# The blind to be allowed gun permits?



## GDAD

I seen a quick news flash on TV, just caught the end! Is it correct that the Blind are being issued with gun permits?
I know about the American Constitution, and the right s of people 'to bare arms'. but is this true?


----------



## Old Hipster

GDAD said:


> I seen a quick news flash on TV, just caught the end! Is it correct that the Blind are being issued with gun permits?
> I know about the American Constitution, and the right s of people 'to bare arms'. but is this true?



You bettcha! I made the best part red! Crikey!!!


In a move sure to leave gun safety advocates scratching their heads, Iowa is issuing gun permits to the blind.

The permits allow legally blind applicants to purchase weapons and carry them in public. Per state law, any attempt to deny an Iowan these rights based on physical ability would be illegal, reports the Des Moines Register.

*"When you shoot a gun, you take it out and point and shoot, and I don't necessarily think eyesight is necessary," said Michael Barber, a blind man interviewed by The Register at a gun store in Iowa last month.
*
The issue has also vexed local sheriffs -- the authorities tasked with reviewing applications -- with some in full support of the measure, and others against.
Explains Delaware County Sheriff John LeClere, "If you see nothing but a blurry mass in front of you, then I would say you probably shouldn't be shooting something.”

Counters Cedar County Sheriff Warren Wethington, who has a legally blind daughter, “If sheriffs spent more time trying to keep guns out of criminals’ hands and not people with disabilities, their time would be more productive.”

Iowans have always been able to carry a firearm in private, but a new law passed in 2011 extends that right to the public sphere while placing no limits on physical ability.

Federal law, in tandem with the Gun Control Act of 1968, also does nothing to limit the legally blind from owning a gun, leaving that issue for states to sort out individually. Kansas, for instance, altered their laws in 2010 to prohibit issuing concealed carry permits to anyone "suffering a physical infirmity which prevents the safe handling of a weapon."

In January of this year, shortly after the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting, blind singer Stevie Wonder offered his thoughts on gun control in an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan. “Imagine me with a gun," he said. "It’s just crazy.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/08/iowa-blind-gun-licenses-carry-in-public_n_3890291.html


----------



## Warrigal

Insanity plus


----------



## JustBonee

I hadn't heard about this, but I'll go along with insane and crazy too if it's true. ... just another old person here, trying to make sense of things going on in the world.  And most things don't anymore!!


----------



## dbeyat45

Bullet-proof vests for guide dogs?


----------



## SifuPhil

I think there is a large difference between "blind" and "legally blind".

For instance, the Social Security Administration considers "legally blind" to be:



> ... if your vision cannot be corrected to better than 20/200 in your better eye, or if your visual field is 20 degrees or less in your better eye.



In essence, although you can be termed legally blind you can still see, and probably still see well enough to shoot the bad guys.


----------



## Sid

Does not a blind person have the same rights as the rest of us?


----------



## GDAD

Never Know, IOWA may issue driving licences to the same people.
"IF BEING BLIND I CAN OWN & POINT A GUN, WHY NOT A CAR"!


----------



## SifuPhil

Sid said:


> Does not a blind person have the same rights as the rest of us?



Not really.

Do you want to travel on a cross-country flight piloted by a blind person?

Do you want your surgeon to be blind?

It's a harsh fact of life, and goes against the common mantra of "We are all equal", but the fact is that we are _not_. The mania for enabling the handicapped aside, blind people should _not_ have the same rights by virtue of their handicap, because by granting those equal rights you're putting _others_ in jeopardy.


----------



## Happyflowerlady

Sid said:


> Does not a blind person have the same rights as the rest of us?



I can see  that we don't want any blind people out there being pilots or even driving a car, nor being our surgeon. 
I don't think that is likely to happen just because we do not allow physical defects to stop people from buying a firearm. 
However, I DO think this is another step to limit who can own a weapon. This is how the government always operates. They find a ridiculous example, and work from there. 
So, if we say that people with disabilities can't own a firearm, who will be next ?  

You know it is not because blind people are out  there in droves buying guns that this is made into an example. 
It is because this  helps gather support for a law stopping people with this kind of a disability from owning a gun. 

Then it will be another disability, and soon they will have a full blown law stopping people with ANY kind of disability from owning a firearm.


----------



## Jillaroo

_*It's not about rights it's commonsense, would you send your toddler out to play in the traffic*_


----------



## basefare

I don't think they issue driver's license to the blind, legally or completely. But why not, they've got rights. Sighted people are killing each other fast enough, the blind should not be issued gun permits, in my opinion. Our gun laws are just crazy.


----------



## Sid

SifuPhil said:


> Not really.
> 
> Do you want to travel on a cross-country flight piloted by a blind person?
> 
> Do you want your surgeon to be blind?
> 
> It's a harsh fact of life, and goes against the common mantra of "We are all equal", but the fact is that we are _not_. The mania for enabling the handicapped aside, blind people should _not_ have the same rights by virtue of their handicap, because by granting those equal rights you're putting _others_ in jeopardy.




   I thought the subject was the right of a blind person (any person) to own and carry a firearm. Nothing more and nothing less.
   We are not talking about flying or surgery.
   Just so folks know where I stand if you want a gun any gun go buy it. The only restriction being do you have enough money to pay for it.


----------



## Anne

Happyflowerlady said:


> However, I DO think this is another step to limit who can own a weapon. This is how the government always operates. They find a ridiculous example, and work from there.
> So, if we say that people with disabilities can't own a firearm, who will be next ?
> 
> You know it is not because blind people are out  there in droves buying guns that this is made into an example.
> It is because this  helps gather support for a law stopping people with this kind of a disability from owning a gun.
> 
> Then it will be another disability, and soon they will have a full blown law stopping people with ANY kind of disability from owning a firearm.



You said a mouthful there, Happyflowerlady!!!!   I believe that's certainly part of it....already, I've read that people who have *ever *had issues with depression should not be allowed to own a gun.   That was after one of the mass shootings somewhere; because he had been depressed, then we're supposed to think that anyone with depression is dangerous.
How many of us have not had a depressive episode in our lives at one time or another from losing a loved one, or going through a bad time???   Perhaps saw a doctor for help at the time??  It's considered a mental illness; and on the medical records.

What could be labelled a mental illness next??  PMS??  Nicotine withdrawal??   Sounds dumb, but who knows............


----------



## Sid

Jillaroo said:


> _*It's not about rights it's commonsense, would you send your toddler out to play in the traffic*_



     I disagree it is about rights. I do not know about Down Under but here there is no common sense when it comes to the needless burdens our government puts on its citizens.


----------



## Jillaroo

_*So you are saying that it is their right to have a gun and if they shoot and kill a poor innocent child or adult well that's bad luck but they did have the right to do, in my opinion a blind person is not capable of being able to shoot the gun and reach the target they have aimed for,put a blindfold on yourself and turn around a few times and then shoot and see if you got your target, bet you were miles off, they are judging by sound only and in my opinion it is down right dangerous to allow a blind person to have a gun*_


----------



## Sid

You make a good point HFL. 
    I was looking at it from the point as some people being restored a freedom.
    As I recall in the beginning only convicted felons were denied the right to own guns.


----------



## Sid

Jillaroo said:


> _*So you are saying that it is their right to have a gun and if they shoot and kill a poor innocent child or adult well that's bad luck but they did have the right to do, in my opinion a blind person is not capable of being able to shoot the gun and reach the target they have aimed for,put a blindfold on yourself and turn around a few times and then shoot and see if you got your target, bet you were miles off, they are judging by sound only and in my opinion it is down right dangerous to allow a blind person to have a gun*_


 
   I am saying all law abiding citizens of this country, blind people included, should have the unfettered right to own a gun and carry it on their person.  Maybe all they want is to have a gun for the feel. Maybe they feel the need for the comfort being able to defend themselves if the need arises. Many  blind people are more aware of their surroundings than many so called normal people.


----------



## Warrigal

Sid said:


> I thought the subject was the right of a blind person (any person) to own and carry a firearm. Nothing more and nothing less.
> We are not talking about flying or surgery.
> Just so folks know where I stand if you want a gun any gun go buy it. The only restriction being do you have enough money to pay for it.


It's not so much the owning and carrying a gun that worries me. It's loading it with bullets and discharging it anywhere else other than a firing range. In tis country every time a police officer fires a weapon there is an inquiry to see if that action was justified. Are civilians held to the same level of responsibility, and if not, why not?

Let the blind own and carry a gun if it pleases them but please don't let them point it at anyone when it is loaded.


----------



## Jambi

Jillaroo said:


> _*It's not about rights it's commonsense, would you send your toddler out to play in the traffic*_




Non sequitur.


----------



## Jambi

Warrigal said:


> Are civilians held to the same level of responsibility, and if not, why not?




Good question. Are you allowed to carry a pistol?


----------



## SifuPhil

Sid said:


> I thought the subject was the right of a blind person (any person) to own and carry a firearm. Nothing more and nothing less.
> We are not talking about flying or surgery.
> Just so folks know where I stand if you want a gun any gun go buy it. The only restriction being do you have enough money to pay for it.



Sorry Sid, but you're the one who came out with the sweeping generalization first. I was just replying to it. 

Let's put it this way, folks - you're having a friend over to your place and all of a sudden you're in the middle of a home invasion. Would you prefer that your friend is mentally stable, physically able and well-trained in the use of their firearm, or are you willing to settle on their simply having had the money to buy that firearm as their only qualification? On top of that, having handicaps that most probably will get you both killed? 

I'm sorry, but unlike other weapons a firearm is not just a force _extender_ - it's a force _multiplier_. That's what makes it so deadly. Anyone who jumps on the bandwagon of "I have rights!" and uses only that as their reason for owning a gun is a FAR more dangerous person than I would care to have next to me in a deadly-force scenario. I want someone who is sound in mind and body and well-trained in _combat_ shooting skills - not just going to the woods to plink at tin cans once a month. 

If you don't meet at _least_ those qualifications then you're more of a liability than an asset.


----------



## Sid

Warrigal said:


> It's not so much the owning and carrying a gun that worries me. It's loading it with bullets and discharging it anywhere else other than a firing range. In tis country every time a police officer fires a weapon there is an inquiry to see if that action was justified. Are civilians held to the same level of responsibility, and if not, why not?
> 
> Let the blind own and carry a gun if it pleases them but please don't let them point it at anyone when it is loaded.



   I am not sure just what you are asking. If I fire a gun be it shooting targets or hunting for food I am not investigated. If I shoot at a person or someone's property I will be investigated and if they think a crime has been committed I will be charged and have my day in court.  Does this answer your question?


----------



## Happyflowerlady

Jillaroo said:


> _*So you are saying that it is their right to have a gun and if they shoot and kill a poor innocent child or adult well that's bad luck but they did have the right to do, in my opinion a blind person is not capable of being able to shoot the gun and reach the target they have aimed for,put a blindfold on yourself and turn around a few times and then shoot and see if you got your target, bet you were miles off, they are judging by sound only and in my opinion it is down right dangerous to allow a blind person to have a gun*_



Jilly, as far as I know , we don't have ANY cases of blind shooters harming anyone. We have LOTS of cases of CRIMINALS shooting people, so that is where the focus needs to be. 
The actual issue here is NOT one of blind people going out with their guns and shooting people they can't see. 
Even the idea is ridiculous ! (People that CAN see likely will miss their target, even the police miss, and they are trained and can actually see.)
 We have had threads here about getting too old to drive safely, and pretty much we all agreed that when we are not physically capable of driving due to sight, or any other physical disability, we will stop driving. In exactly that same way' a blind person knows he is not safe to go out hunting, or using a gun, although they might still keep one beside their bed in case of a nighttime attacker.

The actual issue is that this is simply another ploy to take away the rights of legal, law-abiding citizens, and that is the part that has to be addressed. Once they start one disability as a reason not to have the right to own a gun, then they will soon be adding more reasons, until most of the older citizens, and many of our war veterans,  will be disqualified from their rights.
It has to be stopped now, before that car starts rolling down the hill.


----------



## Warrigal

Jambi said:


> Good question. Are you allowed to carry a pistol?


No I'm not unless I belong to a gun club or have a licence by virtue of my occupation.
Wanting to shoot someone is not a valid reason for acquiring a gun in this country.


----------



## Warrigal

Sid said:


> I am not sure just what you are asking. If I fire a gun be it shooting targets or hunting for food I am not investigated. If I shoot at a person or someone's property I will be investigated and if they think a crime has been committed I will be charged and have my day in court.  Does this answer your question?


Yes, it does. Thank you, Sid.


----------



## Jillaroo

HFL Wrote.
                The actual issue is that this is simply another ploy to take away the rights of legal, law-abiding citizens, and that is the part that has to be addressed. Once they start one disability as a reason not to have the right to own a gun, then they will soon be adding more reasons, until most of the older citizens, and many of our war veterans, will be disqualified from their rights.
It has to be stopped now, before that car starts rolling down the hill.

_*HFL I feel you need to understand that the authorities are not taking away the rights of the blind having a gun, in my opinion it is all about ensuring that whoever approaches the blind person be it a friend or it may be an innocent bystander will be safe if the blind person shoots, especially if the blind person is scared and justs shoots at any sound they hear. 
            I wear glasses but if i was blind there is no way i would want the Government to say it is my right even though you can't see a damn thing, i would tell them to take that right from me and any other blind person as it is just too dangerous to allow a blind person to be armed with a gun, even if they are wanting to protect themselves, get someone to walk with them if they are so worried so they feel more secure *_


----------



## Sid

SifuPhil said:


> Sorry Sid, but you're the one who came out with the sweeping generalization first. I was just replying to it.
> 
> Let's put it this way, folks - you're having a friend over to your place and all of a sudden you're in the middle of a home invasion. Would you prefer that your friend is mentally stable, physically able and well-trained in the use of their firearm, or are you willing to settle on their simply having had the money to buy that firearm as their only qualification? On top of that, having handicaps that most probably will get you both killed?
> 
> I'm sorry, but unlike other weapons a firearm is not just a force _extender_ - it's a force _multiplier_. That's what makes it so deadly. Anyone who jumps on the bandwagon of "I have rights!" and uses only that as their reason for owning a gun is a FAR more dangerous person than I would care to have next to me in a deadly-force scenario. I want someone who is sound in mind and body and well-trained in _combat_ shooting skills - not just going to the woods to plink at tin cans once a month.
> 
> If you don't meet at _least_ those qualifications then you're more of a liability than an asset.



  Phil, You are right. The problem as I see it is sometimes I come across as argueing when I want to discuss. I apoligize for what seems to be an attack.

   As for the rest of your statement I agree. 

   I believe the rights of the individual trumps being told you don't need this or you can't have that have that.

     I realize my rights stop where yours begin


----------



## SifuPhil

Sid said:


> Phil, You are right. The problem as I see it is sometimes I come across as argueing when I want to discuss. I apoligize for what seems to be an attack.
> 
> As for the rest of your statement I agree.
> 
> I believe the rights of the individual trumps being told you don't need this or you can't have that have that.
> 
> I realize my rights stop where yours begin



Aw, don't worry about it - I think we're both heading to the same place with this anyway. 

I'm in front of the crowd when it comes to preserving whatever rights we have left, and I staunchly believe in citizens being armed to the gills. What gives me pause is the ability of those citizens to responsibly _handle_ those weapons.

As the old saying goes - "The more I see of people, the more I like my dog". I see and read and hear and watch videos of people doing stupendously stupid things every day, and I don't know whether to think that it's the majority or just a twit-filled minority brought into the limelight by our precious media. 

But even ONE twit can ruin your day.

I rant on a regular basis about too much government control - heck, I own 5 websites dealing just with the legalization of marijuana and I sold 2 last year that were focused on urban preparedness / survival tactics, so you KNOW I'm a full-blown, tin-foil-hat-wearing Patriot (in the OLD sense of the word, not the NEW one).

So yeah, I'd say the same thing about guns that I say about driver's licenses - both deal with deadly weapons and both require a minimum amount of mental and physical ability to use them properly. The death tolls from both categories show that the vetting process is woefully inadequate, and I'm afraid I have to admit that I don't have any concrete solutions other than to increase the background checks / written and practical exams / psych evaluations (although THAT opens a huge can of worms, I know). 

I'm old-school enough that I think children should BE children until they're adults, adults should spend most of their time ACTING like adults and that it IS possible to achieve peace through superior firepower.


----------



## Sid

Jillaroo, If I maybutt in. It is not up to the government to give us rights. We already have them. It is up to them to ensure those rights are not taken away from us. Given the situation you describe I would stop exercising my right to drive or whatever but I don't intend to let them be taken away from me.
  With rights comes responsibility, and what you describe is a responsible action.

   I want you and others to know I appreciate the way you guys have responded to this disscussion in a non hateful way and I hope I have done the same, it certainley was my intention to be civil. I gave up on trying to appear intelligent a log time ago so I don't expect to come across that way.

  I think I have found a neat place to hang out and don't want to wear out my welcome so good night all .


----------



## Sid

Good night Phil enjoyed the chat.


----------



## Diwundrin

Rats!  I got interrupted mid ramble and the discussion has passed way by and has probably been rendered redundant, but .....

Seriously, doesn't the fact that PCness has eroded our reason  to the extent that we are discussing blind people's rights to own guns and drive cars as a normal topic of conversation  make us wonder where horse sense went?

There are rights.  And then there are limitations.  Abrogating the rights to a reasonable degree of comfort and safety of the majority to accommodate the often unnecessary rights of the very few merely to enable their avoidance of accepting their limitations is not PCness, it's lunacy.

The paranoia that Government is manipulating us may be very well founded, but remember that PCness, in the guise of 'rights' is also a very insidious manipulation of our minds.  A far more dangerous one than brute force.

It's eating away at our basic common sense and turning us from the benefactors into the servants of those who can't compete.   
What was a kindness to those less well off has now become a guilt trip for not being 'disabled' ourselves. 
 What was seen as offering a fair and equal opportunity is now seen a right for the less  qualified to be preferred. 
People who were obviously nuts were locked up where they couldn't hurt themselves or others, not given a bottle of pills and turned loose to exercise their rights to do just that.

This is not just about guns, that's a symptom, not a cause.

Why do kids seem so dumb these days?  They know all about climate change and whale hugging and wax philosophical about gay marriage the rights of everyone but their parents,  but can't scratch their backsides without an instruction manual, find China on a map, or know which end of a nail to hammer into a rickety fence.  

We had a young political candidate, short lived in the appointment, who  stated some garble about refugees from the "Country of Islam".  DOH! and you thought Sarah Palin missed school?!  What the hell was our silly wench being  taught?

... anyway, enougha dat.  The big bad '_They_' are eroding our rights, no doubt about it, eroding the right to think logically for ourselves!
The right to make our own decisions as to the balance between rights and responsibilities. The right to sometimes say NO.

 I have to ask myself how considerate of my rights is a blind man who demands to be allowed to threaten me with a gun?  What does he consider his responsibility to the safety of others to be??  
Has he taken a moment to even think about what responsibilities his limitations entail, or just reacted to that good old PC ' my rights' knee jerk?

Just wonderin'.


----------



## Happyflowerlady

_"I have to ask myself how considerate of my rights is a blind man who demands to be allowed to threaten me with a gun? What does he consider his responsibility to the safety of others to be?? __Has he taken a moment to even think about what responsibilities his limitations entail, or just reacted to that good old PC ' my rights' knee jerk?"

_Di , I can totally see where you are coming from with this perspective , and believe me, neither myself, or anyone else living here in America wants to be threatened by someone with a gun, blind or otherwise ! 

I think the difference in how we look at this issue pretty much comes down to two things: 
The first one is that you, and the other Aussies, live in a country where gun ownership is forbidden, and looked down on; so the whole perception of someone having a gun is different to start with. 
Whereas, here in America, people have owned, and often carried guns right from the start of this country, and the perception for many years was that a man wasn't dressed until he had strapped on his gun. 
When I was in school, all of the country boys wore knives in their belt. They used them for farm chores. No one even worried about it, because it was never an issue.

The second thing is the picture of Americans that goes out to other countries. Even though there are thousands of responsible gun owners here, the ones that make international news are the sickos, and the hardened criminals. Movies and TV shows a very different view than what is actually going on here in America. 
We are not all "gun-totin' cowboys" any more than all of you Aussies have kangaroos hopping around in your yards and all over your cities.

