And I stick with the recommendation that for use in defending the home, probably also the shop or workplace, the shotgun is the more appropriate choice for the stated reasons. I could add the use by the wife or half-grown child in home defense situations. The wife has scary good hand-eye coordination and PLENTY of accuracy shooting from the hip with the 12 gauge double she learned on, but would probably still be trying to remember where the safety was on an AR15 if it was needed.
For a shootout in the woods with well armed meth cookers, or repelling the loyalist troops if it becomes necessary during the revolution, or a number of other uses, the scary black rifles would be my choice, too.
When I'm out and about in the truck, hiking, or hunting, I prefer something easier to handle and conceal like my Ruger SP101, with the JHP's. It's simply a statement of which tool fits the job. I think we should be completely free to choose whichever one we want to use.
I have an 8# maul with a 32" handle. It does a nice job of splitting wood, but is pretty awkward for building small picture frames. I agree that the choice should be ours alone in matching the tool to our needs as WE see them. That would definitely include the scary black guns if that's your choice. Your home might be a lot bigger and more remote than mine, with fewer friendlies inside.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 25, 2013 13:11:15 GMT -5
Closest to anything sensible I've ever heard the man say.
Although his reason for making the statement was to defend the ban on "scary guns", which I definitely do NOT agree with, I think the shotgun is the best choice for home defense.
Less danger of the projectiles continuing on through the walls into adjacent areas to cause unintended casualties, and considerably more stopping power to immediately end the threat posed by an intruder. Just the sound of the pump or the look at the end of a shotgun barrel pointed their way should be enough to convince any wrongdoer to go somewhere else as quickly as possible. And if they don't, less chance of them continuing the fight or being around to sue the defender after the fact. Easier for the homeowner to use effectively at short range as well.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 25, 2013 12:55:25 GMT -5
Yep, good post.
Lots of us are somewhat more liberal IN SOME AREAS than the majority and many of us appreciate that there is often some good sense in the view of those in the opposing camps, depending on the issue at hand.
IMO, that's the way it almost always is and has been. The longer term view of history sees the ideas that have real lasting benefits to be the ones that survive the partisan squabbles and become accepted.
Sometimes it takes a lot longer than we'd like, but the public eventually finds the right track.
In the meantime, the "liberals" will try to eliminate the second Amendment freedoms they should be supporting, and the "conservatives" will continue to stick their noses into the bedrooms and private relationships of people where they don't belong when they should be supportive of freedom there as well.
Neither side seems to accept that freedom for them also means freedom for others. Nearest thing I've seen to that is the Libertarian Party, that gets only a small percentage of the vote every election. It does seem to be a GROWING small percentage, though, so maybe there's still hope.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 25, 2013 12:17:18 GMT -5
Back in '68, I somehow got on both lists for Birch Bayh's campaign literature, and received both the letter that was intended for pro-2A voters and the other one. They were similar in appearance but printed in different ink colors, I assume to prevent errors by his envelope stuffers who couldn't read.
One, IIRC the blue-ink one, told of his support for the Second Amendment and the other explained his support for the GCA that he had voted for that year.
It's kind of a tradition on both sides of the aisle. Tell 'em what you think they want to hear. First rule of politics, some say.
In any case, trust nothing they say or that their campaign literature says. Pay attention only to their votes. The rest is window dressing....any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 24, 2013 11:27:01 GMT -5
Hmmm......OK, you had me going with that statement about IN being the meth capitol of the US.
Seemed unlikely, but I admit to not being up on the stats, so I went browsing on the net to try to find out where we really rank.
Couldn't find any state-by-state comparisons that placed us in the top twenty.
The most startling thing to me was the diversity of rankings depending on the source. Most maps showed the west to have pretty much universally higher use rates than our section of the country.
We did show up on some maps as being a category higher than our neighboring states.
The only place I saw us as placing very high in the statistical race was in the number of meth labs shut down, which of course could be an indication of several other factors......more enforcement effort in that area, smaller lab operations, stupider operators, etc.
We seemed so far from actual contention for any sort of prize as the meth capitol of even the midwest, let alone the country, that I must assume the statement was made in sarcasm, and not intended to be taken seriously.
If that was the case, I have no argument with it, just thought I'd clear it up for any other readers who might have been misled by it. I do seem to recall a similar statement by a state politician who was pressing for a bill to make Sudafed available only by prescription, but I seldom bother trying to verify politicians' statements anymore, and didn't attempt to at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 23, 2013 11:46:43 GMT -5
You know the old saying about when something looks too good to be true?
Pretty sure that applies here. The first red/blue map is the voting results from a recent election, being misrepresented as the "fbi gun crime map".
I couldn't find the actual source, but I also couldn't find any FBI gun-crime map that broke the results down by counties as does the first map.
