A firearm is only...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

...a tool. Which tools will you use in your life?

[ileus]

1. There ar e dozens of portable PSD's the pistol is one of the smallest and most important.

There are several personal safety devices we should keep on hand.

The most easily portable and best just so happens to be the common handgun.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. I believe...

...the FBI agrees with you.

[Gregorian]

3. Nonviolence.

To use violence is to become as your enemy.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. A t-shirt for you:

[gejohnston]

5. there is a difference between nonviolence and pacifism

While nonviolent protest like OWS and the civil rights movement works, being a pacifist during an individual attack is stupid.

[Remmah2]

10. What was that old USAF SAC saying?

Peace though superior firepower.

Or as my dad use to say, "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' until you can find a big rock."

[ZombieHorde]

111. Working in nursing homes and group homes,

I have been attacked many times, but I would have been a complete asshole to return the violence.

I was once attacked by an elderly woman who's skin was so thin, she ripped her knuckles on my scrubs. I had to dodge her blows just to protect her hands.

[gejohnston]

112. good point

that would be an exception, at the time I was thinking of things like SAPs (sociopaths, assholes, predators)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

122. maybe

it is God's way off cleaning up the gene pool

[spin]

8. However to be unwilling to defend yourself when you are attacked...

by an individual who intends to serious injure or kill you means that you will end up in the hospital or dead. In some cases that may mean that you little no choice but to use violence and even lethal force if you wish to survive.

Even the Bible does not forbid this.

What does God's word say about SELF-DEFENSE?
Does the Bible allow KILLING someone to protect ourselves?

Q. What does the Bible say about SELF-DEFENSE? Does the Bible allow us to KILL someone in order to protect ourselves and our families?

(Submitted by: D.S.)

A. The sixth of the Ten Commandments in the King James Version Bible translation states we are not to kill (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17). This would seem to mean we cannot use deadly force in defending ourselves or our family. However, the New King James Version Bible, as well as most modern translations, translate Exodus 20:13 as:

"You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13, NKJV throughout)

Jesus confirmed the sixth commandment's intended meaning by stating we are not to murder (Matthew 19:18). Murder is many times a premeditated event carried out by the murderer. Self-defense is our response to those who INITIATE violence against us and is carried out with the intent of protecting ourselves (or others) from injury or even death.
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/can-we-kill-in-self-defense.html

And Mohandas Gandhi made some interesting comments on self defense.

My creed of nonviolence is an extremely active force. It has no room for cowardice or even weakness. There is hope for a violent man to be some day non-violent, but there is none for a coward. I have, therefore, said more than once....that, if we do not know how to defend ourselves, our women and our places of worship by the force of suffering, i.e., nonviolence, we must, if we are men, be at least able to defend all these by fighting.

***

I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.

***

Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right.
http://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm

But if you wish to pursue a policy of nonviolence at any cost when faced by a very violent attacker, that is your decision. I will pray that you will never end up in such a situation.

[ellisonz]

9. +1

[rl6214]

17. There's a difference between nonviolence and protecting yourself

[ellisonz]

20. There's a difference between...

...fighting the Nazis and shooting unarmed teenagers for trying to steal your Christmas presents.

Tibet had an army or did you not know that?

[Kennah]

29. So are you saying the only just violence is the violence of an Army?

[ellisonz]

32. Nope. Not at all...

I'm saying unarmed teenagers for breaking into your house is not right unless they're presenting an imminent threat. The law generally agrees...the Castle doctrine is not absolute.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/fla-man-arrested-after-shooting-would-be-intruder/
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011822531_kitsapshooting10m.html
http://www.ksn.com/news/local/story/Homeowner-arrested-for-shooting-two-intruders/Hv076V1FiU6TFBD5c11r0g.cspx

"You cannot use deadly force to protect property or if someone's running away from you, not being a threat to you," said Captain Mike Yoder with the Sumner County Sheriff's Department."

[Kennah]

83. You analogies are silly

There is justifiable and unjustifiable force.