We don't want to go out and threaten people with our guns. We just want to have them in our closets in case of emergency. Our very Constitution gives us the right to own and bear arms, and we don't like our rights threatened, but that does not mean that we don't have sense enough to know when we are not healthy enough to drive, or shoot a gun. No one is going down the street with a gun, much less blind people.  Just the criminals, and we put them in prison when we catch them.


----------



## Warrigal

Does it follow then that I, as a foreign visitor to your country am in mortal peril because I am not allowed to carry a gun?
Seriously, it makes sense to me that if you have a problem with criminals then the solution should be to work on that issue, not to arm everyone for self protection.

We have criminals too, you know. Heck, we began as a penal colony.


----------



## Old Hipster

Warrigal said:


> Does it follow then that I, as a foreign visitor to your country am in mortal peril because I am not allowed to carry a gun?
> Seriously, it makes sense to me that if you have a problem with criminals then the solution should be to work on that issue, not to arm everyone for self protection.
> 
> We have criminals too, you know. Heck, we began as a penal colony.


It seems so simple doesn't it. But somethings not working right for us!

I can't think of hardly anybody we know who isn't well armed at home and some even packing heat when they go out. Anybody can get a concealed weapons permit if you aren't a felon. At least in our state. 
A lot of us sleep better with a gun in our nightstands. Sad isn't it!


----------



## TICA

It appears to me that different countries and even perhaps different States, have different opinions on gun ownership.  We have quite a lot of hunters who of course own rifles but as far as I know, only police or the people who need firearms as a part of their job are allowed to carry a gun in public.   There seems to be more and more shootings in the city and we hear on the news where the cops pulled over a car for something and found firearms.  Those people are charged immediately.  I can only imagine what would happen if they were made legal.  Anyone without a record could get one, I suspect there would be a surge of robberies where they would end up in the wrong hands and the cycle would begin.

No thanks.   Keep them illegal and let the trained professionals carry the firearms.  I have an axe in my bedroom for protection, but have never had to use it and doubt I ever will. lol My crazy dogs would scare the pants off a robber and that works for me.

As for blind people being allowed to carry firearms -  crazy!!!   Hopefully they'll also have to alert police, fire and ambulance drivers so that if there was an emergency, those first responders are aware and can duck or at the very least, not be worried about getting their head blown off because the person they are trying to help, thinks they are robbers.

I just don't get the logic.


----------



## littleowl

Last week in England a man was stopped for erratic driving.

The Police could not believe it when the man got out of the car with a white walking stick. He was registered as blind.
The Magistrate took his license away for 6 months.


----------



## That Guy

Support Your Right To Arm Bears!


----------



## Anne

TICA said:


> It appears to me that different countries and even perhaps different States, have different opinions on gun ownership.  We have quite a lot of hunters who of course own rifles but as far as I know, only police or the people who need firearms as a part of their job are allowed to carry a gun in public.   There seems to be more and more shootings in the city and we hear on the news where the cops pulled over a car for something and found firearms.  Those people are charged immediately.  I can only imagine what would happen if they were made legal.  Anyone without a record could get one, I suspect there would be a surge of robberies where they would end up in the wrong hands and the cycle would begin.
> 
> No thanks.   Keep them illegal and let the trained professionals carry the firearms.  I have an axe in my bedroom for protection, but have never had to use it and doubt I ever will. lol My crazy dogs would scare the pants off a robber and that works for me.
> 
> As for blind people being allowed to carry firearms -  crazy!!!   Hopefully they'll also have to alert police, fire and ambulance drivers so that if there was an emergency, those first responders are aware and can duck or at the very least, not be worried about getting their head blown off because the person they are trying to help, thinks they are robbers.
> 
> I just don't get the logic.



An axe Tica; really??   I would be afraid someone stronger could get that away from me, since you couldn't use it until they were fairly close to you.    There is a pepper spray you can buy that law enforcement uses; it's a gel, and not only stings immediately, but can't be rubbed off very easily, so would disable someone longer than a regular spray.   

Another thing I've read about is the wasp spray you can get for spraying wasp nests.  It sprays for a distance so you don't have to get close to the nest, and again, would be effective if you aim for the eyes.
I heard that it could potentially blind someone, but if that happens, well, I guess they shouldn't have broken in or attacked in the first place.


----------



## GDAD

littleowl said:


> Last week in England a man was stopped for erratic driving.
> 
> The Police could not believe it when the man got out of the car with a white walking stick. He was registered as blind.
> The Magistrate took his license away for 6 months.



For being blind OR for erratic driving? :rofl:


----------



## GDAD

After starting this, I was quite amazed at the diverse response of all. Here In Australia we can't understand the American gun laws.
We are not permitted to carry firearms. 
In Sydney, Australia where I live there is a spate of isolated drive by shootings.
The police have been raiding Bikie Gangs (hells Angels Commocharos etc).They seem to be having a TIT for TAT
shootings at each others residence. There have been a few more businesses robbed in armed holdups lately.
Generally it is a very peaceful City. So if your thinking of a holiday...Come & Enjoy yourselves.....Cheers!


----------



## rkunsaw

GDAD said:


> After starting this, I was quite amazed at the diverse response of all. Here In Australia we can't understand the American gun laws.
> We are not permitted to carry firearms.
> In Sydney, Australia where I live there is a spate of isolated drive by shootings.
> The police have been raiding Bikie Gangs (hells Angels Commocharos etc).They seem to be having a TIT for TAT
> shootings at each others residence. There have been a few more businesses robbed in armed holdups lately.
> Generally it is a very peaceful City. So if your thinking of a holiday...Come & Enjoy yourselves.....Cheers!



So law abiding citizens aren't allowed to have guns but biker gangs can?


----------



## SifuPhil

Anne said:


> An axe Tica; really??   I would be afraid someone stronger could get that away from me, since you couldn't use it until they were fairly close to you.    There is a pepper spray you can buy that law enforcement uses; it's a gel, and not only stings immediately, but can't be rubbed off very easily, so would disable someone longer than a regular spray.



I agree that an axe is a somewhat questionable choice of self-defense weapon, especially for indoors. By the time you do your wind-up with it the bad guy can be on top of you, and its limiting factor is that it is only as powerful and quick as the person wielding it, whereas a firearm is just point-and-shoot.

Pepper spray indoors is also problematic - it's easy for it to "bounce" back onto the defender. Although the gel is slightly better in that regard it's still something that you need to be focused enough and accurate enough to deliver into your attacker's face.

A Mossberg 12-ga. with a 20" barrel is perhaps one of the best indoor fire-and-forget weapons you can own. No aiming down the barrel - just point in the proper direction and pull the trigger.



> Another thing I've read about is the wasp spray you can get for spraying wasp nests.  It sprays for a distance so you don't have to get close to the nest, and again, would be effective if you aim for the eyes.
> I heard that it could potentially blind someone, but if that happens, well, I guess they shouldn't have broken in or attacked in the first place.



I agree that they shouldn't have attacked in the first place, but the odds are good that their lawyer is going to convince the court that you were carrying a lethal weapon, whereas with pepper spray it is acknowledged as a non-lethal one.

A big part of self-defense is knowing not only how to hurt the bad guy but also how to protect yourself, physically and legally. It's a fine line, and unfortunately wasp spray crosses over it.


----------



## Happyflowerlady

Many, many years ago, when my kids were small, I had an experience that had me putting the axe beside my bed, too.
At about  2 in the morning, the phone rang, and the caller told me he was at the scene of a serious accident, and the injured person gave him my number to call, and that they were taking him to the hospital. The vehicle description seemed to match for either my husband, or my oldest son, but the caller was pretty vague with more details, just that I needed to get to the hospital. 
I took my son along with me, but Robin was fast asleep in my bed, so I left her asleep, and Mike and I rushed to the hospital, only to find no one had been brought in from a car accident. The police told me that burglars often used this tactic to get people out of the house while they burglarized the place.
Greatly alarmed by then, we rushed back home, even faster than we had gone getting to the hospital  ! 
The house looked fine, Robin was still fast asleep, but I wasn't about to go downstairs and investigate the cellar; so I just blocked it shut with a solid chair, and took the axe to bed with me. 
It wasn't much, admittedly, but it was about the only thing I had at that point that might work if someone broke into the house. 

It turned out that it was one of the druggies that my husband was involved with (they didn't much like me ! ), and this was their idea of a funny joke, but I didn't find that out for a few days until my husband came home again, and they told him when he was over there buying his drugs, what fun they had scaring me.

WhileI was relieved to learn that it was not a real threat, I was still pretty mad about it for a really long time !


----------



## SifuPhil

Happyflowerlady said:


> ...While I was relieved to learn that it was not a real threat, I was still pretty mad about it for a really long time !



Now THAT'S when you need the axe - when you go to THEIR house afterwards and chop up their front door. 

At that point I've always made it a custom - a sort of ritual good-luck charm - to stick my face into the hole and say:

"*Heeeeeeeeeerrrrrrreeeee's Johnny!*" layful:


----------



## Happyflowerlady

SifuPhil said:


> Now THAT'S when you need the axe - when you go to THEIR house afterwards and chop up their front door.
> 
> At that point I've always made it a custom - a sort of ritual good-luck charm - to stick my face into the hole and say:
> 
> "*Heeeeeeeeeerrrrrrreeeee's Johnny!*" layful:



AMEN to that one Sifu !  
Where were YOU when I needed you ?


----------



## GDAD

rkunsaw said:


> So law abiding citizens aren't allowed to have guns but biker gangs can?



No one except Police can legally carry a firearm in Australia. 
In America you have to have a permit to legally own a gun, still there are lots of people who illegally carry & 
who illegally own firearms!


----------



## Sid

GDAD said:


> No one except Police can legally carry a firearm in Australia.
> !



    You have one group of people who can carry a firearm,the police. 
    The rest of the population can not. 
    Does that worry you.


----------



## Jillaroo

_It certainly doesn't worry me as they are the Law enforcement , i don't feel the need to be armed_


----------



## Warrigal

I'm happy to see our police armed but I do keep my distance from them because the very sight of the gun disturbs me a little bit.
It reminds me that these officers are trained to face very difficult situations and I don't want to distract them unnecessarily.


----------



## GDAD

Sid said:


> You have one group of people who can carry a firearm,the police.
> The rest of the population can not.
> Does that worry you.



It would worry me more if any nutters that lived close by had guns.
As I said before The worry is those both here & in America(under both our laws) who ILLEGALLY OWN & USE FIREARMS.
 I seen an article while reading all thes postings of a 3 year old girl in America that got hold of a fire arm & shot herself!

DOES THIS WORRY YOU!!!!!


----------



## SeaBreeze

I think that blind people should be allowed to exercise their right to have a gun for their own personal protection.  They are not going to go running down the street shooting wildly at every shadow, that's absurd.  But, if they're alone in their house, and a criminal comes in to do them bodily harm, they should definitely be allowed to pull their gun and shoot that person.  If they're being grabbed by the throat and punched in the face, they absolutely should be able to pull a gun from their waistband and kill the offender before they kill him.

My husband used to be away for several weeks at a time, and left me at home with a loaded gun.  If someone was to break in and try to rape me, beat me, kill me, or all of the above, I would at least have a fighting chance to save myself.  We've had that gun ready and loaded for forty years now, and have not yet needed to use it.  Why should a blind person, who's considered an easy target anyway by scumbags, be totally helpless in the area of self defense?


----------



## Diwundrin

rkunsaw said:


> So law abiding citizens aren't allowed to have guns but biker gangs can?


 

:lofl:  Sounds that way doesn't it?  Not so. They're all illegal guns and we don't have enough cops to hit them all at once so no way of stopping a certain amount of that happening.   Actually it's not such a bad thing so far, they're only killing off each other, don't recall any innocent bystanders getting hit lately.  All good.

Some mentioned guns being 'forbidden' here.. nup, far from it, just a lot more restricted and needing a bit more work put into owning one than buying it from a road side stall that's all.... Hand guns harder still.  You actually have to prove that you need it for something useful here, like hunting, feral pests on farms or target sport.  Just wanting to wave it about to impress the neighbours doesn't cut it.
 Semi autos etc are banned. Hunting rifles and farm grade fox eye removers are not all that hard for rural dwellers and hunters to get legally. Securing them is the bigger PIA. They have to be kept in gun safes which makes it awkward if you're in a hurry to break up a feral dog pack getting stuck into the sheep or something. siiiigh.

As for "looking down on" gun owners, that's only a city thing.  Only a clown with a gun OTT for his needs would raise an eyebrow in the rural regions.  They're not so much a bragging/status symbol thing here that's all.  A poor shot with a fancy rifle would be viewed much the same a puny loser owning a Pitbull,  as having adequacy issues that's all.


----------



## Diwundrin

A thought has just occurred to me of something that should have been blatantly obvious to explain our different cultural reactions to the gun law issue.  Fear factor.

It keeps recurring in posts that people are afraid in their own homes hence their affiliation with guns as protection.  
We lock the doors and windows, and might keep some really sharp scissors next to the bed but no one I know is really living in the expectation of being accosted by burglars.  It happens of course, but we don't live in constant fear of it.  
The thought of sleeping with a .45 under the pillow is something which to my knowledge has never occurred to anyone I know.

Our crime rate is probably per capita on a par with the US but that fear in our own homes complex never took hold here. 
At least not among the older Australians, 'new' cultures seem to have a different view on it, but that's another argument.

I have no idea if it's the fear that fuels the need for guns, or if it's the perceived need of the guns which fuels the fear.

I am however thankful that it's not our problem.  It's not a great way to have to live.  



Oh, and we never entertain the thought that our own Government might roll out the tanks to impose martial law on us. 
 They couldn't organize a raffle let alone a military coup.


----------



## Warrigal

I'm with Di on the fear factor. I don't anticipate violence in my own home from strangers. When someone rings the door bell I open it to see who is there and the wire door is never snibbed, let alone locked. The only thing beside my bed at night is the alarm clock.

I live in a part of Sydney where drive by shootings are not uncommon but as Di says it all seems to be criminals shooting at each other. Even so I don't feel unsafe, day or night.

When I was a young woman with children and my husband went away with his work I simply brought the dog into the house at night instead of bedding her down in the laundry. It helped me to sleep easier because I let her be my ears when I slept. She was just a pet sheep dog but she would have made quite a racket.

From the outside it sometimes seem to us that the US must be engaged in a civil war but my experience of about 5 weeks driving around the west and a visit to New York is that it is just as safe as anywhere else. Mind you that was back in Reagan's era, before the NRA became a lobby group for gun manufacturers and sellers rather than recreational hunters.

Whatever happened to "In God we trust" ?


----------



## Jackie22

A blind person carrying a gun.....what could possibly go wrong? 

The fear factor most definitely plays a part here....it is put in place and pushed by the NRA and their corporate masters.


----------



## TICA

Anne said:


> An axe Tica; really??



No, not really!   I have an axe in the living room but that is solely to chop wood for the fireplace and even then, I've never used it and should put it in the basement.

I do lock the doors at night but not because I'm worried that someone will enter the house, it's because we have very smart racoons in the area and I don't want them coming in.  lol

I really don't worry about being robbed.  I have two mean looking dogs that would probably lick someone to death, but they sure as hell would bark their brains out if someone was fooling around the house and if someone was actually attacking me, I trust they would take a chunk out of them.   In reality, chances are pretty slim it would ever happen so I don't worry about it.

I know Phil, that you will say "be prepared" and that's a great way to think, but I can't be prepared for every "what if", so I'll worry about the things that could actually happen.


----------



## That Guy




----------



## Jambi

Warrigal said:


> Wanting to shoot someone is not a valid reason for acquiring a gun in this country.



Not sure what that statement means.


----------



## Jambi

Jillaroo said:


> _*HFL I feel you need to understand that the authorities are not taking away the rights of the blind having a gun, in my opinion it is all about ensuring that whoever approaches the blind person be it a friend or it may be an innocent bystander will be safe if the blind person shoots, especially if the blind person is scared and justs shoots at any sound they hear.
> I wear glasses but if i was blind there is no way i would want the Government to say it is my right even though you can't see a damn thing, i would tell them to take that right from me and any other blind person as it is just too dangerous to allow a blind person to be armed with a gun, even if they are wanting to protect themselves, get someone to walk with them if they are so worried so they feel more secure *_




What a novel mindset that feels safer when the gov takes rights from them.

I'll tell you what, you take care of your blind friends, and I'll take care of mine.


----------



## Jillaroo

_*Whatever!!*_


----------



## Jambi

Jillaroo said:


> _It certainly doesn't worry me as they are the Law enforcement , i don't feel the need to be armed_






			
				Jillaroo; said:
			
		

> _They are blue-blooded nobility, and I am merely a peasant. Provided this master/slave relationship continues to be taught by the schools and the media maintains this facade , i don't feel the need to be armed_



Remember, when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.


----------



## SeaBreeze

Jambi said:


> Remember, when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.



Very true, dialing 911 and waiting for the police to arrive is not always an option.  To the point of the thread, a blind person should also have the same opportunity to save his own life if necessary, the criminal will want to get in and out as quickly as possible.


----------



## Jambi

> In America you have to have a permit to legally own a gun



False. You do not need a permit to legally own a gun.


----------



## Jambi

SeaBreeze said:


> Very true, dialing 911 and waiting for the police to arrive is not always an option.  To the point of the thread, a blind person should also have the same opportunity to save his own life if necessary, the criminal will want to get in and out as quickly as possible.



I'm also willing to bet a 'blind' person is a much better shot in the dark than someone who relies on their eyes for everything.

Ray Charles rode a motorcycle; in traffic, no less.


----------



## Jillaroo

Quote Originally Posted by Jillaroo;
They are blue-blooded nobility, and I am merely a peasant. Provided this master/slave relationship continues to be taught by the schools and the media maintains this facade , i don't feel the need to be armed


*Jambi i don't know where you found these words but they certainly aren't mine*


----------



## That Guy

Guns are such a hot topic.  I might have said this before but feel like repeating it.  I never touched a firearm until Uncle Sam handed me an M16 at 18.  I learned how to use it well and have never touched another firearm since.  I do not care for guns but care much less for a government that wants to deny my and your right to own one.  

As far as a blind guy with a gun . . . just stay behind him...


----------



## Warrigal

Jambi said:


> Not sure what that statement means.



I think I mean this - if I carry a loaded gun in my handbag when I go shopping I am probably thinking that is I feel threatened by someone I will take it out and shoot at them. I may or may not hit the target. I may hit an unintended target. That is very different to being a security guard who is trained to assess a threat and take appropriate action. He can have a licence because of his job and his training. Quite properly IMO I, as a somewhat timid shopper, should not have one. 

PS I'm not really timid and I don't want a loaded gun in my handbag. I'm much too careless about where I leave it lying around. I, and everyone around me, is much safer if I am unarmed. Really.


----------



## Diwundrin

> Quote Originally Posted by Jambi View Post
> *What a novel mindset that feels safer when the gov takes rights from them.
> *
> I'll tell you what, you take care of your blind friends, and I'll take care of mine.




That depends on the value of the rights Jambi. We burr up over ones we care about, like a recent half hearted foray into limiting the freedom of the press. But we didn't have to throw rocks about it, we just had to grumble loudly, mostly on talk back radio, and the Government got the message and backed off. Very civilized affair.

So was the gun buy-back. There was enough sense in it for the vast majority to go along with it, and despite the insulting gesture of the PM appearing in public in a bullet proof vest, not a shot was fired over it. The only ammunition expended was cardboard placards and a few catcalls... but his stupid vest protected him.
We don't do assassinations as a rule either, except at the ballot box.

We invented 'laid-back'. We don't need to stand up to swat flies.
But if we do feel something's important enough to fight for, and have to get up, we make it worth the while.

Many rights are more anachronistic traditions rather than relevant to current circumstances. Many more new ones are OTT brainsnaps that make things more complicated than they need be.
Just because something made perfect sense 200 years ago doesn't make it still a great idea, any more than new ones are necessarily 'better' just because they're new. Society changes, some of the rights that keep civilization viable need to change with it.

As mentioned, we're not unduly paranoid about our Government's totalitarian agendas, I doubt it even ever occurs to them, we just worry about their competence to balance a budget.