Ya can't believe everything you see on the net, just the stuff I post 8^).
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 22, 2013 11:22:03 GMT -5
Ah, THERE'S your trouble!
The preferred method is to read part of the OP, make up your own conclusions as to the intended message, and respond to THAT.
The way you're doing it takes all the fun out of it and removes the possible variations in the game as it's played. If we all behaved that way, we'd be finished with the day's business before we finished our first cup of coffee! 8^)
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 19, 2013 13:06:50 GMT -5
Those were my ways also.
I remember explaining to my son the importance of redundancy in checking to make SURE the guns were unloaded before putting them in the truck to come home, then checking them again before entering the house anyway. He did the checks, to be obedient and not have a hassle with the old man, but I knew it hadn't really hit home until the time we were going through the routine procedure on the front porch and a live round flew out and bounced across the floor. He had gone through the clearing procedure at the truck, and the ejectors had apparently missed picking up the last shell from the magazine.
Following that, we included a visual check to make sure of the clearing procedure as a part of the routine.
That incident also helped reinforce the instructions that he ALWAYS check again before handing his gun to a friend who wanted to see it, even though he "knew" it to empty.
It's sometimes harder for kids who haven't experienced Murphy's Law as much to accept that despite their good intentions and best efforts, if a thing CAN go wrong, it eventually will, and redundancy is a good way to prevent it. Sounds like more "kiddies, don't try this at home" parent talk until they actually see the failure of the single check.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 18, 2013 14:01:40 GMT -5
Oops, got a little off message there, jumped the track to a slightly different question.
Agree with the majority....no.
Swilk, like that example! 8^).
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 18, 2013 13:54:52 GMT -5
The problem with the "safe storage" as a "sensible gun law" comes when there's noise in the night and someone is breaking in. Should the gun owner have to retrieve the gun from a safe and load it before using it to defend self and family?
That scenario plays out hundreds of times year, maybe thousands! How many of those instances which are usually unreported unless actual shooting takes place, would be resolved differently if the gun owner had to do so?
And would we make it a practice to retrieve the gun from the safe upon our return home each evening, to wear it or otherwise keep it under our immediate control overnight?
I think such restrictions would either cause many deaths among the gun owners who actually followed them, or more likely would simply be ignored like most other silly or harmful regulations.
The gun owner does have the personal responsibility to keep the weapon safe from inquisitive children and family members who are known to be less than responsible. But that should be another area where the individual can best balance the danger of misuse against the probability of the need for instant access, not some politician.
I can see the possibility of civil action after the fact against anyone who is actually irresponsible in finding a way to prevent the misuse, causing harm, but not a one-size-fits-all regulation that ignores personal responsibility and renders the gun owner either defenseless or criminal while responsibly providing for his family's protection.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 18, 2013 13:20:38 GMT -5
Hard to believe....even the most basic gear would have likely resulted in survival. To leave on a lengthy hike with two young kids in iffy weather and not even carry a couple of trash bags for emergency rain protection, a small penlight, and a basic GPS like the cheap "backtrack" type....I could understand it if the guy was a city slicker with no outdoor experience.
Guess familiarity breeds contempt, or overconfidence.
Thinking back, though, I guess I was about this guys age when my son, 14 at the time, spent a very uncomfortable night in the HNF, somewhere near the middle of the biggest unbroken chunk of forest in the state, due to a similar lack of preparation.
We were hunting the shotgun deer season, and when we went into the woods for the afternoon hunt, the plan was that we weren't going far, and would meet back at the car at dark. He'd been hunting with me for about five years for squirrels and was good at finding his way in unfamiliar territory, so I wasn't concerned until he hadn't shown up after twenty minutes or so after dark. We were dressed just enough for comfort for the short planned hunt and were without even the most basic survival or pathfinding equipment, too.
He walked out the next morning as soon as there was light enough to see to walk, and we cancelled the major search and rescue effort that was gathering after not finding him the that night.
That good scare taught us something more about preparedness than reading about others being in such a fix. We didn't venture into the woods afterwards without our small emergency kits on our belts, with a couple trash bags, some fire starters, mini Maglights and spare batteries, compass, a police whistle, and some energy bars. All that fit neatly into a couple of belt packs from an army surplus store (I think they were British army mess kit covers). Hardly any weight or bulk, and it pretty easily became habit for us to slip the belt through them even when we were "sure" they wouldn't be needed. We'd been "sure" that night, too, that we'd need no such stuff for the short hunt planned.
As you said Sas, always leave prepared.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 15, 2013 14:59:26 GMT -5
I don't see a lot in three of them. The third one, IMO, does illustrate the professor's point well, that even in the face of such a tragic event, we should maintain our skepticism about news accounts and seek evidence to back up any stories from whatever source.