Wars can be to overthrow Nazism, or to avenge Daddy Bush being a one term President.

Deadly force under civil law can be justifiable or unjustifiable.

Laws vary quite a bit from state to state on the use of force. Here in Washington, we have one of the better statutes concerning deadly force, both in and out of the home.

At the moment a group of people are breaking into one's home, how is one to know they are unarmed? Unarmed criminal color of the day? A group of intruders in one's home is always an imminent threat, and most of the time it's going to constitute an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent.

[ellisonz]

114. The standard for Courts is "immanent" I believe...

[Kennah]

180. No, sorry, an imminent threat likely does not justify deadly force

Imminent may work in some places, but immediate and otherwise unavoidable is a taller standard that works in all states.

[hack89]

113. How do you determine if they are a threat?

why should they get the benefit of the doubt?

[ellisonz]

141. Are you questioning the Courts now?

I think they've been pretty clear about such situations.

"why should they get the benefit of the doubt?"

Sounds like you just want to hurt someone given the chance.

[hack89]

142. No - only if they break into my house.

My family comes before the lives of criminals. I am not a mind reader - if their intentions are not crystal-clear I am shooting. Don't want to be shot then don't break into my house.

[ellisonz]

144. Shoot first, ask questions later.

Real smart guy this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine#State-by-state_positions

[hack89]

146. What if the answer is a bullet in my direction?

I feel no obligation to give a criminal in my house the first shot.

[ellisonz]

147. You'd have needed to have seen a gun...

...and even then if you shot while in flight your actions could be criminal depending on what state you live in.

Real moral core there buddy.

[hack89]

151. I don't gamble with my family's lives

unlike you, I won't sacrifice my family "just to be sure." If there is an iota of doubt then I will decide on the side of my family.

Morals are designed to help make hard choices. You just see them as a means to draw some moral relativity between my family and some criminal. Here is news flash - if you don't want to be shot don't break into people's houses.

[friendly_iconoclast]

154. +1 My response to a break-in would be with one of *these*

and not a question. Don't want your hair styled with it? Don't try to break into my residence. Someone's deprived upbringing/substance habit/
poor choice of pastime/desire for a free laptop/lack of proper mental healthcare does not override the safety of me and mine.

I'll gladly see anyone with real problems helped with them, but someone violently invading another's home has broken any social contract
me or anybody else is obliged to follow.

[Callisto32]

138. ?

[ellisonz]

140. What ?

I thought that statement was clear as day. There's a difference between shooting an armed enemy and an unarmed enemy.

[Gregorian]

21. How rare. A human.

I believe that there might be more to this universe than meets the eye. Something so obvious as killing someone to keep yourself alive is an act of hypocrisy that is surpassed by none other. And in fact isn't a form of survival at all, but the first step toward a true death.

Furthermore, how do we not know that we really are not one. Killing another may really be killing oneself.

Violence and retribution and survival are so much sexier than the alternative. Kind of like the news hour.

I know better than to post on this god forsaken forum. But with your reply I felt compelled. Que the barrage of morons...

[ellisonz]

22. My pleasure.

I think my favorite rebuke to the posting of political cartoons is "you should pay the NRA royalties." For people who claim to know so much about the Constitution, they seem to have very little appreciation of the First Amendment. It's called fair-use people. I think some here wish people in favor of gun control would just get down on our knees and say yes massa...

Word to the wise: it's not going to happen.

[SteveW]

24. Royalties are paid by entities who seek to re-publish, esp. if...

such re-publication is designed to raise or make money. Evidently, the NRA sees monetary and political advantage to such re-publication.

[ellisonz]

35. Which has nothing to do with use of their name...

You can stop spamming that little bit about "NRA royalties" now...

As much as I'd love to discuss the NRA's political machinations...I don't think that's really what you're intent on discussing.

[SteveW]

96. You can question the practice, but anti-gun cartoonists are gettin' paid.

As long as the practice is shown to have occurred, I will continue to post.