We're not geared like that, perhaps because our history was very different to yours.
The last time I can recall the Gummint turning the troops loose on civilians here was when the gold miners went on strike back in the 1800s over taxes, and that was more a short brawl than a battle, and I can't even remember who won.
(...and Warri will no doubt point out that I probably even got that wrong.)

We don't fear our own Government, just other people's, and we have an army for that.


----------



## SeaBreeze

Warrigal, I don't think that anyone should carry a gun unless they are comfortable with it, and trained to use it.  I don't carry one outside of the home, unless when I'm camping in the wilderness.  If I did carry one, someone would have to be up on me to use it, like the vet that was beaten to death by those two thugs with flashlights.  Would have been nice if he had a concealed carry in his waistband.

I don't like the idea of people carrying around guns and leaving them in their cars or purses.  I did work a graveyard shift all alone in a big warehouse in a bad neighborhood for a couple of nights, and I carried a pistol in a holster on me to use if needed.  I'm calm enough not to panic and react if not necessary.


----------



## Jambi

Diwundrin said:


> We don't fear our own Government, just other people's, and we have an army for that.



It's good that you don't fear your government, but why do they fear you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Japanese_invasion_of_Australia_during_World_War_II

VS

Admiral Yamamoto famously said "You cannot invade the mainland  United States. There would be a man with a rifle behind every blade of  grass."


----------



## Sid

" But if we do feel something's important enough to fight for, and have to get up, we make it worth the while."

       It seems we are a lot alike in that respect. Just have different things to fight for.

       "Society changes, some of the rights that keep civilization viable need to change with it."

        I am not so sure about that, seems mankind has always had those who want to ride roughshod over others.

        Why do rights that keep civilation viable need to change?


----------



## Sid

Warrigal said:


> I think I mean this - if I carry a loaded gun in my handbag when I go shopping I am probably thinking that is I feel threatened by someone I will take it out and shoot at them. I may or may not hit the target. I may hit an unintended target. That is very different to being a security guard who is trained to assess a threat and take appropriate action. He can have a licence because of his job and his training. Quite properly IMO I, as a somewhat timid shopper, should not have one.
> 
> PS I'm not really timid and I don't want a loaded gun in my handbag. I'm much too careless about where I leave it lying around. I, and everyone around me, is much safer if I am unarmed. Really.



   I will agree You should not have one and respect your decision and will never try to force you to carry one.
   Why is it that you and others seem to want to try to keep me from having one.


----------



## Diwundrin

I see that 'fear factor' is a strong force in your argument Jambi but who or what is generating it?

What  exactly is making you all so jumpy about gun laws and Governments?  Is it really about the 'rights', or about the emotional attachment to the gun's macho image, or something else again?  I've known plenty of Americans who never think much about, or mention guns, but it seems to be a touchy subject to poke at for some.  

Believe it or not I see good points from both sides of the argument, but the circumstances are different there to here so the same points don't apply equally to both cultures.

There's a difference between caution and fear and we go with caution which has been enough for us.  We really should just butt out of US gun laws but they hold a bewildering fascination for us.  We should get over that and shut up I think.

What Wiki's version of WWII has to do with this discussion eludes me so I'll let that go through to the keeper and take my own advice.


----------



## Warrigal

Jambi said:


> It's good that you don't fear your government, but why do they fear you?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Japanese_invasion_of_Australia_during_World_War_II
> 
> VS
> 
> Admiral Yamamoto famously said "You cannot invade the mainland  United States. There would be a man with a rifle behind every blade of  grass."


I'm not sure what your link was supposed to be illustrating. From the mid 1800s Australians have feared invasion from the north - code name "yellow peril". After WW I when we sent such a high proportion of our young adult males to defend the British Empire and lost so many of them there was a push to encourage all young men to learn to handle a rifle and we have always had some form of voluntary Citizen Military (CMF). For this reason we had plenty of volunteers ready for WW II. My dad and his brothers were some of them. Our troops have been part of every military operation going since the Boer War with the exception of the Falklands.  But that is war, not normal life in peacetime.

IMO guns are either a tool for culling and hunting animals or they are a necessary evil for some dangerous professions. I don't believe society is made safer by having a gun in every home, and I don't understand the thinking that says "it's my right to carry a gun so I'm going to exercise that right. My mum would have said "you have the right to put your head in the oven, but why would you want to do that?" I'm with Mum.


----------



## Warrigal

Sid said:


> I will agree You should not have one and respect your decision and will never try to force you to carry one.
> Why is it that you and others seem to want to try to keep me from having one.


Sid, I don't want to stop you from owning a gun. Hunting aside, I just don't understand why you want to.
However, if you venture across the Pacific to this country, I definitely don't want you to bring your guns with you.


----------



## Sid

Warrigal,  I admit I had the impression you were one who wanted all guns abolished.
        I grew up we hunted and fished a lot for food. No we would not have starved but we learned independance and did not need to go to the store for everything.  Today we have people trying to stop hunting and fishing. But I like some wild game amd would like to teach my Grandkids how to hunt and fish if the need arises.  To me hunting and fishing is a survival skill not a sport. I would like to pass those skills on.
        On occasion I have had to kill wild animals to protect my livestock or put down an injured animal. It has become so expensive to have a butchershop process meat for us so we plan to start doing our own. 
        I like to shoot at targets. To some this is a waste. A tool(yes I call a gun a tool) needs to be checked and kept in working condition. If I do not practice when I need to use it the chances are greater that I will miss.
         As for the fear factor,with me there is none. I do not fear fire but I take precautions and am ready to act in case the need comes up. Just the same as self defense, I do not fear burglars rapist dopers or whatever but I take precautions and try to be ready to act if need be.  I do not think a burglar needs to be shot but come after my family or loved ones I will do whatever it takes, shooting to kill will be the last resort.
          As for visiting your country, Australia is the first I would like to visit. But don't worry my guns will stay home.


----------



## Diwundrin

> Sid:
> I grew up we hunted and fished a lot for food. No we would not have  starved but we learned independance and did not need to go to the store  for everything.  Today we have people trying to stop hunting and  fishing. But I like some wild game amd would like to teach my Grandkids  how to hunt and fish if the need arises.  To me hunting and fishing is a  survival skill not a sport. I would like to pass those skills on.
> On occasion I have had to kill wild animals to protect my  livestock or put down an injured animal. It has become so expensive to  have a butchershop process meat for us so we plan to start doing our  own......
> 
> snip...............As for visiting your country, Australia is the first I would like to visit. But don't worry my guns will stay home.



Drop in when you make it down here Sid, I have a cousin you'd enjoy a chat with who shared an almost identical upbringing and shares the same attitude to rifles.  He's on the land too, cattle usually, none at present, not enough dosh in it, but will again when prices pick up.  He has a butchery set up on the property and shoots and butchers his own when he's got them and buys one on the hoof from a neighbour when he gets low on beef.  He could give you some tips about that.

We're not all namby pamby no-gun nancies down here, nor are we all horrified by guns.  It's usually city people who think banning them is a great idea because they've never seen a feral animal ripping up their pets or livestock.  
We simply seem to have a very much more pragmatic attitude to guns to those we see on News grabs from the US.
Guns don't hold any real symbolism to us, of rights, status or anything much except if someone's got one who doesn't need it he must be a crim. 

Most of us are aware that what we see on News grabs is the extremes of behaviour.  A lot of that is down to the bias of the journos, but it does give us a bewildering impression of how things really are in the States.

 I sit on the fence when it comes to guns, I've owned a rifle but got over the novelty of blowing cans off fence posts and sold it without hesitation or regret.  If I hadn't already sold it before the buy-back, I'd have handed it in with no compunction....simply  because I didn't need it.

It's the extremes of reaction that any mention of restriction triggers (excuse the pun) over there and the instant stance that it's all about 'rights' rather than logic that fascinates me.

...whoops, sorry I was going to shut up wasn't I?


----------



## SifuPhil

What our Aussie friends have to remember is that the media is not _us_.

The media profits from broadcasting fear-mongering - it creates a rich market for the negative news that sells so well. But it isn't representative of ALL or even MOST of us. Granted, there's a question whether the crazy minority is growing larger but unlike what he newscasts tell you they haven't taken over yet, except in very small geographic areas such as inner cities. 

So yes, the manufactured fear factor is one aspect of gun ownership here. After every mass shooting by one maniac there is a rush to purchase arms. Who knows, it might be a conspiracy with the gun manufacturers.

We also, as a country, used to have the idea that we were safe in our homes. Unfortunately this is one publicly-reported fact that is true. You ARE a target for home-based crime, whether it is home invasion, domestic violence, burglary or a slew of other possibilities. People tell how they always leave their doors unlocked - what I always question is, WHY? Why tempt fate? Why decrease the odds of being safe just because you're too lazy to turn a lock? 

Those days are gone here, no matter WHERE you are, as evidenced by the common exclamation by neighbors to a crime scene - "Oh, things like this just don't HAPPEN here!"

Yeah, they do. Get used to it. It's a new world now. 

Returning to our original question, I still do not understand what a blind person would do with a gun. A firearm is meant to be used at a distance, not when your attacker is choking you or has you in a bear hug. By that point it's too late. 

And a blind person cannot SEE into that distance, even though it's 10 feet away. Spray-and-pray? Hope I'm not in the vicinity when they do. 

Yes, they have the right to own a gun. I just don't see the possibility of using it effectively.


----------



## Jambi

Sid said:


> As for the fear factor,with me there is none. I do not fear fire but I take precautions and am ready to act in case the need comes up. .



Well put.

I don't fear driving, but I wear my seatbelt.

I don't fear riding a motorcycle, but I wear my protective gear when I do. _'Roadrash is Forever'_

I lock my doors when I leave my house.

I do not fear fire. I have two fireplaces and five fire extinguishers.

I have a friend who's wife was kidnapped and raped when she was young. She carries a .38 now. When dining with some friends (they are vegetarians), one of the people attending the dinner was shocked to learn she carried. "Wow Pam! you're a vegetarian and you carry a gun? I cannot believe you'd actually kill someone!!"

Her reply was priceless................................ wait for it..................................



"Joan, until you've been abducted and raped, you cannot comment on this, besides..................................






......................................._I'm not going to eat them"_ :love_heart:


----------



## Jambi

SifuPhil said:


> Returning to our original question, I still do not understand what a blind person would do with a gun. A firearm is meant to be used at a distance, not when your attacker is choking you or has you in a bear hug. By that point it's too late.



Gotta disagree, Phil.  MANY times when a firearm is used to save an innocent life, a scuffle has ensued first. 

Perhaps Kreskin was able to shoot his would be attacker before an altercation, but he would be a special case, no?


----------



## Jambi

Warrigal said:


> IMO guns are either a tool for culling and hunting animals or they are a necessary evil for some dangerous professions..




Guns are not evil, guns are an inanimate object. They certainly can be used for evil, but they can also be used for good. 

If you are an evil person, it's best you don't have one. Likewise, why would somebody mind if their good neighbor was armed?

Then there is the tired argument about how virtuous police officers are, but the number of crimes committed by police officers is many.

It all boils down to a few things IMHO; Locus of control, belief in good, minimal fear, and lack of brainwashing.


----------



## GDAD

From my original posting this is getting out of hand:
When I ask about giving a blind person a Gun Licence, I just couldn't believe it.
On the lighter side, it's like giving a deaf person a set of headphones to listen to a stereo!
To people who have never been brought up with guns all around them, IT IS SERIOUS.
So friends lighten up we are all here to have a good discussion not world war 3.
I think everyone is far past what the original posted subject was!!!!..........Gordon.......Cheers!


----------



## SifuPhil

Jambi said:


> Gotta disagree, Phil.  MANY times when a firearm is used to save an innocent life, a scuffle has ensued first.
> 
> Perhaps Kreskin was able to shoot his would be attacker before an altercation, but he would be a special case, no?









I guarantee you that when you are being choked out, either arterial or oxygen, your first thought is not going to be drawing your firearm ...


----------



## Diwundrin

So let's get this straight Phil.  That move only works for honest people right?  Crims will never learn that trick to disarm the righteous citizen protecting his home and family and blow his head off with it??  Betcha it would never work on that blind man.



I think I'm getting the hang of this... but then again...   






:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## Diwundrin

GDAD said:


> From my original posting this is getting out of hand:
> When I ask about giving a blind person a Gun Licence, I just couldn't believe it.
> On the lighter side, it's like giving a deaf person a set of headphones to listen to a stereo!
> To people who have never been brought up with guns all around them, IT IS SERIOUS.
> So friends lighten up we are all here to have a good discussion not world war 3.
> I think everyone is far past what the original posted subject was!!!!..........Gordon.......Cheers!



Don't worry about it Gdad, we're just lighting up different aspects of the subject from our different light sources that's all.  
We all benefit from new and different input and I for one enjoy getting a better picture of what the whole thing looks like, and not just settling for seeing only one side of it.  

Explaining where our particular 'light' is coming from helps to clear the focus a little too.
Sometimes we need to question a stance to encourage an explanation of it and how and why it was formed. 
 That isn't arguing, that's debating. That we bother to seek that explanation shows our degree of interest in the other person's opinion by my reckoning.  I don't bother questioning people who's opinion I don't care about.

 It isn't a contest,  whether discussing it changes minds or not doesn't matter, only learning about *why* others see it differently does.  We're just passing time and viewpoints here, not legislation.


----------



## SifuPhil

Diwundrin said:


> So let's get this straight Phil.  That move only works for honest people right?  Crims will never learn that trick to disarm the righteous citizen protecting his home and family and blow his head off with it??  Betcha it would never work on that blind man.



Actually the move itself would work for anyone with super-fast reflexes that trained that move for, oh, 5-10 years or so under all conditions with all sizes of assailants and all models of handguns.

But a homeowner who actually bothered to learn the limitations of a firearm when used as a self-defense tool? Who actually KNEW that you don't hold a gun to someone's head like they do in the movies? It's doubtful the bad guys would ever get the chance, even if they HAD trained for it.



> I think I'm getting the hang of this... but then again...



Not flagellating a deceased equine at all - as you said, we're trying to explain our own points of view and understand the others. 

My point is this: it has been suggested that a blind person could use a gun for their defense when they are being choked or in a hold. I contend, through training and experience, that the body's natural reaction is NOT to draw a firearm but to escape from the choke/hold.  

I also contend that for the range of effectiveness that a blind person would require in order to hit their target - basically, that same choke/hold range, what is called "in-fighting" or "close-range fighting" - their firearm could be easily taken away. Yes, I was going overboard with my video example - that guy specializes in disarms like that, teaches them to police departments and special forces - but I wanted to make the point that if the guy with the gun had been 10', 15', 20' feet away Mr. Quickie-Hands wouldn't have had a prayer.

But a blind person does not have that choice - they have to be pressing the muzzle of the gun into the person to be sure. What if the bad guy has a family member as hostage? In attempting to use the gun in that close a distance they open themselves up to a 90%+ chance of being disarmed. 

At root I think the whole "blind person defending themselves with a gun" is ludicrous in the extreme. Some people might say "well, it makes them FEEL safer". Yeah, so do filters on cigarettes, but you still die from them. 

Giving someone false hope in the name of being PC is FAR more cruel - and possibly lethal -  than just forcing them to acknowledge that they have a limitation. Ever since we began to refer to midgets and dwarfs as "_Vertically-Challenged_" and fat people as having "_glandular difficulties_" we've conned ourselves into thinking that everything is skittles and rainbows, and that if we just sing the mantras of "_We Are The World_" and "_Kumbaya_" loudly enough for enough times everything will be fine.

*But it won't.*

I spent 35 or so years teaching people how to acknowledge the real world. You'd be surprised what a tough job that is. They watch a movie or they hear a snippet of conversation from their neighbor and right away they think they know how the dark side operates.

*They do not.*

People as a group tend to fall into one of two main categories when it comes to self-defense:



Those who think they are safe because they have a weapon or because they took a weekend course in Horse-Pucky-Do
Those who have totally given up the fight and simply believe that supernatural intervention will save them

*Both groups are mistaken.*


----------



## SeaBreeze

SifuPhil said:


> My point is this: it has been suggested that a blind person could use a gun for their defense when they are being choked or in a hold. I contend, through training and experience, that the body's natural reaction is NOT to draw a firearm but to escape from the choke/hold.
> I also contend that for the range of effectiveness that a blind person would require in order to hit their target - basically, that same choke/hold range, what is called "in-fighting" or "close-range fighting" - their firearm could be easily taken away.
> 
> People as a group tend to fall into one of two main categories when it comes to self-defense:
> 
> Those who think they are safe because they have a weapon or because they took a weekend course in Horse-Pucky-Do
> Those who have totally given up the fight and simply believe that supernatural intervention will save them


I disagree.  If it's a weak, sickly, elderly man or woman carrying a gun on their person for example, they can take out the gun and use it effectively, keeping the element of surprise.  I sometimes carry a small pen device called the Guardfather, it looks like a pen, but quickly converts to a sharp pointed weapon that can easily take someone's eye out, burst a neck artery, etc.  I certainly wouldn't take it out and wave it around at my attacker, challenging him to fight me...when he was on me, trying to restrain me, or choking me, I'd time it right and take it out quickly by surprise, and do what I had to with it.

I don't fall into either group.  I have no false sense of safety just because I may have a weapon, I'm aware that anything can happen.  Also, I won't go down without a fight regardless, I'll fight dirty, gouge eyes with my thumbs, get on the ground and work on breaking or injuring their knees, break elbows if possible, etc.  I did take a short course in a martial art when I was young, no black belt here, but I will do my best when it comes to surviving.  Everyone should have a few moves in mind, whether defensive or offensive, to protect themselves if needed.


----------



## Katybug

Oh, Dear God, the blind w/guns...this is beyond ridiculous!


----------



## Diwundrin

SifuPhil said:


> Actually the move itself would work for anyone with super-fast reflexes that trained that move for, oh, 5-10 years or so under all conditions with all sizes of assailants and all models of handguns.
> 
> But a homeowner who actually bothered to learn the limitations of a firearm when used as a self-defense tool? Who actually KNEW that you don't hold a gun to someone's head like they do in the movies? It's doubtful the bad guys would ever get the chance, even if they HAD trained for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Not flagellating a deceased equine at all - as you said, we're trying to explain our own points of view and understand the others.
> 
> My point is this: it has been suggested that a blind person could use a gun for their defense when they are being choked or in a hold. I contend, through training and experience, that the body's natural reaction is NOT to draw a firearm but to escape from the choke/hold.
> 
> I also contend that for the range of effectiveness that a blind person would require in order to hit their target - basically, that same choke/hold range, what is called "in-fighting" or "close-range fighting" - their firearm could be easily taken away. Yes, I was going overboard with my video example - that guy specializes in disarms like that, teaches them to police departments and special forces - but I wanted to make the point that if the guy with the gun had been 10', 15', 20' feet away Mr. Quickie-Hands wouldn't have had a prayer.
> 
> But a blind person does not have that choice - they have to be pressing the muzzle of the gun into the person to be sure. What if the bad guy has a family member as hostage? In attempting to use the gun in that close a distance they open themselves up to a 90%+ chance of being disarmed.
> 
> 
> At root I think the whole "blind person defending themselves with a gun" is ludicrous in the extreme. Some people might say "well, it makes them FEEL safer". Yeah, so do filters on cigarettes, but you still die from them.



Good point about the training.  I didn't consider that aspect, I guess because it doesn't apply here I forget that many in the States would have that training.  We tend to  judge things according to our own abilities. You see the question in terms you are used to, physical fitness, speed, and training in martial arts.  I see my chances in close 'combat' as  zero.  Knowing the moves wouldn't benefit me much, and I'd have to ask them to wait a few minutes to let me make it to where I'd left the gun. 

  Even if I had one on me I doubt I'd get a chance to use it. 
 Sometimes you just have accept that shit happens and live normally because it hasn't happened yet and worrying that it might won't stop it if it ever does.  Kismet.  Besides, there's more and more elderly in the demographic, they can't get around to all of us.