The events that I have personal knowledge of and saw later in news accounts have been pretty consistently misrepresented, not by any intentional effort to disguise the truth, but by sloppy reporting.
The rush to be first with the news on anything of such dramatic effect will always have a negative influence on the careful collection of information and fact-checking, even without any political influences being applied. And the delay in getting realistic information to the public will always increase the number of questions about what really happened, especially when some reports directly conflict with others.
The message he's trying to get across is that conspiracy theories are enhanced when reporting is sketchy and inconsistent, and evidence is lacking or withheld from the public.
His sensitivity may be lacking in using the tragedy so quickly, but that's really the point he is making, that we can be misled by the manipulation of our emotions during such times and need to retain our standards of credibility in accepting reports that will affect our reactions.
IMO, he should state that intention more clearly at the first opportunity. If he has already done so, that portion of the interview was probably left out to increase the controversial nature of his position, because outrageousness makes more news than reasonable calls for prudence in assessing news.
It used to be said to sell papers. Now it's more about the notoriety of being the most watched on you-tube of the most-liked on Facebook.
I don't share his theory about this particular tragedy, and I don't think we are expected to, so much as we are expected to be made aware of the potential that what we see reported is likely to be at least wrong, and possibly intentionally misleading or downright lies.
In that, I think he has a very valid point.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 13, 2013 11:04:07 GMT -5
He's a Democrat just elected to a senate seat. He's not very interested in hearing from constituents right now. Try again in five years.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 9, 2013 17:50:28 GMT -5
I was a regular Paul Harvey listener and fan at one time.
Later discovered he was a Conscientious Objector and an animal rights advocate highly thought of by PETA.
He did have a way with saying stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 7, 2013 11:17:18 GMT -5
Its an unfortunate condition of our times that we are so polarized now that any deviation from the entire menu of stances on either side of the main divisive issues renders the dissenter a full membership in the other side.
There seems to be little or no tolerance for an individual who has made up their own mind on the issues one by one and has come to any conclusions that differ from the majority.
It's a pity, because the best answers on many issues are found between the extremes of either position.
On the issue of gun control, I find myself in pretty much the absolutist, no-compromise, extremist-and-proud-of-it camp, and agree with the intent of the OP in offering up the story, but I also agree with swilk in that when we offer things up as factual that turn out to be less than completely so when examined, we weaken rather than strengthen our arguments.
I expect the intent was completely honorable and the gist of the story still remains on point in this case.
But it does illustrate that we are better served by checking our sources and maintaining the best accuracy level in our arguments that we can, both out of respect for the reader and for the benefit of effectiveness of the message.
The old adage that "if it sounds too good to be true....it probably is" applies not only to advertising slogans and internet offers, but also to supporting evidence for our positions. Best to fact-check them before repeating them verbatim as the truth, lest our own veracity be called into question as a result.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 4, 2013 15:27:09 GMT -5
Exactly. I agree 100%, swilk.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 1, 2013 14:22:32 GMT -5
IC-35-47-2-19: This chapter does not apply to any any firearm not designed to use fixed cartridges or ammunition, or any firearm made before January 1, 1899.
It would appear not to be so mythical after all. Maybe someone should ask the state police and the state house what other possible meaning could be taken from this chapter and verse.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Dec 29, 2012 13:37:45 GMT -5
Wouldn't the 10/22 also fit the description even with the standard ten-round magazine, since it is detachable?
Incredibly stupid legislation in any case. The Newtown massacre could have been accomplished with a couple of ball and cap civil war revolvers and a few extra cylinders, and could have been much worse if pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails had been the weapons of choice.
It may not be the "only" way to stop an active shooter or other homicidal/suicidal maniac, but the most effective and likely way is to arm someone who will be in he school anyway, and preferably several people who will be in their civilian clothes rather than an officer who would be the obvious first target.
The worst part of this attempt to push gun control as an effective deterrent to more such atrocities is the fact that they will be almost completely unaffected by it even if it passes in its most severe form. And more innocent kids will die in the next one that could have been prevented by some armed "sheepdogs" among the sheep.
Throwing erasers at the shooter has been proven to be ineffective, and I'm told that most modern classrooms don't have them anyway.
Columbine happened while the assault weapons ban was in effect.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Dec 29, 2012 12:57:10 GMT -5
That seem to have taken care of it, no message now.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Dec 29, 2012 12:45:04 GMT -5
Hmmm, been several months since I last visited there. Did get a birthday greeting from there a week or so back, but deleted it without opening it. No other indications that it was my post involved, and no warning/block when I get back on with the second page, so I'm assuming that it was in someone else's post.
|
|