[SteveW]

23. Rare? There are many humans right here. I am one...

You say:

"Something so obvious as killing someone to keep yourself alive is an act of hypocrisy that is surpassed by none other."

This is an unsupported statement. If it is your position that one is "human" to kill someone in order to survive, I agree. I just don't see that as morally reprehensible. Sure, one will have regrets, but that is not a signifier of an inferior or "hypocritical," or (presumably) immoral character.

I don't know what you mean by "...the first step toward a true death."

Well, we don't know "that we really are not one," but it is darn difficult to argue a moral position from ignorance.

You say:

"Violence and retribution and survival are so much sexier than the alternative. Kind of like the news hour."

You lump together "violence," "retribution," "survival" as if they were so similar as to be synonymous. But they aren't. Violence is a means of disrupting the function of a thing or person; it may be "immoral" in many cases, but it is a disruption nonetheless, and without context it has no moral content.

"Retribution" is gaining revenge, or some contrived "justice," and is not a worthy goal. "Justice" should at least be accomplished by fair community proceedings; in this country that is "due process." And if a criminal is found guilty and jailed in Spartan conditions, that is disruptive to that person, a kind of violence I suppose, but one which I generally favor.

"Survival" is yet another widely-used and misunderstood condition. One can survive a fire, a flood, or an attack.

I really don't know what is so sexy about any of this, unless one is preoccupied by a distorted notion of values through mass media. I have owned and used guns for over 50 years; the T.V. stuff is foreign matter to me, and rather boring.


You have not explained why this group is a "god forsaken forum," or what in the preceding post "compelled" you to reply. And I hope that you don't consider anyone who disagrees with your unsubstantiated arguments "morons." You will note that I have gone through your position as best as I can without insults.

Can you say the same?

[Gregorian]

25. Argh, never again.

I'll never post in another gun nut thread again. Over and out.

[SteveW]

26. Behind the "non-violence," what is in your heart? nt

[DissedByBush]

46. We generally require facts and rational argument here

Yeah, you might not want to post here again unless you can provide them.

BTW, it's not "over and out."

"Over" means you are finished talking and are awaiting a reply, short for "over to you."

"Out" means you are finished talking, no reply expected, the conversation is ended.

"Over and out" is a self-conflicting statement. It doesn't make any sense.

Kind of enshrines the theme of your post here, doesn't it?

Out

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

51. re: "...facts and rational argument..."

Aside from that, some actual participation would be just plain civil after posting a counterpoint.

[ellisonz]

71. Just goes to show...

... the low opinion of much of DU of this forum.

Frankly, I was going to try and make myself heard until the Tucson 1 year mark but...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

79. You chose to reply here.

I guess this is your way of saying never mind.

[ellisonz]

81. Didn't say I was quitting...

Just that it's worse than I thought...this forum needs http://www.termiteweb.com/termite-fumigation-treatment/.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

82. Well then...

...cheers...welcome and have at it. Press on man.

[ellisonz]

36. "You have not explained why this group is a "god forsaken forum"

I assure you God and DU at large have forsaken this forum...

You do realize it's nickname is the Gungeon, which is only equal in having a nickname to the "Dungeon" i.e. "September 11th" Forum - now relegated to "Creative Speculation" - you should go, you might like it there: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1135 - no other groups at DU have nicknames to my knowledge. Also, please visit I/P - I'm sure they'd love to hear your thoughts on Mid-East Peace: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1134 - Please share your opinions on issues other than guns, surely you have them?

[SteveW]

95. Perhaps you are new, here. I post in other fora. What's your opinion...

on the War on Drugs? What do you think about hunting? The Unitary Presidency? Guaranteed health care? OWS? What we can learn from Tunisia? These are a few of the things I deal with.

Are you really serious about any of the things you post on? Or is Ducks Unlimited just a place for you to troll?

[ellisonz]

116. *facepalm*

Check my profile dude - I've been here since 2003 - according to your profile you've been here since July of this year.

My positions on many things are well known.