I was never 'fit', nor strong, and couldn't run fast or far even when I was young.  But I was a big tall solid looking girl.
When I had to 'run the gauntlet' of lowlifes to get to the door where I worked I used to carry the car key sticking out of my fist and could fix anyone who looked as though they were thinking about their chances with my best, steely, aggressive 'make my day' look and that bluff always worked. No one bothered me.  I never suffered the delusion that I could beat them in a fight, the key was to mark 'em up so they'd be easier to identify later. Presuming I could land a blow with it.  But I never had to. They were mainly drunk or just homeless and looking to get out of the weather so probably not as dangerous as some of them looked.   

It might sound a good reason to carry but that thought never crossed my mind.  I used to fantasize about driving a tank through the traffic, but guns simply never entered the equation even though I owned a rifle for some of that time. But then, I could hardly have fronted up to work with that. Not a good look.
None of 'them'  had guns either, they weren't that kind of lowlifes back then, a knife maybe but no guns... different world. Even today the gun toters shoot from cars and live in the burbs.
We really do come from very different cultures in that respect.


> Giving someone false hope in the name of being PC is FAR more cruel - and possibly lethal -  than just forcing them to acknowledge that they have a limitation. Ever since we began to refer to midgets and dwarfs as "_Vertically-Challenged_" and fat people as having "_glandular difficulties_" we've conned ourselves into thinking that everything is skittles and rainbows, and that if we just sing the mantras of "_We Are The World_" and "_Kumbaya_" loudly enough for enough times everything will be fine.
> 
> *But it won't.*
> 
> *I spent 35 or so years teaching people how to acknowledge the real world. You'd be surprised what a tough job that is.* They watch a movie or they hear a snippet of conversation from their  neighbor and right away they think they know how the dark side operates.
> 
> *They do not.*



NO, I wouldn't be in the least surprised . 






> People as a group tend to fall into one of two main categories when it comes to self-defense:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who think they are safe because they have a weapon or because they took a weekend course in Horse-Pucky-Do
> Those who have totally given up the fight and simply believe that supernatural intervention will save them
> 
> *Both groups are mistaken.*




3.  Then there are those of us who wouldn't hesitate to fight dirty if we could just manage to lift the knee to crotch level but are aware that it would end badly if we tried and that God won't be giving us any superpowers.  



Great post, and appreciated response.


----------



## rkunsaw

I've been reading through these posts and I see one thing that hasn't even been mentioned.

A blind person could never get a permit to carry a gun. To get the permit you have to pass a test part of which includes shooting at targets. You must hit the target to pass the test. 

A blind person could still legally buy a gun and have it a home. But many of you are talking about a blind person out in public with a gun. That would not happen.


----------



## SeaBreeze

Good point!


----------



## SifuPhil

rkunsaw said:


> I've been reading through these posts and I see one thing that hasn't even been mentioned.
> 
> A blind person could never get a permit to carry a gun. To get the permit you have to pass a test part of which includes shooting at targets. You must hit the target to pass the test.
> 
> A blind person could still legally buy a gun and have it a home. But many of you are talking about a blind person out in public with a gun. That would not happen.



I don't know how it is any other place but here in the wonderful Commonwealth of Pennsylvania you get a full carry permit just by submitting your application at the Courthouse along with your fee, from whence it goes to the Sheriff's office for a criminal background check. If you haven't done any mass slayings lately, you get your permit within 2 months. My student just got his - he's just an average Joe, left his application with the clerk along with cash (they don't take checks LOL!) and 3 weeks later boom, he can carry a cannon through the streets.

Maybe in other states they have different requirements, but here it's scary to realize that a totally blind person could indeed get a carry permit. As well, a person with no arms or whose head is on backwards could probably get one, because they don't take any physical limitations into account. You could also be totally ignorant of how to use and maintain that gun and not be capable of hitting the barn side of a broad - doesn't matter to them. 

And THAT is where I think the law needs to be overhauled a bit.


----------



## Sid

GDAD said:


> From my original posting this is getting out of hand:
> When I ask about giving a blind person a Gun Licence, I just couldn't believe it.
> On the lighter side, it's like giving a deaf person a set of headphones to listen to a stereo!
> To people who have never been brought up with guns all around them, IT IS SERIOUS.
> So friends lighten up we are all here to have a good discussion not world war 3.
> I think everyone is far past what the original posted subject was!!!!..........Gordon.......Cheers!



       Well, it may have wandered around a bit. I don't think it got out of hand. It has helped me to see the "Other side" as people with legitmate views. By reading some of the replies I feel some on the "other side" have come to see my concerns as well.     

             Thanks


----------



## GDAD

Sid said:


> Well, it may have wandered around a bit. I don't think it got out of hand. It has helped me to see the "Other side" as people with legitmate views. By reading some of the replies I feel some on the "other side" have come to see my concerns as well.
> 
> Thanks



Thank you SID...cheers Mate!


----------



## Sid

GDAD said:


> Thank you SID...cheers Mate!



  Will you clear something up for me?
  What exactly is "cheers"   I think it is something good but better make sure.
  Since I am from up over instead of down under, am I allowed to use that phrase?


----------



## Jillaroo

http://www.stensrude.com/Oz.html

http://www.koalanet.com.au/australian-slang.html

Here's a couple of slang definitions to help you Sid


----------



## That Guy




----------



## Diwundrin

'Cheers' can mean a number of things or nuthin' at all really Sid.  People clink their beer glasses and say cheers and nobody knows or cares what it means.

It can be used to replace and mean  'no worries' or 'it's all good/okay/square' to indicate the end of an argument by mutual consent.  As 'good luck', 'best wishes'  or as 'see ya later'  and quite often said in lieu of 'thanks' for casual favours ... or even lately to replace 'yours sincerely' at the end of correspondence.  Take your pick, it's generic.

It's relatively new down here but has been around in the UK since year dot and probably has different meanings to them.


----------



## Diwundrin

Siiiigh, I'm going to have to write faster, I keep getting pipped at the post.


----------



## Jillaroo

Never mind Di you usually beat me haha, this may help


----------



## Diwundrin




----------



## Old Hipster

We don't have to do anything but give them our fingerprints and money and in a few weeks we have a gun permit to carry a concealed weapon.


----------



## Pappy

Florida.....fingerprints, passport picture, to go on license, a couple of forms and $117.00. Two weeks max. If your record is clean.....


----------



## GDAD

Sid said:


> Will you clear something up for me?
> What exactly is "cheers"   I think it is something good but better make sure.
> Since I am from up over instead of down under, am I allowed to use that phrase?



*cheers* _No worries_ and _cheers_ are Australia's most frequently used multi-purpose words. _Cheers_ can mean "goodbye," "have a nice day," or "thanks"—or even all three at once.


----------



## rkunsaw

Things may have changed. When I got my concealed carry permit I had to go to the local police station and get fingerprinted,sit in a class covering gun safety and legal aspects of carrying a gun and then go to the range and shoot at targets.When I renewed I had to go to the range again to shoot.

I never intended to carry a gun on me but wanted to be legal to have a loaded gun in my auto. When I moved here I let my permit expire so I don't know if things are different now.


----------



## SifuPhil

rkunsaw said:


> Things may have changed. When I got my concealed carry permit I had to go to the local police station and get fingerprinted,sit in a class covering gun safety and legal aspects of carrying a gun and then go to the range and shoot at targets.When I renewed I had to go to the range again to shoot.



I think that's how it SHOULD be. Unfortunately it seems that different places have different requirements. 

NYC, for example - you have to state that you are not nor have ever been mentally ill (that's where MY application fell down!), you have to take a safety course AND a shooting test like you did, AND you have to show good cause for wanting to carry (not hard to come up with - just tell them you own a business and carry large sums of money to the bank). 

But here in PA you can waltz into Wally-Mart and voila - license. Well, not literally, but you get the idea.



> I never intended to carry a gun on me but wanted to be legal to have a loaded gun in my auto. When I moved here I let my permit expire so I don't know if things are different now.



Understood. We had two types of licenses back in NY - for concealed carry and for open carry / transport. The former was for carrying a pistol on your person / in your car; the latter for sportsmen, hunters, etc. that would carry their firearms broken-down in the trunk of their car from their home to the range / hunting ground. Of course the requirements for the open carry were far less stringent. 

PA is a hunter's paradise so it's pretty easy to get ANY kind of permit - whether that's good or bad I'll leave to you to decide.


----------



## Sid

Thanks Jillaroo, I stuck them in favorites to have for reference.


----------



## Jambi

SifuPhil said:


> I guarantee you that when you are being choked out, either arterial or oxygen, your first thought is not going to be drawing your firearm ...




Actually, you cannot guarantee that when I know I'm in a 'lock' I can't get out of, that I won't be thinking of my knife or my gun. You cannot assess what my actions will be based on what your action might be. 

Attackers defeated by fireams


----------



## SifuPhil

Jambi said:


> Actually, you cannot guarantee that when I know I'm in a 'lock' I can't get out of, that I won't be thinking of my knife or my gun. You cannot assess what my actions will be based on what your action might be.
> 
> Attackers defeated by fireams



That's very true. I'm just going with statistics and from what I've seen teaching self-defense classes for 35 years. 

Let me reiterate - "The _majority_ of people will not be able to draw their weapon when they are being restrained".



ETA: I didn't see any examples of a person actively being restrained AND using their firearm in those stories.


----------



## Jambi

GDAD said:


> On the lighter side, it's like giving a deaf person a set of headphones to listen to a stereo!




No, it's more like taking a deaf persons telephone away.




> *Question: *What does it mean to be legally blind?
> *Answer: *A person is considered to be legally blind if he or she has a best corrected vision of 20/200 in their best seeing eye.  Many people feel that they are legally blind because when they remove  their glasses or contact lenses, they cannot see a foot in front of  their face. However, when they put on their vision correction, they can  see 20/20. As long as you can be corrected to 20/20 with some visual aid, you are not considered legally blind.
> The true definition of "legal blindness" is based upon the best  level of vision that you can achieve or the best vision you can be  corrected to. Most government agencies and health care institutions  agree that legal blindness is defined as one of the following:



http://vision.about.com/od/faqs/f/What-Does-It-Mean-To-Be-Legally-Blind.htm





> Print
> 
> 
> By  	 		 	 		 			 	 		 	 	 	 	 	Scott Thorn
> on September 12, 2009 at  6:26 PM, updated September 12, 2009 at  6:29 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0​
> Pinterest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Email
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A legally blind woman has bagged a bear in the Upper Peninsula.
> Jaime Villa says she's tried for several years to obtain the required  tag needed to hunt bears in Michigan. The state holds a lottery for the  tags.
> This year she got her tag and a 110 pound black bear.
> Villa tells WLUC-TV her "limited sight" only allows her to "see the  difference between light and dark" and "silhouettes of people."



http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/legally_blind_michigan_hunter.html



[h=1]Piper Rolfe, Legally Blind Vermont Girl, Saves Friend From Vicious Raccoon Attack (VIDEO)[/h]


----------



## Sid

Jambi I understand Phil has experience in that juju hya yaki stuff.  From some of my military training, reading and knowing people who have studied martial arts I understand there are some moves and attack points that will almost guarantee certain actions and reactions that the attacker desires to achieve on his victim.  Phil's seems to be pointing out that other effective options are avaiable.  At least that is the way I read it.


----------



## Jambi

SifuPhil said:


> That's very true. I'm just going with statistics and from what I've seen teaching self-defense classes for 35 years.
> 
> Let me reiterate - "The _majority_ of people will not be able to draw their weapon when they are being restrained".
> 
> 
> 
> ETA: I didn't see any examples of a person actively being restrained AND using their firearm in those stories.



I've been reading them for thirty years, and while there may be no such example in what you read, my memory tells me around 30% start with an altercation in which after a struggle, the victim gains control of their gun and uses it.

As someone with training in all aspects of defense and offense, I find it quite strange that after 35 years of teaching defense, the victim doesn't react to their assailant.


----------



## Jambi

Sid said:


> Jambi I understand Phil has experience in that juju hya yaki stuff.  From some of my military training, reading and knowing people who have studied martial arts I understand there are some moves and attack points that will almost guarantee certain actions and reactions that the attacker desires to achieve on his victim.  Phil's seems to be pointing out that other effective options are avaiable.  At least that is the way I read it.




In my personal experience, MOST people don't know what they are, and moreover, if there was one single 'cure-all', we wouldn't ever see any reversals in the ring, would we?


----------



## Jambi

Diwundrin said:


> It's the exercise of power over other people's *options* that bugs me about this most.
> The hypocrisy of it is breathtaking!
> 
> 
> To put it bluntly, to ban Nembutal but not guns, or trains, simply doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> All the law does is make people bent on it do it in more messy and crueller fashion.
> 
> Sure it gets complicated if we want to pursue every 'what if'.
> But why does discussion by those in power always pursue those endless hypotheticals?
> 
> *To avoid making a simple decision to trust that 'they' are not the only  ones with a brain capable of making it's own decisions and living or  dying with that decision?
> Do they think everyone else is a moron?
> That they are the only ones who have a 'right' to decide on who lives and who dies? .... and HOW?  Really? *
> 
> Do they, and by extension we, as we elected them, really have the  audacity to believe that what we consider right for ourselves must  necessarily be right for *everybody* else?  That our view of life's value must apply to others who don't see theirs as anything but a burden?
> 
> *There will always be collateral damage accompanying any legislation for  just about anything.  Someone may burn to death or drown in a car  because they couldn't get out of the seat belt.  Do we then ban seat  belts??*
> 
> If it falls into the wrong hands, so be it.  If it's used by someone not  eligible then that's on them, not on the law or the pharmacist.
> We don't prosecute train drivers for hitting suicides either.
> 
> *If it's used on a person by someone other than who was intended to use  it on themselves than that's murder.   Pure and simple. We already have  laws against that.
> 
> It shouldn't be for us to judge the ethics of it, the 'family' have to live with that guilt, if there is any, not us.
> We need to get over the illusion that we personally are the World's Nanny.*
> 
> *Sh*t happens, no law will ever be perfect, no 'right' will ever be perfect, no human will either. *
> 
> Think about this, the favourite reply to gun arguments is "it's not guns that kill people, people kill people."
> 
> *How is Nembutal any different to a gun?  It doesn't choose who it kills, people choose to use it.*
> 
> Shouldn't that right be one worth fighting for too?  Or is only old ones  on  Constitutional, or Biblical scraps of paper that count?




Bravo Sir!   BRAVO!!!!!!!


----------



## SifuPhil

Jambi said:


> I've been reading them for thirty years, and while there may be no such example in what you read, my memory tells me around 30% start with an altercation in which after a struggle, the victim gains control of their gun and uses it.



Again, we're looking at _timelines_ of actions here. Yes, I'm sure there are many cases where there is a struggle, THEN a disengagement and THEN the use of the firearm. 

I'm saying that WHILE you are being choked/etc. is NOT likely to be the time your brain and body will be together enough to draw that firearm. 



> As someone with training in all aspects of defense and offense, I find it quite strange that after 35 years of teaching defense, the victim doesn't react to their assailant.



I'm afraid I don't understand this ...



Jambi said:


> In my personal experience, MOST people don't know what they are, and moreover, if there was one single 'cure-all', we wouldn't ever see any reversals in the ring, would we?



Again, my apologies but I don't follow. And please, PLEASE don't bring up the subject of ring vs. real world - I get enough of THAT debate on the martial arts forums!


----------



## Jambi

SifuPhil said:


> Again, we're looking at _timelines_ of actions here. Yes, I'm sure there are many cases where there is a struggle, THEN a disengagement and THEN the use of the firearm.
> 
> I'm saying that WHILE you are being choked/etc. is NOT likely to be the time your brain and body will be together enough to draw that firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I don't understand this ...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, my apologies but I don't follow. And please, PLEASE don't bring up the subject of ring vs. real world - I get enough of THAT debate on the martial arts forums!




Maybe I can clear up my thoughts.

Travon Martin. Clearly Zimmerman was being assaulted when he drew. Very conclusive from the powder burns on Travon's sweatshirt. So, as I was trying to say, when someone is being choked, they are likely going to do something, not just stand by. If someone is trying to drain my life, believe me, it won't be without a struggle.

Insofar as the MA comment, the Dojo isn't the ring nor is it real life. Way too, too many personal examples for me to ever believe that. 

As for the video, yes I've done that before, with a Makarov.


----------



## SifuPhil

Jambi said:


> Maybe I can clear up my thoughts.
> 
> Travon Martin. Clearly Zimmerman was being assaulted when he drew. Very conclusive from the powder burns on Travon's sweatshirt. So, as I was trying to say, when someone is being choked, they are likely going to do something, not just stand by. If someone is trying to drain my life, believe me, it won't be without a struggle.



Oh, okay - I agree that that appears to have been an exception to the rule. The natural, instinctive tendency when a person is being choked is to try to remove the hands that are choking them. It takes a certain discipline to abandon that action and instead re-route to the firearm. The response can be trained but I still maintain that it isn't a natural response.



> Insofar as the MA comment, the Dojo isn't the ring nor is it real life. Way too, too many personal examples for me to ever believe that.



Totally agree. But it's a training ground of sorts, and with the fairly recent innovations in "adrenaline-dump training" it's progressing a bit further. The problem with both the dojo and the ring of course is that there are rules and it's difficult to reproduce that fear-response when you know in your mind that it's only practice / sport.

That's why it's so important to take one's training seriously - "You will fight as you train".



> As for the video, yes I've done that before, with a Makarov.



Nice! :encouragement:


----------



## Jambi

SifuPhil said:


> Oh, okay - I agree that that appears to have been an exception to the rule. The natural, instinctive tendency when a person is being choked is to try to remove the hands that are choking them. It takes a certain discipline to abandon that action and instead re-route to the firearm. The response can be trained but I still maintain that it isn't a natural response.
> 
> 
> 
> Totally agree. But it's a training ground of sorts, and with the fairly recent innovations in "adrenaline-dump training" it's progressing a bit further. The problem with both the dojo and the ring of course is that there are rules and it's difficult to reproduce that fear-response when you know in your mind that it's only practice / sport.
> 
> That's why it's so important to take one's training seriously - "You will fight as you train".
> 
> 
> 
> Nice! :encouragement:



My response is to remove the individual, but I can understand that a group of students with no training or fight experience may not understand that goal. Many, many instances of downed individuals drawing from the ground/floor. 

Training, thinking, visualization, practice, all very important.

Yep, action beats reaction, every time. :encouragement:


----------



## Warrigal

Speaking of permits, it would seem that the latest shooter in Washington had a legal shotgun in spite of having a couple of instances of shooting a firearm in a public place and despite the fact that he was hearing voices. Whether his hand gun and assault rifle were legal may be a different story. If they weren't, how did he acquire them, I wonder. I'm a little bit flabbergasted that this incident has passed by without comment on this forum.

Given that he was running amok in a naval facility, why wasn't he taken out immediately before he was able to kill 12 people ? IMO it makes a mockery of the idea of civilians taking out armed killers as the rationale for widespread gun ownership and concealed carry.


----------



## Warrigal

> The changes are to be introduced to Parliament this week and mean police would not need a warrant to search people who have been banned from owning weapons.
> Their cars, homes and outlaw motorcycle gang club houses will also be able to be searched without a warrant. Mr O'Farrell also plans to increase the prison term for anyone convicted of possessing or supplying guns to try to crack down on crime in Sydney.
> 
> The jail term will increase from 10 to 14 years.
> 
> The Government says there are about 60 people who have been issued with firearm bans and he predicts the number will rise as police place a greater focus on gun crime.
> 
> "Police will be able to stop and search them in their cars, in their homes, in their workplace, frankly there'll be no place for them to hide," he said. "Clearly these laws are about dealing with gun crime across Sydney, police are concerned about the activities of outlaw motor cycle gangs and others and these laws will ensure that disorderly houses or crime dens can also be searched."



Probably a necessary step, given the circumstances. As long as it's all open and above board I have no objection. 
Heck, they can search my house any time it they want to. My only stipulation is that they give a guarantee to do a thorough spring clean as they go.


----------



## Jillaroo

_It's about time they toughened up, i agree with the new law let's hope it is passed_


----------



## SifuPhil

Warrigal said:


> Speaking of permits, it would seem that the latest shooter in Washington had a legal shotgun in spite of having a couple of instances of shooting a firearm in a public place and despite the fact that he was hearing voices. Whether his hand gun and assault rifle were legal may be a different story. If they weren't, how did he acquire them, I wonder. I'm a little bit flabbergasted that this incident has passed by without comment on this forum.
> 
> Given that he was running amok in a naval facility, why wasn't he taken out immediately before he was able to kill 12 people ? IMO it makes a mockery of the idea of civilians taking out armed killers as the rationale for widespread gun ownership and concealed carry.