"Are you really serious about any of the things you post on? Or is Ducks Unlimited just a place for you to troll?"

Please get a an avatar, start an OP in a forum other than this, and then maybe we'll talk.

[SteveW]

148. Actually, I've been here since 2006...

And was SteveM until the new changeover. Those things NEVER go smoothly, so I stuck with whatever worked. If you can find SteveM, you will see my record -- and do let me know.

I'm sure you'll be talking with me in the future, and I won't have to parade credentials (or avatars) for you either.

[ellisonz]

149. You can see how that's decieving...

...made put a note in your profile.

The grey things are just fucking boring - pick a football team or maybe you guys need your own "we love firepower" avatar.

[SteveW]

153. Not deceiving; I'd rather have my old self back again...

You really seem to like sniffing out character flaws in others ("...how that's decieving?). Sorry, it's more prosaic, a glitch combined with past problems.

My "old name" never had an avatar, either. I may get one. I'm not interested in the gray things either. Is there a way to blank it out?

[Simo 1939_1940]

115. The reason that this forum is "forsaken" by so many pro-restrictionists is that they

know they haven't done their homework on the issue of gun restriction and will have their clocks cleaned by those who have.

[ellisonz]

117. Bahahah...

You should have more faith in many of your fellow DUers.

[Simo 1939_1940]

136. Don't have any more faith in them *on this issue* than the member

who childishly uses that ROFLMAO icon every other post.

[pipoman]

28. You do realize virtually nobody, liberal, progressive, liberatarian, or conservative...

catholic, protestant, jew, agnostic, atheist...you get the idea..agree with this nonsense, no?

Something so obvious as killing someone to keep yourself alive is an act of hypocrisy that is surpassed by none other. And in fact isn't a form of survival at all, but the first step toward a true death.

Furthermore, how do we not know that we really are not one. Killing another may really be killing oneself.

Humans survival instinct is necessary to accomplish evolution through natural selection..

I have many people both living now and who will come later who deserve to have me and need me...nobody is going to take that from them. Sit on a pious throne if you like..

"I know better than to post on this god forsaken forum. But with your reply I felt compelled. Que the barrage of morons..."

Many fools who believe their own lies refuse to talk to others for fear of shaking the core of their beliefs.



.

[ellisonz]

37. You forgot Buddhists...

No prob buddy.

[pipoman]

39. Many pacifists, historically, are granted their ability to be..

because of non-pacifists willingness to fight aggressors who would otherwise prey on pacifists.

[ellisonz]

40. Buddhists fight...

...but they do not strain to kill. I think that is his point.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-korea-fighting-monks-20111226,0,3282576.story

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Chinese_martial_arts#History

[pipoman]

87. Never take martial arts to a gun fight..

[ellisonz]

88. You've obviously never heard of...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

100. You've obviously never heard...

...this on martial arts

[ellisonz]

121. Fuck your guns...

Bruce Lee own that shit.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

123. That is hazardous...

...and unwise. You are offensive.

[ellisonz]

129. What ever say homie...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

132. Yes...

...as always.

[pipoman]

118. nor you this...

[ellisonz]

120. should have...

pepper sprayed the bastard.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

110. May I say...

..."Never take ONLY martial arts to a gun fight."
The best thing to bring to a gun fight is all of your friends who have guns.
If you can, borrow money from them first. It's an incentive.

[rrneck]

45. Wrong group.

"Something so obvious as killing someone to keep yourself alive is an act of hypocrisy that is surpassed by none other."

That's a first amendment issue. You have no right to force your beliefs on anybody else through government regulation. Please see the establishment clause.

That's aside from the most obtuse, absurd thing I've read in a long time. Every living organism on this planet is designed to be able to defend itself. If humans could run eighty miles an hour or change the color of our skin to match our surroundings then we wouldn't need trigger fingers.

[cognoscere]

69. "Que the barrage of morons..."?

Ummm...since the correct word is "cue", you might want to be careful with those stones you're throwing.

[Callisto32]

139. So it would be better to lie down and die at the hands of those that would do violence?

Or, worse, to allow harm to come to another when it is in your power to stop it?

No, sir.

To let someone prey upon another human being or yourself is the ultimate abdication of the responsibility you hold to yourself and others.

All situations should be handled with the minimum amount of force possible. We shouldn't shoot to kill, we should shoot to stop. Unfortunately for those that ply their sick trade of initiated violence against others, often the only sure way to stop a person engaged in such violence is to cause catastrophic damage to a vital system. For you to suggest that in taking the life of another in defense of myself, or those to whose care I am charged not only makes me a hypocrite, but somehow less alive is just.....irrational and insulting.

I've scrapped for my life, and I know first hand the kind of scars that being on the receiving end of a violent individual's insanity causes. To suggest that it is better to let those monsters do that that people....just wow.


Calling those that disagree with you morons before they have spoken....again, just wow.

[hack89]

143. So you do not recognize a right to self defense?

suppose I shot an violent intruder in my house - is that the moral equivalent of him killing me?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. Shooting a rapist or a carjacker makes you a rapist and a carjacker?

[Kennah]

30. And if that were so, then shooting a banker would make one a banker.

I suspect someone would have already tried it and published a book.

[Starboard Tack]

33. No it makes you a killer or maimer.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

167. What's wrong with the epithet "non-victim"?

Surely, there is no virtue in being a victim.

"My body, my choice" isn't just for abortions any more.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

168. 'nough said?

[Starboard Tack]

169. Nothing wrong with it. Killers and non-victims are not mutually exclusive.

I'm not casting judgement on anyone. How you come out the other end of such an episode is hard to say. Because you shoot a would-be robber or rapist, doesn't alter the fact that you either killed or maimed. If I carried a gun, I would probably do the same and I would be a victim still. When one person shoots another, there are always two victims. For me, that is a good reason not to carry one. Not that I have any desire to be a victim of crime, but because I think there are many other ways to defuse situations.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

174. Fair enough but at the expense of appearing argumentative

How does one "defuse" a would-be rapist or other criminal intent on inflicting immediate harm?

[Starboard Tack]

175. I doubt if there's a one-size-fits-all solution with such a hypothetical

I think the key is being adaptable and alert. Reading your assailant is vital. If he/she is operating out of anger, then reasoning is not a good tool. Which leaves two ways to go. Either you adopt a firm parental attitude to take control, which I don't advise, because it is just as likely to backfire, or you join your attacker emotionally, by sharing his anger, thus becoming his buddy. I have always found this to be the best way to defuse anger.
You have to ask yourself "Why does this person want to hurt me?" If you can't answer that, you're in trouble. Usually it's not hard to figure out. A robber, for example, has no motivation to hurt you, so reasoning as an adult serves well. Give him what he wants and he'll go away. Confront him and one or both will get hurt.

Psychos are another ball of wax and are extremely rare. Serial rapists are sociopaths. They are predators, and as such, are predictable to a large degree. Avoidance, of course, is the best avenue of defense. A female is potential prey. Stay with the herd. Don't stray from friends in dark solitary places where predators are more likely to lurk. Carry pepper spray, cellphone, noise alarm.
Don't present as a victim.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

176. "Carry pepper spray, cellphone, noise alarm."

Why not a gun?

[Starboard Tack]

177. If you feel comfortable carrying one, feel free.

Personal choice. IMO not the best choice.

[X_Digger]

178. "Give him what he wants and he'll go away." -- really?

Would you tell that to a woman facing a rapist? What if 'what he wants' is no witnesses who can identify him? Or a couple pints of your blood on the sidewalk?

You feel free to be your robber's 'buddy' and let us know how that works out. We'll chip in for flowers.

And I'll leave the castigation for that utterly sexist tripe to others better qualified.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

179. "And I'll leave the castigation for that utterly sexist tripe to others better qualified."

I'm trying to be a good girl since I'm discussing John Lennon's "Imagine" in another thread.