The latest is that he was indeed able to buy the shotgun legally since he passed the background check. Point #1: do they need to tighten the vetting process?

He used the shotgun initially until he killed a police officer or security guard, then took their weapon (pistol?). I imagine if he did indeed have an assault rifle he acquired it the same way. Point #2: stuff happens in a scenario. The guns he acquired were legally held and used by their owners.

Point 3: it is claimed that it took 7 minutes for a police response. Pretty slow but to be expected. Also, Naval security has been allegedly cut back due to funding cuts. Blame the government.

He was a civilian, but he was a _trained_ civilian, having spent four years in the Navy Reserves. That makes all the difference.


----------



## Jackie22

...well surprise surprise someone has thought of a way to cash in on the gun craziness..

Send the kiddies off to school with bulletproof backpacks..

http://www.bulletblocker.com/bulletproof-school-safety-protection.html

....the perfect Christmas gift


----------



## Tom Young

:clap:

The cordiality here is amazing... Probably because "we're" more mature, eh? 

.... an interesting take here, on controversy, and the brain:

http://www.alternet.org/media/most-depressing-discovery-about-brain-ever


----------



## Anne

Have heard that the shooter, as well as many others, were also on psychiatric meds for some time, but this wasn't mentioned in the media.   Anyone else hear that???


----------



## SifuPhil

Anne said:


> Have heard that the shooter, as well as many others, were also on psychiatric meds for some time, but this wasn't mentioned in the media.   Anyone else hear that???



It seems that he twice received voluntary psych care, including meds, at the VA in the previous month, but that didn't get on the radar because he wasn't committed. 

In Rhode Island he had called police from a motel room claiming that people were following him and using microwaves to harass him, and hearing voices. Again, no ticket filed so no effect on his security clearance.

He's just another one that slipped through the system. NOW Obama is calling for an evaluation of Federal vetting processes for civilian contractors. 

As always, people focus on the gun control issue but they ignore the far larger problem of mental health.


----------



## SeaBreeze

Anne said:


> Have heard that the shooter, as well as many others, were also on psychiatric meds for some time, but this wasn't mentioned in the media.   Anyone else hear that???



Yes, I heard that Alexis was being treated with psychiatric drugs, don't know which ones specifically.  Here's just some of the others...




> [/• Eric Harris age 17 (first on Zoloft then Luvox) and Dylan Klebold aged 18 (Columbine school shooting in Littleton, Colorado), killed 12 students and 1 teacher, and wounded 23 others, before killing themselves. Klebold's medical records have never been made available to the public.
> 
> • Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/day of Prozac (three times the average starting dose for adults!) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather's girlfriend and many fellow students at Red Lake, Minnesota. He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.
> 
> • Cory Baadsgaard, age 16, Wahluke (Washington state) High School, was on Paxil (which caused him to have hallucinations) when he took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage. He has no memory of the event.
> 
> • Chris Fetters, age 13, killed his favorite aunt while taking Prozac.
> 
> • Christopher Pittman, age 12, murdered both his grandparents while taking Zoloft.
> 
> • Mathew Miller, age 13, hung himself in his bedroom closet after taking Zoloft for 6 days.
> 
> • Kip Kinkel, age 15, (on Prozac and Ritalin) shot his parents while they slept then went to school and opened fire killing 2 classmates and injuring 22 shortly after beginning Prozac treatment.
> 
> • Luke Woodham, age 16 (Prozac) killed his mother and then killed two students, wounding six others.
> • A boy in Pocatello, ID (Zoloft) in 1998 had a Zoloft-induced seizure that caused an armed stand off at his school.
> 
> • Michael Carneal (Ritalin), age 14, opened fire on students at a high school prayer meeting in West Paducah, Kentucky. Three teenagers were killed, five others were wounded..
> 
> • A young man in Huntsville, Alabama (Ritalin) went psychotic chopping up his parents with an ax and also killing one sibling and almost murdering another.
> 
> • Andrew Golden, age 11, (Ritalin) and Mitchell Johnson, aged 14, (Ritalin) shot 15 people, killing four students, one teacher, and wounding 10 others.
> 
> • TJ Solomon, age 15, (Ritalin) high school student in Conyers, Georgia opened fire on and wounded six of his class mates.
> 
> • Rod Mathews, age 14, (Ritalin) beat a classmate to death with a bat.
> 
> • James Wilson, age 19, (various psychiatric drugs) from Breenwood, South Carolina, took a .22 caliber revolver into an elementary school killing two young girls, and wounding seven other children and two teachers.
> 
> • Elizabeth Bush, age 13, (Paxil) was responsible for a school shooting in Pennsylvania
> 
> • Jason Hoffman (Effexor and Celexa) – school shooting in El Cajon, California
> 
> • Jarred Viktor, age 15, (Paxil), after five days on Paxil he stabbed his grandmother 61 times.
> 
> • Chris Shanahan, age 15 (Paxil) in Rigby, ID who out of the blue killed a woman.
> 
> • Jeff Franklin (Prozac and Ritalin), Huntsville, AL, killed his parents as they came home from work using a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanic's file, then attacked his younger brothers and sister.
> 
> • Neal Furrow (Prozac) in LA Jewish school shooting reported to have been court-ordered to be on Prozac along with several other medications.
> 
> • Kevin Rider, age 14, was withdrawing from Prozac when he died from a gunshot wound to his head. Initially it was ruled a suicide, but two years later, the investigation into his death was opened as a possible homicide. The prime suspect, also age 14, had been taking Zoloft and other SSRI antidepressants.
> 
> • Alex Kim, age 13, hung himself shortly after his Lexapro prescription had been doubled.
> 
> • Diane Routhier was prescribed Welbutrin for gallstone problems. Six days later, after suffering many adverse effects of the drug, she shot herself.
> 
> • Billy Willkomm, an accomplished wrestler and a University of Florida student, was prescribed Prozac at the age of 17. His family found him dead of suicide – hanging from a tall ladder at the family's Gulf Shore Boulevard home in July 2002.
> 
> • Kara Jaye Anne Fuller-Otter, age 12, was on Paxil when she hung herself from a hook in her closet. Kara's parents said ".... the damn doctor wouldn't take her off it and I asked him to when we went in on the second visit. I told him I thought she was having some sort of reaction to Paxil...")
> 
> • Gareth Christian, Vancouver, age 18, was on Paxil when he committed suicide in 2002, (Gareth's father could not accept his son's death and killed himself.)
> 
> • Julie Woodward, age 17, was on Zoloft when she hung herself in her family's detached garage.
> 
> • Matthew Miller was 13 when he saw a psychiatrist because he was having difficulty at school. The psychiatrist gave him samples of Zoloft. Seven days later his mother found him dead, hanging by a belt from a laundry hook in his closet.
> 
> • Kurt Danysh, age 18, and on Prozac, killed his father with a shotgun. He is now behind prison bars, and writes letters, trying to warn the world that SSRI drugs can kill.
> 
> • Woody __, age 37, committed suicide while in his 5th week of taking Zoloft. Shortly before his death his physician suggested doubling the dose of the drug. He had seen his physician only for insomnia. He had never been depressed, nor did he have any history of any mental illness symptoms.
> 
> • A boy from Houston, age 10, shot and killed his father after his Prozac dosage was increased.
> 
> • Hammad Memon, age 15, shot and killed a fellow middle school student. He had been diagnosed with ADHD and depression and was taking Zoloft and "other drugs for the conditions."
> 
> • Matti Saari, a 22-year-old culinary student, shot and killed 9 students and a teacher, and wounded another student, before killing himself. Saari was taking an SSRI and a benzodiazepine.
> 
> • Steven Kazmierczak, age 27, shot and killed five people and wounded 21 others before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University auditorium. According to his girlfriend, he had recently been taking Prozac, Xanax and Ambien. Toxicology results showed that he still had trace amounts of Xanax in his system.
> 
> • Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen, age 18, had been taking antidepressants before he killed eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School – then he committed suicide.
> 
> • Asa Coon from Cleveland, age 14, shot and wounded four before taking his own life. Court records show Coon was on Trazodone.
> 
> • Jon Romano, age 16, on medication for depression, fired a shotgun at a teacher in his New York high school.
> Missing from list... 3 of 4 known to have taken these same meds....
> 
> • What drugs was Jared Lee Loughner on, age 21...... killed 6 people and injuring 14 others in Tuscon, Az?
> • What drugs was James Eagan Holmes on, age 24..... killed 12 people and injuring 59 others in Aurora Colorado? (ZOLOFT)
> • What drugs was Jacob Tyler Roberts on, age 22, killed 2 injured 1, Clackamas Or?
> • What drugs was Adam Peter Lanza on, age 20, Killed 26 and wounded 2 in Newtown Ct?





> Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039752_m...tric_drugs_antidepressants.html#ixzz2fHaNGdNo



The media likes to downplay the severe effects of these psychiatric drugs, because it is not in the best financial interests of the pharmaceutical companies, and in the end, it's all about the money...http://www.prisonplanet.com/media-buries-psychiatric-drug-connection-to-navy-shooter.html


----------



## Anne

* Thanks Seabreeze; that is very frightening*.    I know that we can't blame the guns or the drugs alone.  Why can't we figure out something besides drugs to solve these problems (some of which I believe are nutritional deficiencies; not all, of course).  Taking guns away won't solve it all, either.

More stringent background checks; ok, but more than likely, our medical records will be open to just about anyone who requests them, and who hasn't been depressed at one time or another??  How many more 'illnesses' will be defined as mental problems, therefore limiting our access to guns even more??

I read recently that now PMS can be considered a mental illness - really??  Wellll; maybe some of the guys might agree on that one.........


----------



## Jillaroo

_And the Doctors wonder why i am reluctant to take what they tell me i need, most times the side effects of the drugs are far worse than the ailment, it's mind boggling how they prescribe all these drugs instead of helping patients with their mental health problems.   :what:mg:_


----------



## SifuPhil

Jillaroo said:


> _And the Doctors wonder why i am reluctant to take what they tell me i need, most times the side effects of the drugs are far worse than the ailment, it's mind boggling how they prescribe all these drugs instead of helping patients with their mental health problems.   :what:mg:_



One possible reason, and I say this as a former psychiatry fan, is that their mode of psychological counseling doesn't work. From a financial viewpoint, it's also far more lucrative to listen to symptoms for 5 minutes and then prescribe a drug than it is to do one-on-one counseling for several hours at the least.

It's all about the money.

If you have a problem, don't cure it, just cover it up - that's the modern way. Treat symptoms, not root causes, and damn the consequences.

But changing this paradigm is next to impossible at this point - Big Pharma is truly a juggernaut. We also, to be fair, should consider the loss of true parenting skills during the last several decades; without real parental guidance and upbringing, leaving it to TV and the 'Net, we can't say that we're surprised by the results.

I understand ancient Rome experienced the same sort of decline ...


----------



## Sid

Phil, you said, "I understand ancient Rome experienced the same sort of decline ...".  

    And modern day man thinks, he is so much better it can't happen to us


----------



## SeaBreeze

The gun debate is about the right to protect yourself, your family and your property if needed.  As said repeatedly on this forum by different folks, including myself, it's not about being afraid, it's about being prepared, but somehow that statement is not being heard.  There are too many examples to cite of people who saved their own lives in their homes by having guns.  Many of those cases are the elderly and women.  In events like hurricanes, etc., when people have no power or way to get around, there are gangs of criminals breaking into their homes and vehicles to steal what they can...that's when you need an equalizer to protect you and yours.  The bad guys will get their guns on the streets.

My parents never had a gun in the house at all when I was growing up, so I also was not exposed to them until I was an adult.  The vast majority of American gun owners are responsible citizens who do not care to depend on the government for protection, financial assistance, or anything else.  They have worked hard, followed laws, and lived admirable lives.

It's insulting to hear people from other countries who have forfeited their gun owning privileges, speaking like gun owners are morons, looking for a gunfight at noon to settle a problem...or insinuating that they would wildly be waving their arms around, accidentally shooting all people in the general area.  I respect their right to live in those areas, and it appears to me, that when they delight to jump on the anti-gun bandwagon at each and every incident, that they want the same regulations for the US...misery loves company is the feeling I get.

Yes, mental health is just one aspect of it.  Another aspect is the falling apart of the traditional family and their values.  There's nothing wrong with children being raised by a single parent who teaches responsibility, morals, accountability, self sufficiency, respect for other and their property, etc.  BUT, there are lots of children with no father figures to look up to.  Mothers are having 4 babies from 4 different fathers, living alone and still dating and partying, collecting welfare and food stamps instead of making an honest living.  The kids are out on the streets, unsupervised, no mentors or role models, looking to steal from others and make babies of their own...not a good recipe for a successful society.

In addition, people fail to recognize that a lot of these shootings are in gun-free zones.  The navy shooter could have quickly be stopped if another person in the building was carrying a weapon.  The theater shooting in Colorado would have had a lot less victims, if it wasn't a gun-free zone.  I would prefer having a responsible armed citizen that is trained and comfortable with his gun watching the movie with me, that would have helped tremendously.  In fact a man on the news that was there, said he had a permit, but did not bring his gun into the movie due to the rules against it.

I just wish that navy shooter was blind, then it would be good discussion for this thread, maybe next time.


----------



## Jackie22

I agree with this article.......


Another gun tragedy


By Fareed Zakaria

I wrote this just after the Newtown killings last year; seems to apply just as much today:

People point to three sets of causes when talking about events such as the Newtown, Conn., shootings. First, the psychology of the killer; second, the environment of violence in our popular culture; and, third, easy access to guns. Any one of these might explain a single shooting. What we should be trying to understand is not one single event but why we have so many of them. The number of deaths by firearms in the United States was 32,000 last year. Around 11,000 were gun homicides.

To understand how staggeringly high this number is, compare it to the rate in other rich countries. England and Wales have about 50 gun homicides a year — 3 percent of our rate per 100,000 people. Many people believe that America is simply a more violent, individualistic society. But again, the data clarify. For most crimes — theft, burglary, robbery, assault — the United States is within the range of other advanced countries. The category in which the U.S. rate is magnitudes higher is gun homicides.

The U.S. gun homicide rate is 30 times that of France or Australia, according to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, and 12 times higher than the average for other developed countries.

So what explains this difference? If psychology is the main cause, we should have 12 times as many psychologically disturbed people. But we don’t. The United States could do better, but we take mental disorders seriously and invest more in this area than do many peer countries.

Is America’s popular culture the cause? This is highly unlikely, as largely the same culture exists in other rich countries. Youth in England and Wales, for example, are exposed to virtually identical cultural influences as in the United States. Yet the rate of gun homicide there is a tiny fraction of ours. The Japanese are at the cutting edge of the world of video games. Yet their gun homicide rate is close to zero! Why? Britain has tough gun laws. Japan has perhaps the tightest regulation of guns in the industrialized world.

The data in social science are rarely this clear. They strongly suggest that we have so much more gun violence than other countries because we have far more permissive laws than others regarding the sale and possession of guns. With 5 percent of the world’s population, the United States has 50 percent of the guns.


----------



## SifuPhil

Sid said:


> Phil, you said, "I understand ancient Rome experienced the same sort of decline ...".
> 
> And modern day man thinks, he is so much better it can't happen to us



That's why I sit back and laugh so loud and long at modern man. 

Our _phones_ have become smarter. We haven't.


----------



## SifuPhil

Jackie22 said:


> So what explains this difference? If psychology is the main cause, we should have 12 times as many psychologically disturbed people. But we don’t. The United States could do better, but we take mental disorders seriously and invest more in this area than do many peer countries.



I disagree that we take mental disorders seriously. All we do is throw pills at the afflicted. 



> Is America’s popular culture the cause? This is highly unlikely, as largely the same culture exists in other rich countries. Youth in England and Wales, for example, are exposed to virtually identical cultural influences as in the United States. Yet the rate of gun homicide there is a tiny fraction of ours. The Japanese are at the cutting edge of the world of video games. Yet their gun homicide rate is close to zero! Why? Britain has tough gun laws. Japan has perhaps the tightest regulation of guns in the industrialized world.



England also has far more knifings and mob actions than the U.S. Japan has a much higher suicide rate. 

The problem with numbers is that they can mean anything we wish them to.



> The data in social science are rarely this clear. They strongly suggest that we have so much more gun violence than other countries because we have far more permissive laws than others regarding the sale and possession of guns. With 5 percent of the world’s population, the United States has 50 percent of the guns.



What the writer does not realize, or chooses not to acknowledge, is that more gun control laws will NOT stop a _criminal_ from getting a gun. It's only going to make it harder for the law-abiding masses.


----------



## Sid

Diwundrin, Your thoughts about the drugs are a lot like mine. 

        You asked a question,  "Who exactly are people under the impression that they are protecting themselves from?"

       I will try to anwer that in a way folks can understand.
       A "NUTCASE" attacked a naval base. 
       We have had several "NUTCASES" attack schools,workplaces, places of entertainment where several people gathered.
       Where were the "AUTHORITIES"(the only ones who should have guns)? Why did it take them so long to get there?
       Where were the people who are supposed to protect us?
       That is just one group I want to try to  protect myself and family from.

        As much as I hate to say it we have "people in authority" who rob, rape, beat up and kill people.
        That is another group I want to try to protect myself from.

        If I read history right Hitler achieved dominance over people by seeing that they were disarmed.
        So I have to ask the question. Why do the "leaders" of my country seem so hell bent on keepimg us from having guns. Remember it started out with just handguns?  Just asking.
        That represents another group I want to try to protect myself from IF it ever comes to that.

         Just a reminder our forefarthers fought trained soldiers who were sent here by the King to keep them suppressed for his gain and his purposes.

          So in summing up, it is more than protection and the right to own arms. It is about trying to preserve an idea that some seem to seek destroy.


----------



## SeaBreeze

Well said Sid.


----------



## SifuPhil

While I understand the desire to understand (!), the way I see it is that this is simply how things _are_. Knowing history in order not to repeat it doesn't help except in the planning stage - when the bad guy is in your face it's a little too late to think about social causes.

In other words, from my own personal perspective, I simply_ react_. I don't care if the guy holding a gun to my head has had an abused childhood or is on welfare because he can't afford rent and crack both, or that society has failed him by discriminating against his race or creed or religion. All I'm going to be concerned about at that point is removing the immediate threat.



> That people feel the need of that degree of protection, due to loss their faith in the structure of their authorities, is the crux of the puzzlement to us.  The same awful instances of home invasions, and bashings of the helpless elderly happen here too, but why our reactions aren't to go out and buy a gun in case it happens to us is what I'm trying to figure out.  What makes those   reactions to a problem so different in our cultures?



I really cannot answer that. To me it just seems common sense to want to protect yourself. 



> But that doesn't mean that I'd want it to be that way here.



I don't think any sane person ever wanted it to be that way _here_, either ... but it is, and we have to deal with it as a people because the government only wants to take away our last line of defense, _not_ solve the underlying problem.



> The risks of arming the populace still far outweigh the benefits... here!.... We may be lucky enough to avoid those problems that cause it ever escalating out of control.  Fingers crossed on that one!



We used to cross our fingers a lot here, too ... didn't work.




> And yet, we see the footage of how communities come together after a tornado, and floods to help and support each other. They don't all go feral after a disaster, if anything the majority find depths of compassion sometimes missing from their characters in everyday life.



That's very true - it's a fact that the majority of people are good-hearted, honest and so on. It's just the minority that makes life miserable. And it only takes ONE to make YOUR life a living - or dying - Hell. 



> Gangs of looters are the problem of the police, or damned well should be!



Here's the situation: bad economy has forced cut-backs in police departments. Some towns around here share a common police department among 3 or 4 towns - that's how bad it is. Now, those 3 or 4 towns may cover a 30-40 mile radius. 

When the bad guys are kicking in your door or holding that gun against your head, you cannot expect the Boys in Blue to be there in time to save you.  

And, as I believe I mentioned recently on this board, a cop could be standing 20 feet away from me and I could still pull the trigger or thrust the knife before he even knows what's going on. Cops are a RE-active force - that's what they were _designed_ to be. They were never _meant_ to be PRO-active - to be bodyguards. The numbers just don't work that way.