[inkool]

137. Shooting them is only the first step.

You have to eat their heart to gain their power.

[chrisa]

181. There can be only one!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. Violence:

"To use violence is to become as your enemy."

Yes, absolutely. When you defend yourself against violence by violent means, you become violent.

Failing to adequately defend yourself means you become injured or dead.

Make an informed choice.

[ObamaFTW2012]

63. In case nobody told you,

We didn't beat Germany and Japan in WW2 by "killing them with kindness". We did it with violence. Just like most common thugs today, Hitler and Hirohito respected only one thing - violence. Diplomacy should always be the first approach to any problem, but sometimes it takes brute force to survive a confrontation, and it is at those times when a firearm is necessary.

I respect your desire to handle confrontation in a nonviolent manner, however, that desire must be tempered with the knowledge that you live peacefully only because you haven't been selected for victimization (robbery, rape, murder, etc) by the predators of the world. I do not find that to be a comforting thought.

[gejohnston]

78. I think you meant Tojo

Hirohito was a figurehead not much different than the emperors during the Shogun era (or since their attempt at democracy years after the Meiji restoration and his son today.)

[ObamaFTW2012]

99. I did

Thanks for the correction.

[EX500rider]

6. My tee-shirt:

"You give Peace a Chance.....I'll cover you in case it doesn't work out"

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. I like it! :) n/t

[Hoyt]

13. I think I saw that shirt at photos of TParty "rally" where a lot of the goofs were carrying guns.

[rl6214]

18. sure you did

[Union Scribe]

44. Then surely you could post it. nt

[PavePusher]

47. If so, that makes the sentiment entirely their domain? n/t

[ObamaFTW2012]

64. I want that shirt. NT

[EX500rider]

72. They have the shirt at Cafe Press..

...(not sure how to post a link but will try) I got mine at the Tampa Gun Show (along with the usual grenades and RPG's..lol)

http://www.cafepress.com/+dark_tshirt,584953488

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. To further address this topic...

...I will add:

In life one can only use the tools he or she has. Speculating on which tool is best for the job at hand is better done long before an exigent situation presents itself. This is the essence of preparedness.

Self defense is a dedication to your continued survival and safety and that of those around you.

It is NOT as simple as this:



...but it's close.

[Hoyt]

14. In your mind -- and that of other devotees of "gun culture" -- maybe.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. Bravo!

You're saying, then, that YOU are able to use tools that you don't have???

[rl6214]

19. So you are a "devotee" of the "gun culture" because YOU own guns

or so you say.

[Remmah2]

27. Too bad....

....some people are tools too.

[Kennah]

31. Let's keep Newt outta this

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

43. +1 to both of you! ;) n/t

[Remmah2]

50. He's a whole hardware store. nt

nt

[Starboard Tack]

34. It is only a tool designed to cause death or injury. A tool of violence.

A very useful tool at the rarest of times. A very inappropriate tool to compulsively carry everywhere.
A tool so low on a survival priority list as to not be worth carrying.

[ellisonz]

38. I'm going to hunt for survival with this handgun...

...the rabbits just *fear* the extended clip

[Remmah2]

49. Silly boy

It's duck season.

[gejohnston]

57. hunted for survival with a handgun

I have, what's your point?

[Starboard Tack]

59. My grandma taught me how to kill rabbits with a walking stick

Maybe not the ideal hunting tool, but it worked. And you didn't have to pick out bits of lead.
A handgun is a lousy survival tool compared to all of the following

Compass
Matches
GPS
Phone/Radio
Knife
Sharp stick
String
Protective clothing
Bug repellent
I-whatever (Pod,Pad,Phone)
Solar charger
Functioning brain

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

61. Ummm...

How is an ipod a survival tool?
What are trying to survive, 7th period lab?

[Starboard Tack]

66. Good question.

The apps I use that help my survival include a GPS driven Chart Plotter, ShipFinder, which identifies shipping, including speed, course, type of vessel and full specs. Much cheaper than an AIS system or dedicated Chart Plotter. Also they have internet access. These are survival tools that I use regularly.