> To be blunt SeaBreeze that scenario doesn't paint a pretty picture of society as you see it.



I think it's an accurate depiction.



> They get them here too, but we're re-empowering the cops to handle it.  Why we still trust the cops to use those powers only on the crims and not get concerned that they'll use them on us is one those great mysteries I'm trying to unearth.



How exactly would the cops handle it? Would they walk down the street frisking everyone who's wearing a HamBurglar mask? 



Again, I think the majority of our cops are decent people who are just trying to enforce the law. The problems are that (1) the laws they are being tasked with enforcing are often unfair, discriminatory or capricious; (2) they are not given the proper tools nor allowed the freedom to get the job done, and (3) there are far more bad guys than cops.




> That most over there view us as a bunch of pacifists is incorrect  too, but that's okay because we're just doing it our way, as you are  doing it yours.  There's no black and white within either's culture, but  a wide range of varying opinions on just about everything throughout  the population.



I've always said that when you are a pacifist you are giving up your right to life, because you are going against eons of natural selection. Mankind was always meant to fight, whether Nature or each other. When you declare your pacifism you are putting out the sign that says:

*ATTENTION PREDATORS: FREE MEAL HERE !!!*

Just as you are striving to understand our violent ways, I'm trying to understand how a people can give up the responsibility of self-defense to someone else, someone who does not have their best interests at heart. No one will ever care about anyone as much as they care about themselves - that's human nature. Yes, there are stories of people sacrificing themselves for others but that's an outlier - that's an aberration. A normal, healthy person has themselves as #1. That's why I'm so puzzled about people that give up security for convenience and blind hope. 

I would NEVER expect a cop to save me. I would only expect them to put down those cool tape outlines around my body and fill out all the paperwork. Basically they're undertakers with guns. Again, not their fault - they just cannot be everywhere at once. 



> I'm not an anti-gun nut.  When it comes to the  crunch I won't be competing with Warri for that olive branch to wave,  I'll be heading for exactly where I know I can get a spare gun at short  notice, but when it comes to only discussing how guns became such a big  part of a lifestyle, well, I'm just plain addictedly fascinated with that. Sorry.



My guns aren't an obsession, any more than my knives, my Oriental weapons or, heck, my collection of hair-balls from every cat I've ever owned. They are merely tools, tools that are meant to be utilized at the proper place and in the proper time. 

Depending upon which "crunch" you are referring to, you might be a bit late looking for a weapon when you need one. That isn't the time to prepare - it's BEFORE anything happens. Just ask any prepper. 

I've seen a similar mindset among hundreds of self-defense students I've taught - "Oh, well, if I get attacked I'm sure I'll kick the guy in the egg-sac or scratch his face or something - I don't have to put too much effort into this stuff." 

No. You can't rely upon last-second plans because they are driven by fear, not by logic. There is a long and complex series of physical and mental changes that occur when a body is under extreme stress. The idea of planning and training is that you negate many of those factors, thus giving you a better chance of survival. A gun is just another factor in that survival planning.


----------



## Diwundrin

> Again, I think the majority of our cops are decent people who are just  trying to enforce the law. The problems are that (1) the laws they are  being tasked with enforcing are often unfair, discriminatory or  capricious; (2) they are not given the proper tools nor allowed the  freedom to get the job done, and (3) there are far more bad guys than  cops.



This is why our gun crime as escalated over the last decade or so.  The cops were hamstrung by some brainsnap to hold anti corruption crusades and weed out the effective ones.  
The bent cops weren't a problem to the populace, they were our best defence against the gangs.  They weren't bothering Joe Bloggs in the burbs, they were kicking the proverbial out of those who really *were* bothering  poor Joe.

They were the ones who knew exactly who was up to what if only so they could keep track of their kickbacks.  They didn't need to ask the public or whistleblowers for help in finding organised crime leaders, they were working for 'em.  
They kept them under a kind of control because if they didn't they knew their job, and it's associated brown envelopes, was goooorrrrn.
It all worked out in the balance.  We could safely walk the streets at night, drunken vandalizing kids were suitably roughed up and bailed out by traumatized parents from the lockup in the morning. A 'round' with a big cranky sergeant assured that only the most criminally dedicated and stupid ever turned up there twice.

 Crims weren't game to get caught with a gun on them or they'd make page 3 next day in the 'suicides' list. 
We referred to the 'criminal class' with good reason, they were a group apart.  The only contact with them was through gambling or such, they weren't the kid next door or the drug dealer up the road back then.  They were keeping their murders and mayhem 'in house' and everything was 'sweet'.

  That didn't last long when the force was 'cleaned up'. It got away from them fast.
Now brainless hoons in tricked up cars are firing a few rounds into other hoons relatives houses.  The drive bys are so far confined to M.Eastern gangs and a few Asian Tongs but it's going to spread.  Their good ole machete rumbles are going to be shootouts in no time.  The tough old bent cops would have sorted them out, but these days the crooks have no fear of them and fire lawyers at them.

There are a couple of bent cops that became legends of a kind.  They were our dark heroes.  Probably the last of them was a murderous bastard with an endearing sense of humour and a lethally practical view of how things were and should be.

He was caught up in the crusade and ended up in jail for offing more than a couple of lowlife's that nobody missed.  We missed him though, because there was no trouble on the streets in Roger the Dodger's patch.  But there sure is now.
He didn't get long, and when he got out he partnered up with another murderer, a professional hit man, also inexplicably 'likeable' and they did a touring show together.  They'd tell the yarns about the good old days and the crooks they'd known and what they'd gotten up to and the 'funny' things that had happened.  The venue would be packed with people only to anxious to hear about it.  From the clips I've seen it looked a very entertaining evening.  We're strange like that. 




But of course the civil liberties lawyers got all that 'corruption' changed.  They were losing too many court cases, so instead of punishing the crims we started holding the cops responsible for the crime rate.  The criminals had all the rights and the cops got sued for sneezing on them.  

When we wonder why they don't show up we should also wonder why they'd bother.  They're on a hiding to nothing.  If they catch a robber he'll sue them for infringing his rights to make a living or something equally ridiculous.  If they belt a bloke on meth who's doing his level best to kill them they are charged with brutality.  No wonder we never seem to have enough of them, it doesn't have much to offer as a career.

I see your point about not expecting them to be there when we need them.  But we never did expect that. We're used to living in somewhat isolated places and cop shops were seldom close. We always expected to look after ourselves. The cops were for catching them, not guarding us from them.

We  didn't *expect* to be mugged in our own homes either.  Some always were, occasionally, but we didn't expect it, and so never felt that more than a handy vase or similar was necessary precaution.  We didn't really make a considered decision not to get a gun.  We simply didn't even think of it.  It didn't occur to us to take that road.

It's not about me being prone to pacifism,  you just haven't seen me in a really bad mood! I know people who would fall about laughing at that one. 


We love a stoush as much as anyone, it's a matter of, for want of better word, Tradition? Habit?  that we don't (or didn't)  think 'gun' as the first option.  Physical violence yes, guns no. That's how it is/was.  It's not better or worse, just different.

  The nearest police to here are a good 10 minutes away if they get a running start, and if more than one  or two is needed then we're looking at 35 mins, minimum.  No, I'm in no  way relying on anyone at all to protect me.  I'm taking my chances that  society, at least around here,  isn't quite that bad yet and if it is, and I'm picked then that's  life.
 Odds are they want cash or a TV, not me, but if they do then I'll try and mark 'em up at least but I'm under no illusion that I  can fight my way out, armed or not.  That kind of thinking is natural to the fit and healthy but attitudes and expectations have to change with our physical limitations. 

 
It's not entirely due to a mental attitude, at my level a gun wouldn't be an equalizer, it would be a temptation, and a  present for them to take and perhaps use on someone else.  I never kid myself about my combat capabilities. 



So add hamstrung cops and the rights of psychos to the list of causes.  We have those already so we're on the same track.

No problem with your other conclusions, they're just a tad simplified and a bit skewed to the US view of things.
We don't see it as relinquishing a right to carry arms,  we never saw that as a constitutional 'thing' and it doesn't mean the same to us as to you.  It never did, we not losing anything we took for granted and as yet, can't see the need for it.  
Our culture sprang from a penal colony. We're a very pragmatic lot, any laws we don't consider worth keeping we simply ignore,  so if and when we want guns, believe me, we'll have 'em.  We just won't be wearing them in holsters and carrying pink one in purses.  The cops and government know that. That's why they're actually getting off their backsides to do something about it while they still can and before we, like you, feel we have to.

I think I covered the expectation of others coming to our personal defence.  We don't. We do expect (hope) that the  law will be enough to keep the muggers restricted to hammers and those who go postal being armed only with axes.

We are doing okay though, if you're right that there are more crooks than cops there, it's not quite that bad here... yet.

Oh, and that 'crunch' thing? ... the circle the wagons,  Mad Max type collapse of society crunch, not random incidents.  And I wouldn't be making my stand on my own here, this old pacifist would be only too happy to snap off a few shots to defend the family 'fort'. 
 But that's fantasy stuff. I won't be around long enough to worry about that being necessary, hopefully none of us will.


----------



## SifuPhil

Well-spoken, m'Lady.

I didn't mean to imply that YOU were a pacifist - I have a bad habit of substituting "you" when I really mean a theoretical person. My apologies and I'll try to be careful about that in the future, okay, Wimpy? :highly_amused:

The way I perceive things here the "older" generation grew up in a time much like your present one, where the worst home invasion they could expect would be the mother-in-law popping in unannounced. Unfortunately that has changed, and although it's still a rare occurrence out in the Heartland (the middle of the country), in the big cities on both coasts it's becoming an epidemic. 

I used to tell my students that you could move up to the mountains and be safe from the crazies; about 20 years ago I changed that to "You can never move far enough - trouble will find you". 

So what have we come up with here so far? That Americans are gun-crazy homicidal maniacs with a death wish? Well, yeah ... but only a small percentage. Unfortunately they get all the press. The rest of us just want to feel safe, and presently we do not, in part _because_ of all that media coverage. We ARE a paranoid lot, though, so we believe whatever the news tells us, further mucking up the landscape.  

Is it a conspiracy on the part of the arms manufacturers? I doubt it. I'm more inclined to think the way a few others here do, that it's just a slow decline of social values. It's the ham-strung cops AND the money-hungry lawyers AND the paid-off judges AND the lack of parenting AND all the other seemingly small but actually highly important signals that cross our bow every minute of every day that most people laugh off but when put all together create a toxic brew of trouble. 

I have no desire to harm anyone, so in that sense I strive to be a pacifist. But the difference is that I will NOT hesitate to take someone out if they threaten or attack me or mine, consequences be damned.

I'd love to hear the stories about your rough-and-tumble legendary cops. Growing up I remember the cops in NY - usually Irish and always big as a house. You wouldn't DARE spit on the ground if they were within a few blocks of you, because despite their size they had some sort of leprechaun magic that allowed them to teleport instantly to your side, no matter _how_ fast you ran. You'd then receive the obligatory cuff upside the head and the quick, friendly lecture, then a pat on the head and a kick in the butt and you'd be on your way, terrified but much wiser. It was a respect for law - THEIR law - that we learned. 

But it was only years later that I learned how they treated the REAL criminals - usually with their blackjacks and billy-clubs. But hey - crime was just a dim vision for most people, not in-your-face like it is now. People left their doors open even overnight, young kids could play outside until all hours and you knew your neighbors. Ever since all that disappeared it's become a new world, and that's the world I base my actions on - not the one that I grew up in and would like to see once again. 

And part of that reality for me is that the bad guys have guns, so I base my defense upon having at LEAST the same. One of these days I'm going to order that flamethrower kit, though, and THEN we'll see ....


----------



## Jackie22

Government is not trying to take away ALL guns...that's just one of the fear factors the NRA keep alive.

The statistics prove that Gun CONTROL works.

I think the paranoia in this country is preventing ANY kind of preventive measures from happening...how very sad for all of us.


----------



## rkunsaw

I believe you are wrong about statistics Jackie. Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws it the country and the highest gun related murder rates.

I've been an NRA member since 1970. The NRA didn't start as a political organization and politics is still not its primary purpose. It became involved in politics in response to those who are trying to take away our guns.

The goal of the anti gun crowd is indeed to take away ALL our guns. Just like many other rights, they can;t get by with taking them all at once so they try chipping away at them bit by bit.


----------



## Warrigal

Coming in late to clear my name. My lap top is at the cleaners.

I'm not trying to tell Americans what to do about guns either but I too am desperately trying to understand the thinking. I am perplexed as to why the glaring comparisons with other civilised countries  cited by Jackie22 are not ringing alarm bells. I don't understand why this is not seen as a major social problem and why there is not popular clamour for a well thought out and sustained policy to improve the situation.

Talk of burly policemen of yore won't do it and in a country where there are already more guns than people, I can't see that even more guns is going to help at all.
In a democracy, nothing will happen unless the people want it. When the people do make up their mind to act, nothing can stop them. It appears to me that there is no will to change the situation with respect to the number of gun deaths including mass shootings, accidents and suicides and I'm wondering how many more will have to occur before thinking begins to change. 

I have a few ideas why it is so difficult to change things and like Diwundrin I recognise that differences between countries are rooted in history and geography. By dialoguing I hope that the differences in thinking and cultures on different continents may be better understood. If talking about my culture seems like giving a lecture then I apologise but I read somewhere this quote 


> Everything that is, could be otherwise.


 If this were not true then why bother thinking at all?


----------



## SifuPhil

Warrigal said:


> In a democracy, nothing will happen unless the people want it. When the people do make up their mind to act, nothing can stop them.



That's in a _pure Democracy_.

We are NOT a pure Democracy. We are a Frankenstein Republic/Democracy, as is evidenced by the fact that although we as a people WANT a good economy, affordable education and healthcare, etc. we do not get it. Throw in the rampant political bribe system and old-boy networks and you have something that in theory _should_ work but in practice is a failure.

And that's all the politics I'm going to speak because I'm really not fond of the subject.


----------



## Warrigal

That's a cop out Phil. Votes for women and civil rights campaigns are examples of the people putting pressure on governments to change things. Ditto collective action by workers to achieve improvements to working conditions. You don't have to wait for a utopian democracy for the people to exert their will. In some cases, all they have to do is turn up and vote.


----------



## rkunsaw

Chicago, home of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Too bad they don't have gang control laws. Or maybe someone forgot to tell them that criminals don't obey laws.

http://news.yahoo.com/boy-3-among-13-injured-chicago-park-shooting-081123625.html


----------



## Jackie22

rkunsaw said:


> I believe you are wrong about statistics Jackie. Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws it the country and the highest gun related murder rates.
> 
> I've been an NRA member since 1970. The NRA didn't start as a political organization and politics is still not its primary purpose. It became involved in politics in response to those who are trying to take away our guns.
> 
> The goal of the anti gun crowd is indeed to take away ALL our guns. Just like many other rights, they can;t get by with taking them all at once so they try chipping away at them bit by bit.



[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ahhh Chicago.....this is another talking point of the NRA.....Chicago, ran by Democrats, does have tough gun laws, but if you want to buy guns all you have to do is go ten miles because the rest of Illinois has some of the most lenient gun laws in the country.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/08/where-chicagos-guns-



 Dallas, that is ran by Republicans, has a higher murder rate than Chicago, which is: 


http://www.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=chicago&s1=IL&c2=dallas&s2=TX [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]......funny they never mention Dallas...lol[/FONT]


----------



## Jambi

*No question gun control works, just ask any Jewish survivor..............*



Jackie22 said:


> The statistics prove that Gun CONTROL works..................




The Holocaust was the systematic annihilation of six million Jews during the Nazi genocide - in 1933 nine million Jews lived in the 21 countries of Europe that would be occupied by Nazi Germany during World War 2. By 1945 two out of every three European Jews had been killed.

The number of children killed during the Holocaust is not fathomable and full statistics for the tragic fate of children who died will never be known. Estimates range as high as 1.5 million murdered children. This figure includes more than 1.2 million Jewish children, tens of thousands of Gypsy children and thousands of institutionalized handicapped children.

In his book _Sheltering The Jews_ the Holocaust historian Mordecai Paldiel later wrote:

_"Never before in history had children been singled out for destruction for no other reason than having been born. Children, of course, were no match for the Nazis' mighty and sophisticated killing machine .."_

​ *My Nazi death camp childhood diary – in pictures*

                              Helga  Weiss, a Czech Jewish girl, was sent with her parents to the  concentration camp at Terezin, a few days after her 12th birthday in  1941. She kept a diary, in words and pictures, and when she and her  mother were sent on to Auschwitz in 1944, her uncle hid the diary in a  brick wall for safekeeping. These are some of the pictures from her  diary, which has only now been published

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...-diary-nazi-camps#/?picture=404433920&index=8




 Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.Washington DC’s low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to  strict gun control, and Arlington, VA’s high murder rate of 1.6 per  100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.




*The Night of the Broken Glass (Kristallnacht) - the infamous Nazi rampage against     Germany's Jews - took place in November 1938. It was preceded by the confiscation of     firearms from the Jewish victims. On Nov. 8, The New York Times reported from Berlin,     "Berlin Police Head Announces 'Disarming' of Jews," explaining: *
     "The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as     a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin     had been 'disarmed' with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000     rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses     are threatened with the severest punishment."*2* 
     On the evening of Nov. 9, Adolph Hitler, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels and other     Nazi chiefs planned the attack. Orders went out to Nazi security forces: "All Jewish     stores are to be destroyed immediately. Jewish synagogues are to be set on fire . The     Führer wishes that the police does not intervene. All Jews are to be disarmed. In the     event of resistance they are to be shot immediately."*3* 
     All hell broke loose on Nov. 10: "Nazis Smash, Loot and Burn Jewish Shops and     Temples," a headline read. "One of the first legal measures issued was an order     by Heinrich Himmler, commander of all German police, forbidding Jews to possess any     weapons whatever and imposing a penalty of twenty years confinement in a concentration     camp upon every Jew found in possession of a weapon hereafter."*4* Thousands of Jews were taken away. 
     Searches of Jewish homes were calculated to seize firearms and assets and to arrest     adult males. The American Consulate in Stuttgart was flooded with Jews begging for visas:     "Men in whose homes old, rusty revolvers had been found during the last few days     cried aloud that they did not dare ever again return to their places of residence or     business. In fact, it was a mass of seething, panic-stricken humanity."*5* 
     Himmler, head of the Nazi terror police, would become an architect of the Holocaust,     which consumed 6 million Jews. It was self-evident that the Jews must be disarmed before     the extermination could begin. 
     Finding out which Jews had firearms was not too difficult. The liberal Weimar Republic     passed a Firearm Law in 1928 requiring extensive police records on gun owners. Hitler     signed a further gun control law in early 1938. 
     Other European countries also had laws requiring police records to be kept on persons     who possessed firearms. When the Nazis took over Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, it was     a simple matter to identify gun owners. Many of them disappeared in the middle of the     night along with political opponents. 
     Imagine that you are sitting in a movie house in Germany in May 1940. The German Weekly     Newsreel comes on to show you the attack on Holland, Belgium and France. The minute     Wehrmacht troops and tanks cross the Dutch border, the film shows German soldiers nailing     up a poster about 2-ft. by 3-ft. in size. It is entitled "Regulations on Arms     Possession in the Occupied Zone" ("Verordnung über Waffenbesitz im besetzen     Gebiet").*6* The camera scans the top of the     double-columned poster, written in German on the left and Flemish on the right, with an     eagle and swastika in the middle. It commands that all firearms be surrendered to the     German commander within 24 hours. The full text is not in view, but similar posters     threatened the death penalty for violation. 
     The film shows artillery and infantry rolling through the streets as happy citizens     wave. It then switches to scenes of onslaughts against Dutch and Belgian soldiers and     Hitler's message that this great war would instate the 1000-year Reich. A patriotic song     mixed with the images and music of artillery barrages, Luftwaffe bombings and tank     assaults compose the grand finale. 
     France soon fell, and the same posters threatening the death penalty for possession of     a firearm went up everywhere. You can see one today in Paris at the Museum of the Order of     the Liberation (Musée de l'Ordre de la Libération). A photograph of the poster is     reproduced here, including a translation in the sidebar. 
     There was a fallacy to the threat. No blank existed on the poster to write in the time     and date of posting so one would know when the 24-hour "waiting period" began or     ended. Perhaps the Nazis would shoot someone who was an hour late. Indeed, gun owners even     without guns were dangerous because they knew how to use guns and tended to be     resourceful, independent-minded persons. A Swiss manual on armed resistance stated with     such experiences in mind: 
     "Should you be so trusting and turn over your weapons you will be put on a 'black     list' in spite of everything. The enemy will always need hostages or forced laborers later     on (read: 'work slaves') and will gladly make use of the 'black lists.' You see once again     that you cannot escape his net and had better die fighting. After the deadline, raids     coupled with house searches and street checks will be conducted."*7* 
     Commented The New York Times about the interrelated rights that the Nazis destroyed     wherever they went: 
     "Military orders now forbid the French to do things which the German people have     not been allowed to do since Hitler came to power. To own radio senders or to listen to     foreign broadcasts, to organize public meetings and distribute pamphlets, to disseminate     anti-German news in any form, to retain possession of firearms - all these things are     prohibited for the subjugated people of France ."*8* 
     While the Nazis made good on the threat to execute persons in possession of firearms,     the gun control decree was not entirely successful. Partisans launched armed attacks. But     resistance was hampered by the lack of civilian arms possession. 
     In 1941, U.S. Attorney General Robert Jackson called on Congress to enact national     registration of all firearms.*9* Given events in     Europe, Congress recoiled, and legislation was introduced to protect the Second Amendment.     Rep. Edwin Arthur Hall explained: "Before the advent of Hitler or Stalin, who took     power from the German and Russian people, measures were thrust upon the free legislatures     of those countries to deprive the people of the possession and use of firearms, so that     they could not resist the encroachments of such diabolical and vitriolic state police     organizations as the Gestapo, the OGPU, and the Cheka."*10* 
     Rep. John W. Patman added: "The people have a right to keep arms; therefore, if we     should have some Executive who attempted to set himself up as dictator or king, the people     can organize themselves together and, with the arms and ammunition they have, they can     properly protect themselves ."*11* 
     Only two months before the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, Congress enacted     legislation to authorize the President to requisition broad categories of property with     military uses from the private sector on payment of fair compensation, but also provided: 
     "Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed: 
     "(1) to authorize the requisitioning or require the registration of any firearms     possessed by any individual for his personal protection or sport (and the possession of     which is not prohibited or the registration of which is not required by existing law),     [or] 
     "(2) to impair or infringe in any manner the right of any individual to keep and     bear arms ."*12* At the time of the Nazi     attack on Jews known as Night of the Broken Glass, Heinrich Himmler, head of the Nazi SS     and Police, ordered Jews disarmed. People's Observer (Völkische Beobachter), November 10,     1938. 
     Meanwhile Hitler unleashed killing squads called the Einsatzgruppen in Eastern Europe     and Russia. As Raul Hilberg observes, "The killers were well armed . The victims were     unarmed."*13* The Einsatzgruppen executed 2     million people between fall 1939 and summer 1942. Their tasks included arrest of the     politically unreliable, confiscation of weapons and extermination.*14 *
     Typical executions were that of a Jewish woman "for being found without a Jewish     badge and for refusing to move into the ghetto" and another woman "for     sniping." Persons found in possession of firearms were shot on the spot. Yet reports     of sniping and partisan activity increased.*15* 
     Armed citizens were hurting the Nazis, who took the sternest measures. The Nazis     imposed the death penalty on a Pole or Jew: "If he is in unlawful possession of     firearms, or if he has credible information that a Pole or a Jew is in unlawful possession     of such objects, and fails to notify the authorities forthwith."*16* 
     Given the above facts, it is not difficult to understand why the National Rifle     Association opposed gun registration at the time and still does. The American Rifleman for     February 1942 reported: 
     "From Berlin on January 6th the German official radio broadcast - 'The German     military commander for Belgium and Northern France announced yesterday that the population     would be given a last opportunity to surrender firearms without penalty up to January 20th     and after that date anyone found in possession of arms would be executed.' 
     "So the Nazi invaders set a deadline similar to that announced months ago in     Czechoslovakia, in Poland, in Norway, in Romania, in Yugoslavia, in Greece. 
     "How often have we read the familiar dispatches 'Gestapo agents accompanied by     Nazi troopers swooped down on shops and homes and confiscated all privately owned     firearms!' 
     "What an aid and comfort to the invaders and to their Fifth Column cohorts have     been the convenient registration lists of privately owned firearms - lists readily     available for the copying or stealing at the Town Hall in most European cities. 
     "What a constant worry and danger to the Hun and his Quislings have been the     privately owned firearms in the homes of those few citizens who have 'neglected' to     register their guns!"*17* Resistance to Nazi     oppression was hampered by the lack of civilian arms possession. One of the most notable     exceptions was the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in 1943, which began with a few incredibly brave     Jews armed with handguns. They were able to temporarily stop deportations of Jews to Nazi     extermination camps. 
     During the war years the Rifleman regularly included pleas for American sportsmen to     "Send a gun to defend a British home. British civilians, faced with the threat of     invasion, desperately need arms for the defense of their homes."*18* Indeed, The New York Times carried the same solicitations.     After two decades of gun control, British citizens now desperately needed rifles and     pistols in their homes, and they received the gifts with great appreciation. Organized     into the Home Guard, armed citizens were now ready to resist the expected Nazi onslaught. 
     With so many men and guns sent abroad to fight the war, America still needed defending     from expected invasions on the East and West coasts, domestic sabotage, and Fifth Column     activity. Sportsmen and gun clubs responded by bringing their private arms and     volunteering for the state protective forces.*19* 
     Switzerland was the only country in Europe, indeed in the world, where every man had a     military rifle in his home. Nazi invasion plans acknowledged the dissuasive nature of this     armed populace, as I have detailed in my book Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality     in World War II (Rockville Center, New York: Sarpedon Publishers, 1998). 
     Out of all the acts of armed citizen resisters in the war, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising     of 1943 is difficult to surpass in its heroism. Beginning with just a few handguns, armed     Jews put a temporary stop to the deportations to extermination camps, frightened the Nazis     out of the ghetto, stood off assaults for days on end, and escaped to the forests to     continue the struggle. What if there had been two, three, many Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings?* 20* 
     The NRA trained hundreds of thousands of Americans in rifle marksmanship during World     War II. President Harry Truman wrote that NRA's firearms training programs     "materially aided our war effort" and that he hoped "the splendid program     which the National Rifle Association has followed during the past three-quarters of a     century will be continued."*21* By helping     defeat the Nazi and Fascist terror regimes, the NRA helped end the Holocaust, slave labor     and the severest oppression. 
     Those tiny pacifist organizations of the era that called for gun registration and     confiscation contributed nothing to winning the war or to stopping the genocide. Their     counterparts today have nothing to offer that would enable citizens to resist genocide. 
     Individual criminals wreak their carnage on individuals or small numbers of people. As     this century has shown, terrorist governments have the capacity to commit genocide against     millions of people, provided that the people are unarmed. Schemes to confiscate firearms     kept by peaceable citizens have historically been associated with some of the world's most     insidious tyrannies. Given this reality, it is not surprising that law-abiding gun owners     oppose being objects of registration. 
*Notes: *
     1. Interview with Bill Clinton, "Good Morning America," June 4, 1999 
     2. The New York Times, Nov. 9, 1938, 24. 
     3. Gerald Schawb, The Day the Holocaust Began (New York: Praeger, 1990), 22. 
     4. The New York Times, Nov. 11, 1938, 1, 4. 
     5. The Holocaust, Vol. 3, The Crystal Night Pogrom, John Mendelsohn, ed. (New York:     Garland, 1982), 183-84. 
     6. Die Deutsche Wochenschau, No. 506, 15 May 1940, UfA, Ton-Woche. 
     7. Major H. Von Dach, Total Resistance (Boulder: Paladin Press, 1965), 169. Earlier     published as Dach, Der Totale Widerstand (Biel: SUOV, 2nd ed., 1958). 
     8. The New York Times, July 2, 1940, 20. 
     9. The New York Times, Jan. 4, 1941, 7. 
     10. 87 Congressional Record, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., 6778 (Aug. 5, 1941). 
     11. Id. At 7102 (Aug. 13, 1941). 
     12. Property Requisition Act, P.L. 274, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., Ch. 445, 55 Stat., pt.     1, 742 (oct. 16, 1941). See. Halbrook, "Congress Interprets the Second     Amendment," 62 Tennessee Law Review 597, 618-31 (Spring 1995).
     13. Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews (New York: Homes and Meir,     1985), 341, 318, 297. 
     14. Yitzhak Arad et al. eds., The Einsatzgruppen Reports (New York: Holocaust Library,     1989), ii. 
     15. Id. At 233, 306, 257-58, 352-53, 368. 
     16. Reichsgesetzblatt, I, 759 (4 Dec. 1941). 
     17. The Nazi Deadline, The American Rifleman, February1942, at 7. 
     18. The American Rifleman, Nov. 1940. 
     19. E.g., Report of the Adjutant General for 1945, at 23-24 (Richmond, Va., 1946); U.S.     Home Defense Forces Study 58-59 (Office of Ass't. Sec. Of Defense 1981). 
     20. See Rotem (Kazik), Simha, Memoirs of a Warsaw Ghetto Fighter (New Haven: Yale     University Press, 1994), 118-119; David I. Caplan, "Weapons Control Laws: Gateways to     Victim Oppression and Genocide," in To Be a Victim: Encounters with Crime and     Injustice, eds. Diane Sank and David I. Caplan (New York: Plenum Press, 1991), 310. 



*Yes, I realize it could NEVER happen to us, and it only happens in other places. I guess I just have a bad habit of trying to stand up for other people's right to life.*

   We have all heard of the Holocaust. When someone mentions the word  "Auschwitz" a shiver runs down our spine. "Too gross," we say, "I don't  want to cry." So though we know that it was our people that this  happened to, that it was our aunts, uncles, and grandparents that this  happened to, we leave the subject alone. "It is too disturbing. It will  give me nightmares." 
 But can we just leave it alone? We know about it but we don't talk about  it. Perhaps we've even listened to a Holocaust survivor speak. We know  that the Holocaust was infinitely more horrible than we can imagine. But  does everyone know this? The deniers have become more vocal within the  last decade. Their ideas are becoming more mainstream as they show up in  ads of college newspapers, on official looking web sites, and even in  some classrooms. Who speaks up against these false ideas? Who speaks up  against the people who say it never happened? Who speaks up against  those that say it is a Jewish conspiracy attempting to gain pity? Not  many - for it is too disturbing to discuss. 
 For over six decades, the experiences that we find too difficult to even  think about, have been haunting the survivors. For over six decades,  the survivors have been trying to educate the world about the Holocaust.  For over six decades, the survivors have been remembering and saying  the Kaddish for the victims. Sadly, these men and women are now in their  seventies and eighties and will not be able to continue the struggle  for much longer. These survivors have fought for life when there was  only death, fought for good when there was only evil, and fought for the  future when there was only the past. Their struggles have not only  become part of our history but have shaped and prepared our future. 
 The survivors are leaving us, the younger generation, with a legacy of  great worth. We are left with a struggle - not an easy one, for  struggles never are - but certainly a worthy one. We have been given the  duty to fight for our rights and our future as well as the duty to  fight against ignorance and bigotry. We represent the future as well as  the past. We are to remember and to never forget. 
*It is on the twenty-seventh day of the Jewish month of Nissan that a  special day has been devoted to the remembering of the Holocaust, called  Yom Hashoah. Please spend at least a few moments to remember the victims.   *


*Suggested Reading*



The Holocaust 
Holocaust Remembrance Day 


*GRAPHIC IN NATURE: *This is what we condone when we surrender our right to protect ourselves and our neighbors from draconian evil.



http://www.photos.nazis.dk/


----------



## Jambi

Jackie22 said:


> ahhh Chicago.....this is another talking point of the NRA.....Chicago, ran by Democrats, does have tough gun laws, but if you want to buy guns all you have to do is go ten miles because the rest of Illinois has some of the most lenient gun laws in the country.



Gosh, where does heroin come from? Overseas?

Very convenient to ignore that we cannot close our eyes and wish something out of existance.


----------



## Warrigal

Jackie22 has a valid point. A chain is only as strong as the weakest link. City by city legislation won't work, nor will state by state. Uniform legislation across the whole country is the only workable solution.
Jambi, you just Godwinned yourself and the current situation has nothing in common with pre war Germany.


----------



## Jambi

Warrigal said:


> Jackie22 has a valid point. A chain is only as strong as the weakest link. City by city legislation won't work, nor will state by state. Uniform legislation across the whole country is the only workable solution.
> Jambi, you just Godwinned yourself and the current situation has nothing in common with pre war Germany.



Chain as strong as the weakest link? Are we talking about crane rigging or human rights?

If jackie want cower down and expect other people to defend her, it's her right. If I choose to not cower like a beaten dog, that is my right.

I want a gun so that you cannot come and take my gun from me. Why do you feel you have a right to steal my property and prevent me from defending myself?

Again, anyone who says a mass extermination can never happen again is a fool. It happens every day.




> you just Godwinned yourself and the current situation has nothing in common with pre war Germany.



Never heard that term but it sounds anti-Semitic.


----------



## Happyflowerlady

Almost a dozen pages ago, this thread started out as a simple story about a blind man.
 It quickly took on a life of its own, first as a discussion about gun control here in America, and then continued into a debate about owning guns in general.
Now, it has reached the point of almost becoming radical, and all the friendly little chit-chat has been done away with.

There is no way that either side is apt to change their mind, or possibly not ever even understand each other's passionate beliefs about this issue.

I would hate to see something like this destroy the friendships that we work so hard to build here together, and I can not see any agreeable conclusion getting any closer.
I am respectfully asking Matrix to close this thread, and possibly even ban the topic altogether, and close any other threads that it diverts away from the original topic, and into a gun debate.


----------



## SeaBreeze

The Speakers' Corner is a better spot for discussions like this, however, nobody should go off the deep end and get so hot that they edge on being insulting.  Warrigal will make sure that even discussions on that group will not spiral into something ugly.



Happyflowerlady said:


> Almost a dozen pages ago, this thread started out as a simple story about a blind man.
> It quickly took on a life of its own, first as a discussion about gun control here in America, and then continued into a debate about owning guns in general.
> Now, it has reached the point of almost becoming radical, and all the friendly little chit-chat has been done away with.
> 
> There is no way that either side is apt to change their mind, or possibly not ever even understand each other's passionate beliefs about this issue.
> 
> I would hate to see something like this destroy the friendships that we work so hard to build here together, and I can not see any agreeable conclusion getting any closer.
> I am respectfully asking Matrix to close this thread, and possibly even ban the topic altogether, and close any other threads that it diverts away from the original topic, and into a gun debate.



I agree, and have noted in a couple of my posts here, that this was supposed to be about the blind being allowed to get gun permits.  And, although the discussions went way off track, as I figured they would, we all conducted ourselves in a civil manner.  The last few posts on this thread are beginning to jump over the line, IMO.

I agree that a close to this thread is wise at this point.  I don't want to persuade others to change their views, and I would resent if they tried to change mine.  However, I don't think any topics should be banned from forum discussion, as long as folks remain on thread topic, and act respectfully.


----------



## Happyflowerlady

Awesome suggestion, Di ! The Speakers corner is a perfect place for anyone  who wants to discuss this kind of an issue. 
There are great points to both sides of the debate , and the group is set up just for discussing politics and other issues like this.
I really enjoy this Seniors Forum, but the debates distress me when they get serious. I am just not engineered for arguments.
Just a peaceful old FlowerChild.....


----------



## basefare

These arguments have distressed me and may beyond my ability. I may have to consult the governor, Governor Sara Palin, to get her expert opinion.


----------



## That Guy

Perhaps we should make it mandatory that EVERYONE; man, woman, child; own a gun and if you refuse you will be shot . . . by a blind man...


----------



## SifuPhil

That Guy said:


> Perhaps we should make it mandatory that EVERYONE; man, woman, child; own a gun and if you refuse you will be shot . . . by a blind man...



I just can't see that.

Personally I've been in far more heated debates - heck, all-out flame wars with death threats being hurled from both sides! - so this discussion didn't even appear on my threat radar. But far be it from me to go against the masses. It's just a shame that a discussion that invokes good participation and a boost to the board's stats will be tucked away somewhere where no one will see it.


----------



## SeaBreeze

SifuPhil said:


> It's just a shame that a discussion that invokes good participation and a boost to the board's stats will be tucked away somewhere where no one will see it.



Well, it wasn't closed.  It was only put into the forum that was appropriate for it in the first place, I put a lot of my threads into Chitchat.  The General Discussions forum is supposed to be about talk of Senior Life, as it says in the description.  A blind person getting a gun permit is hardly a discussion about life as a senior.   Tucked away where nobody will see it?..., I personally don't get that.


----------



## SifuPhil

SeaBreeze said:


> Well, it wasn't closed.  It was only put into the forum that was appropriate for it in the first place, I put a lot of my threads into Chitchat.  The General Discussions forum is supposed to be about talk of Senior Life, as it says in the description.  A blind person getting a gun permit is hardly a discussion about life as a senior.   Tucked away where nobody will see it?..., I personally don't get that.



Sorry for the confusion ... I saw where someone said to put it into "Speaker's Corner", which I believe is a group, which I believe you not only have to be registered to join but also might not be indexed by Google and other bots - not 100% sure of that point, but the more hidden-away a discussion is the less good it does for both casual visitors and for SEO. 



			
				Diwundrin said:
			
		

> That thing about no one being able to see it?  Are they paying to read our pearls of wisdom?



See above.


----------



## basefare

Stuff it anywhere you want but the Governor says, "when you talk gun control you're really talking about taking away American's freedoms."


----------



## SifuPhil

SeaBreeze said:


> It was suggested that a better place for serious gun debates would be a group like Speakers' Corner, rather than hijacking a thread about blind people getting permits.  Never meant to put this thread there.



Okay, that clarifies it - thanks!



> You have to consider some seniors that may just be contemplating joining a forum of their peers, because maybe they don't get out much, are lonely or desire information about things that are happening that affect the elderly, or just want to chat about everyday things.  Well, they go to the first forum that's supposed to be about senior life, and they read an escalating gun control debate that mentions the killing of the Jews, etc., that just may make them move on as far as senior talk.  But if they go to Chitchat, where all topics can be expected, then the discussion wouldn't seem so radical perhaps.



Understood, although I disagree that putting it in Chat would be a solution. That might actually be one of the first places after General Discussions that a newbie would go. I say "might" - I don't have access to the traffic data here but I know Chat is usually one of the most popular sections on any forum. YOU must know that - I was under the impression you run / had run forums or sites before. 

I see it more in the overall "tone" of a board; 4chan is a place for young Turks to light the world on fire and the place is filled with pirate warez, porn and more cussing than a shore party of drunken sailors. That's THEIR "tone". Other forums are so staid and straight-laced that they could put a meth addict to sleep. 

I like to think that SeniorForums does a nice balancing act, but there's always that awkward first moment of "contact" when a controversial subject brings up people's blood. Then you usally see the division we see here - some want to bury the discussion, ban any further examples of that discussion and generally want the board to be ruled by an iron-fist with no room for individual expression or plain old-fashioned debate.

The other faction wants everything to be open game, nothing _verboten_ and to take on all comers. 

Achieving a balance between those two audiences is almost impossible, from what I've experienced on the 'Net. You either lean one way or the other, because to balance the two extremes is far too difficult and time-consuming. And then there are the very few boards that somehow get a magical mix of members that are self-policing and mature enough to work things out on their own. I'd like to believe that's what we have here, which is why it pains me to see people suggesting banning certain topics, because you KNOW how that works out - they want A,B and C banned, I counter by screaming for the elimination of D, E, and F ... 

And then the board disappears.



> I'm not a webmaster by any means, nor would I ever want to be one, but to me, consideration of members and visitors to the forum is top priority over bots, google or seo...just looking at this through the eyes of the average person over fifty, who may not want arguments, conflict, blood and guts when they visit a forum.  Honestly, I'm far from a wimp, but if there were any flame wars or death threats on this forum, I'd be history.



Yes and no to the first part. Unfortunately, while it is true that a forum succeeds or fails on the strength of the members as well as the management, the way to GET those members is to become at least a part-time servant of Google. They are the ones with the power of life over death as far as traffic is concerned, and traffic means not only more members but more ad impressions are being clicked and thus more money is being earned. Although I'm all for the human element I also realize that the mechanics of the situation have to be followed, otherwise you'll have a stagnant board with the existing members slowly leaving.

As for flame wars and such being a turn-off, I totally agree. But I just did not see that happening in this particular case. We all sometimes go to extremes to illustrate our position - I'm one of the biggest practitioners of that particular art - but as long as no one is leaving the board or fire-bombing the Admin I think it's still below an actionable level.

Once again, that's just my opinon, but I'm just a nobody with a big mouth.


----------



## Matrix

I don't want to close this thread, actually I think this is one of the best threads on SF. It may not convince any members to change their minds, but we have many guest readers, this thread will certainly help some of them understand the gun issue better. 

I understand some members may get a little upset during the debate, but believe me, it's worth it. There is so much wisdom to be learned from seniors, I know I learned a lot and had so much fun just by reading this forum. We have had young members joined to seek advice from seniors, most young people won't join us but many do read. 

As for moving threads, I will be more careful, please feel free to post anywhere you like, don't let it ruin the fun.


----------



## SeaBreeze

SifuPhil said:


> Understood, although I disagree that putting it in Chat would be a solution. That might actually be one of the first places after General Discussions that a newbie would go. I say "might" - I don't have access to the traffic data here but I know Chat is usually one of the most popular sections on any forum. YOU must know that - I was under the impression you run / had run forums or sites before.



True, Chat IS a popular section on forums also, that's what I was getting at, it's not like putting the thread on the back burner, or in a basement somewhere.  They would go there after general discussions (on senior life), and they would see that the Chat forum was for off-topic discussions.  I never ran a forum at all, but I currently help with moderation on the Pet Forums and the Health Forum.  Also helped a gal moderate a yahoo group many years ago called 'women getting fit over fifty'...but that's it. 



> I like to think that SeniorForums does a nice balancing act, but there's always that awkward first moment of "contact" when a controversial subject brings up people's blood. Then you usally see the division we see here - some want to bury the discussion, ban any further examples of that discussion and generally want the board to be ruled by an iron-fist with no room for individual expression or plain old-fashioned debate.



I think it's well balanced here also.  I can only speak for myself.  I don't want to bury any discussions, or ban any topics, as I already said in a previous post.  Good old fashioned debate is fine, and I've seen many intelligent discussions take place here in a very mature and considerate manner.



> The other faction wants everything to be open game, nothing _verboten_ and to take on all comers.



Again, I can only speak for myself, but I'm not one who gets their jollies visiting a forum for conflict or arguing, and obviously I'm not alone in my thinking here.



> And then there are the very few boards that somehow get a magical mix of members that are self-policing and mature enough to work things out on their own. I'd like to believe that's what we have here, which is why it pains me to see people suggesting banning certain topics, because you KNOW how that works out - they want A,B and C banned, I counter by screaming for the elimination of D, E, and F ...



Well, in my opinion, I see from the members here that we are mature enough to discuss various topics in a civil way.  Anyone knows that subjects like religion, politics, ****** orientation, racism, guns, etc. will cause emotions to rise and may get heated.  But, I already said in another post, that I personally disagree with the banning of any topic on the forum for discussion...BUT, they should be posted in the appropriate forum...in this case chitchat.  

There's nothing wrong either with heavier topics to be started in Groups, that was Warrigal's thought and it was a good one, IMO.There's no reason either that interested members can't mosy on over to a group to discuss a topic that they are passionate about.



> Once again, that's just my opinon, but I'm just a nobody with a big mouth.



I think I speak for many of us here that your opinion matters a lot.  You're a somebody with a little mouth. :love_heart:


----------



## Jambi

Diwundrin said:


> 1) Huh?  Take a deep breath and proof read your posts Jambi, you're sounding a bit OTT.
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Don't call S.W.A.T. on what is essentially just a bar argument between pals.
> 
> 3) You're scared of Jackie???  (kidding, but that's how it *sounds* when you write that way.)
> 
> 4) So, how's the weather in Ruwanda?  Been there long?
> 
> 5) Sorry Jambi but no one's attacking you personally, or your views, so no need to spout all that holocaust and 'last stand at the Alamo' type rubbish.  That isn't doing your argument any good at all.  It just shuts down people's interest in anything you have say at all and brands you as a 'frother'.  You're better than that.
> 
> 6) If you really want to get your point across on a forum you need to persuade, not bully.  We need all points of view on this subject and yours is just as relevant as anyone else's and is another important piece in the puzzle of it all.
> 
> 7) We/I actually do see your point, just not as intensely, or as being the only answer over the long term.
> What may be right in one place isn't everywhere.
> 
> 8) We're just talking about it, there's no prizes for changing anyone's mind, only for seeing their point  and understanding why it has relevance to them.
> 
> 9) It doesn't have to be right, or wrong for our own particular circumstances, just an interesting insight into how others are affected, and what their ideas are for changing it if it needs it, or like yours for keeping things as they are.
> 
> 10) Persuade us Jambi, calmly.



1) Sorry, I can see how I came across that way.

2) Nothing like that, I see it the same.

3) No apology neccesary. You were seeing an obscured veiw of the point I failed to make. My point was why sould someone waggling their finger from a recliner have their will enforced by anyone but themselves? Mother Theresa; Deeds, not words. If you don't feel strongly enough about it to be the change, why should anyone else?

4) Hot, dry and dusty. I would have stayed longer, but my machete became so dull it was taking four hard swings to sever the elbows of even the smallest children.

5) I didn't take it personally, but I can surely see how my posts made it seem as if I had. Sorry again. Thanks for the compliment, but I just may not be any better than that. Again, I find it difficult for someone to say they fear the Japanese, but another Holocaust could never happen. (A Town Like Alice, anyone?)

6) I am truly ashamed if I came across as a bully, that is the last thing I would ever want to be.

7) Yes, no, maybe, ok?

8) I really don't expect to change anyone's mind. Sometimes they do reveal their thought process, and that can be interesting.

9) "What is right and what is wrong? Need anyone tell us these things"

10) I can persuade no one. "When the student is ready, is when the teacher arrives"


----------



## Jillaroo

_May i make a suggestion, why not start a new topic just for Serious Discussions and list a few of the serious discussions in there under separate threads,namely Politics, Gun laws etc, most people would bypass it if they saw it was serious discussion, you could also add in the description of the topic that is for debating current affair issues.
                                   Personally i don't feel it belongs in the Chat thread, leave that for the light hearted discussions, i don't believe putting it in the Group Speakers Corner is the answer, in my opinion if a person is looking at the forum to join and sees that there is quite a few topics including one for serious discussion, it won't scare them away in fact they will most likely embrace it and join so they can join in on all the topics on offer in this lovely forum, that's my opinion_


----------



## Jambi

I see nothing wrong with a 'hidden' forum or two or three. Warning on the door "Enter st Your Own Risk", or "Abandon hope ye who enters here"

Some such category where answer #4 might keep dentures from hitting the floor or coffee from soaking a keybard.

1) Philosophy

2) Cynicysm

3) Duality of man

Maybe 3 is really covered in 1 and 2, or maybe only 3 ?


----------



## Warrigal

Nah, let's just try to talk in a civil tone and apologise if someone appears to be offended by something we might have said.

We're all adults and should be able to discuss almost anything as adults but we need to remember that we know nothing of each other's history and that some people are going to have some raw wounds which we might inadvertently trample on sometimes.

No censorship or Chinese walls are needed. Just courtesy and consideration.


----------



## Happyflowerlady

I have also thought about things, and I do like that even controversial subjects can be discussed, and I did not in any way mean to stop that from happening. 
I simply was seeing the discussion seeming to escalate to levels that worried me that it might break up the group and people would get upset and leave.
Obviously, my perception was way out of line, and I was worrying for nothing, everyone else was enjoying themselves.
This is something that I have always been too sensitive about, for personal reasons, and I offer my apologies to the group.


----------



## Warrigal

You make my point when you say "for personal reasons". 
We should all be ever mindful of hidden hurts and pull back voluntarily if things start to get a bit raw.


----------



## Pappy

I am a terrible debater but I do enjoy reading others opinions. I do not partake in serious discussions as I tend to get carried away and say some things I wish I hadn't. 

I am a gun owner, three as a matter of fact, and do have a concealed weapons permit. This is my choice and mine only. I totally respect others views on gun ownership and would never, ever, try to change your personable views on this subject.


----------



## Jackie22

I want to apologise for any ill feelings that I may have caused, it was never my intention to enforce my will or my thoughts on anyone.  I am a staunch Democrat, a political junkie, have always tried to keep up with whats going on in Washington as well as locally and have always tried to defend my views as I see it...just trying to show another opinion when needed...in the future I will try to be 'less staunch'... lol...and more respectful of others' views

Also would like to say that I really appreciate the ability of some on this forum to be fair, peacemakers and open to all views, you set an example that I will try harder to follow.


----------



## SifuPhil

At almost 200 replies to this thread I think it's time for ... 

Kumbaya!




*pushes gas cans away with his toe*


----------



## Pappy

Phil...thanks for the lol.....


----------



## SeaBreeze

_...been said before, special bunch here, glad to be in the mix! :love_heart:

___​


----------



## Sid

Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya;
Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya;
Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya,
O Lord, kum bay ya


----------



## Sid

SeaBreeze said:


> _...been said before, special bunch here, glad to be in the mix! :love_heart:
> 
> __View attachment 2665_​



  That sure is pretty


----------



## Sid

Jackie22 said:


> I want to apologise for any ill feelings that I may have caused, it was never my intention to enforce my will or my thoughts on anyone.  I am a staunch Democrat, a political junkie, have always tried to keep up with whats going on in Washington as well as locally and have always tried to defend my views as I see it...just trying to show another opinion when needed...in the future I will try to be 'less staunch'... lol...and more respectful of others' views
> 
> Also would like to say that I really appreciate the ability of some on this forum to be fair, peacemakers and open to all views, you set an example that I will try harder to follow.



      You a Democrat????   Whoda ever thought that.


----------



## Sid

Well I'll just go ahead and make it 200 replies.
  I must say it has been good to read so many differing replies and I don't think anybody lost it.


----------



## Jackie22

Sid said:


> You a Democrat????   Whoda ever thought that.




LOL....yea, Sid, no surprises there.eaceful:


----------



## That Guy

. . . the thread goes on forever and the party never ends  . . .

(with apologies to Robert Earl Keen)


----------



## TICA

Jumpin In!!!!  When this tread first started, I thought how crazy that it was even being considered that a blind man could own a gun.   Having followed up every day to see what you smart people had to say, I realized just how little I know about the mindset of feeling like you have to protect yourself.  Honestly, that is something that never crosses my mind.  I'm your typical "non violent", "make love not war" individual and am happy to stay that way.    After reading the tread though, I can see all sides of the debate and my conclusion is that it depends on where you live and the culture around you as well as your experiences that molds our perceptions of guns and/or gun control.    

Everyone has a valid point for their own circumstance and it has been an interesting debate.   Just because we don't agree, doesn't mean there isn't respect, so I appreciate this thread.


----------



## SifuPhil

Can't really blame him, can you?

I took it as a serious thread. Not that I'm completely naive; it's just that this kind of thing doesn't surprise me anymore. 

I've _never_ lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American public.


----------



## GDAD

I never wanted to argue the pro's & cons of Americas Laws on the General public owning guns.
What I was amazed at was the the fact( which I thought at first was a HOAX) the gun Licences 
were going to be issued to the BLIND!....Still find it a bit wierd!


----------



## Happyflowerlady

GDAD said:


> I never wanted to argue the pro's & cons of Americas Laws on the General public owning guns.
> What I was amazed at was the the fact( which I thought at first was a HOAX) the gun Licences
> were going to be issued to the BLIND!....Still find it a bit wierd!



GDAD,  this is another one of those silly(to you that don't live here) things about we Americans . It is the product of the way our government does things, and our conditioning. 
We have learned that when we don't stand up for the rights of someone else, our turn is generally not far behind. Like that old story of the guy not caring when the bad guys came and took someone else, and eventually, the rest were gone, and the bad guys came for him.

The government  will pick an issue like this, where most people will agree, and then blind people will not be allowed to own guns. Then they will use the example of some wacko that shoots up someplace like was just all over the news, and say that people with mental problems shouldn't have guns. Again, most people agree. 
Then , some vietnam vet loses it, and shoots people, so now, they can't have guns either. You get the idea...

 Bite by bite, they keep eating away at the elephant, until none of us are left with the right to own a gun, or at best ,there are only a few of us left to protect this country should we be attacked.
Right now, just the hunters here in America are a formidable force to make any country think twice before attacking. Once our weapons are gone, and our military is scattered around the globe, America is vulnerable.

We have been down that road before with things we used to love and take for granted, like prayer in school, and "in God we trust" being part of our money, and our government. 
Parents used to be able to discipline their children here, and they grew up to be responsible adults.  

Pretty much all of that was slowly eroded away by government making more laws a little at a time, until now we hold onto what we have left with both hands.


----------



## rkunsaw

If wars are no longer fought with troops on the ground how os it so many of our young men and women are getting killed and wounded? 
We have troops on the ground in too darn many places now.


----------



## SifuPhil

Note the Boston Marathon disaster - 2 guys on the ground. 

Note 9/11 - 4 commercial airplanes.

I don't think we have to worry so much about nukes - that's a remnant of the Cold War years. What we DO have to worry about are small groups of terrorists bringing the war here, and small groups of terrorists CAN be stopped with firearms wielded by private citizens. 

Besides - one of the supposed functions of our government is to protect us from "outside" threats.  But as I've said, the threats no longer appear on our coastlines, way up in the air, waving big signs that say "WE'RE ATTACKING YOU!"

Now it's the guy next door that everyone says is "a quiet, well-mannered kinda' guy". 

Attacking the enemy from within their own camp - a tactic in vogue since the days of cavemen.


----------



## That Guy

SifuPhil said:


> Now it's the guy next door that everyone says is "a quiet, well-mannered kinda' guy".



If he's blind, be sure to give him a gun.


----------



## SifuPhil

That Guy said:


> If he's blind, be sure to give him a gun.



Naw - he's deaf and mute, so I'm loaning him my flamethrower. 

Hey, they're legal in PA!


----------



## Sid

"So who's gonna invade? Canada or Mexico?"

         Diwundrin, have you read any of the news reports, about what goes on along our border with Mexico?

         I think the question to be settled is the right. Does it exist or not? Unfortunately The "gun side" seems to have become distracted from the real issue and some dumb things are said that does not help the cause at all. On both sides of the issue.
         "DISCLAIMER: This statement is not directed to any statement made during the discussion on this thread but the overall picture in general.  (Does that make sense?)


----------



## Sid

Diwundrin said:


> Geeeze, wish they were here, coulda used one on the weeds.



  Here we would have to file an enviromental impact report before we could use.


----------



## Happyflowerlady

Back in the mid-90s, I lived in western Washington, and rode my horse out near Mt. St. Helens. 
One day, Robin  (who was home on leave) and I were riding along the trail, when a soldier appeared out of the woods. He was in there for survival training, and when he found out that Robin was in the military, he opened up and told us what he knew about the other military training that was happening in the area, and there were several training areas , some of them for UN, and Russian and Hungarian troops, hidden away up there in the mountains.
Several of the neighbors reported chickens missing from the coops overnight, and I found where soldiers had made a camp bed in the horse hay in our barn, so most of the residents knew about the soldiers training out in the woods.
 Friends who went out camping with their Jeeps also came across foreign speaking soldiers training with fwd ORVs called 
Rodan, when they were up on the mountain.
 So, not even counting the terrorist sleepers we have here, there are also military soldiers training in outlying areas.

I have posted one short clip, but there are all kinds of articles and videos about the Chinese and Russian infiltration that is happening under the very nose of the sleeping American people, who are mostly waiting for zombies to come to life and attack us.
http://youtu.be/vtAAUegOz28


----------



## Davey Jones

Jillaroo said:


> _*It's not about rights it's commonsense, would you send your toddler out to play in the traffic*_



I remember my Father always telling me when I drove him nuts to "go out on the street and play"


----------



## Judi.D

Of course it is utterly ridiculous to give a permit to own and/or carry a gun to a person blind or legally blind. Just as ridiculous as it would be to give them a license  to drive a car. Oh wait a minute, they wouldn't be able to pass the test required by law to drive the car. Hum??


----------



## SifuPhil

Davey Jones said:


> I remember my Father always telling me when I drove him nuts to "go out on the street and play"



We actually DID play on the street - touch football, stickball, tag, bike riding, roller skating - so I never understood the evil of the phrase "go out and play in traffic".

For us it was a simple "OK". 



			
				Judi D. said:
			
		

> Of course it is utterly ridiculous to give a permit to own and/or carry a  gun to a person blind or legally blind. Just as ridiculous as it would  be to give them a license  to drive a car. Oh wait a minute, they  wouldn't be able to pass the test required by law to drive the car.  Hum??



Ah, but the fly in the ointment there is that there ARE several states that issue driver's licenses to legally blind citizens. The test they take is modified to allow for their handicap.


----------



## SeaBreeze

Paralyzed man still shoots his rifle...http://www.odditycentral.com/news/m...-neck-down-fires-a-rifle-with-his-tongue.html


----------



## SifuPhil

Amazing stuff. Reminds me not to complain about what I _can't_ do.


----------



## Gael

Seems thus far it's just one state; Iowa. Here's the news story:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/08/iowa-grants-gun-permits-to-the-blind/2780303/


----------



## Justme

What is it about the Americans and guns? There seems to be a terrible shooting tragedy in the US quite frequently yet they still love their firearms!


----------



## Jillaroo

_Just me you have 11 pages to go through that will help you to understand the Americans and their gun laws etc _:hair:


----------



## rt3

form 4473 fed. firearms transfer doesn't ask if your blind. some states require more restrictive conditions for concealed carry permit. do not confuse the two. 
the definition of concealed carry -- is no one knows you have it on you --  if you get picked up and no permit there may a fine depending on the state (there are many, many people carrying that do not have permits and really don't care what people who do care think)

all people have some vision impairment but they are not blind-- the legally blind are not dumb, they aren't packin if its beyond their control
you will not rise to the occasion, you will fall to your level of training

its all about money, there are not enough hospital facilities to house the mentally ill of the world, so drugs become one of the only solutions
the governments goal is to have gun violence made a national health issue, look at the current nominee for Surgeon General-- if you can stomach this guy, you deserve what you get.

by the Supreme Court, the police have no obligation to protect you, this position alone will ramp up personal defense 
not allowing the vision impaired to pack only makes criminals out of them, besides violating EEOC title VII civil rights.

I pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the Republic for which it stands  etc.   US is not a democracy, and if you think you really want a democracy look up the meaning again.


----------



## rt3

almost forgot, wow 16 pages, comments from other countries are really interesting, but then on the other hand that's why my ancestors left Europe.


----------



## Davey Jones

GDAD said:


> I seen a quick news flash on TV, just caught the end! Is it correct that the Blind are being issued with gun permits?




SURE,why not they drive vehicles dont they?


----------



## rt3

what do your get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question.


----------



## RCynic

I don't know, but I do know what you get when you cross a donkey with an onion. Most of the time you get an onion with floppy ears, but every great once in a while, you get a bit of ass that brings tears to your eyes!


----------



## Davey Jones

rt3 said:


> what do your get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question.




Just making a point,thats all. 
If you dont like it then dont reply to it.


----------



## Jambi

RCynic said:


> I don't know, but I do know what you get when you cross a donkey with an onion. Most of the time you get an onion with floppy ears, but every great once in a while, you get a bit of ass that brings tears to your eyes!


.

As I remember it.........

"What do you get when you cross a Walla Walla onion with a donkey?"



"A piece of ass so sweet it brings tears to your eyes!"


----------



## That Guy

rt3 said:


> by the Supreme Court, the police have no obligation to protect you,



Then, it's about time they got that "To Protect and Serve" crap off the side of their vehicles.


----------