[Remmah2]

73. You call that survival gear?

I-pod, phone, solar charger? Do you order pizza at summer camp?

[Starboard Tack]

76. I definitely call it survival gear. I live in an environment where survival is a daily issue.

I use a cellphone and VHF radio for communication. I use apps on an I-Pad as a back-up chart plotter and AIS system, GPS, astronomical software for reading when a sextant is unusable. We use solar charging for 90+ percent of our electricity, which really contributes to our survival, including the power needed for our water maker.

[Remmah2]

80. Too much techno crap.

Roughing it at best, but survival not.

Power to make water? Ever hear of a solar still? No power needed.

Do you consider HoHo's and Twinkies survival food? Maybe Pop Tarts?

I don't need a sex tent to have sex, I do it under the stars.

[Starboard Tack]

86. Maybe not in your world

Has nothing to do with roughing it. I live a very comfortable existence. I don't feel as though I'm roughing it in any way. I use an I-Pad app to help navigate the ocean in all weather including fog, an app that helps me cross some of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. You may call it techno crap. I notice you use a computer and the internet. You call it techno crap. I call it reality and I am grateful for the tools available to me that aid in my survival and the survival of others. Airline pilots and air traffic controllers use the same kinds of techno crap as I do.

I can make water by hand if necessary, but a reverse osmosis system run on 12 volt batteries works just fine and provides more than enough water for our survival needs. I have no idea what HoHo's or Twinkies are, but if they are similar to pop tarts, I would not consider them to be good survival food, except in the short term.

I don't suck on any government or corporate tit for my survival and the tools I keep around to ensure that survival are inexpensive and inoffensive.

I lost you on the sex tent ramble, but the stars are my friends.

I don't need the techno crap, but it's nice. Ever use windshield wipers?

[Remmah2]

90. Depending upon your neighborhood, pirates may visit you.

911 and a sharp stick are even less useful.

BTW I use to work on the the briny deep blue sea, long before those man made GPS satellites were put up there.

[Starboard Tack]

91. And so did I. Still makes them very useful.

I used to live in a world before gun toting became the fad. Now I use the tools I have along with my common sense to avoid pirate infested waters.

[Remmah2]

124. Be safe.

I wish you well in your travels. I enjoyed my sea time but gave it up when I started a family. Some of the worst pirates I met were in port bars in Fort Lauterdale.

I'll toast a beer to you on Saturday night.

[Starboard Tack]

125. Thank you sir. :toast:

[hack89]

145. A world that was more violent then the present gun infested one. nt

[Starboard Tack]

150. "Gun infested" - Really? Is that how you see the world?

You see guns as an infestation? Interesting.

[hack89]

152. No - that's how you see it.

I think there is room for plenty more guns.

[Starboard Tack]

157. Clairvoyant, are you? You think space is an issue?

I dislike the indiscriminate toting of handguns. Guns, themselves, I have no problem with. Those who love guns I consider somewhat weird. Those who equate them with underwear I consider decidedly weird.
My taste in guns does not extend to carrying them in public.

[hack89]

158. I don't care about your irrational likes and dislikes

What pisses me off about people like you is your attitude of moral superiority that lets you believe that your irrational fears should be the basis for actual laws.

You want to restrict my right to carry anytime and anywhere I want? Demonstrate a real harm to you. So far you have failed miserably.

[Starboard Tack]

160. Where and when did I say I wanted to restrict your rights?

I'm not trying to change any laws. I have no idea what you mean by "people like you". Because I point out irrational behavior, you assume I am taking some moral stance. Not at all. Morality is not the issue. Common sense versus irrational behavior is the issue. You don't have to like what I like. You don't need to be realistic and you don't need to be so pissed at those who disagree with you. You sound like a very angry person, which might be a good reason to modify your behavior.

[hack89]

163. But yours is the irrational point of view.

that's my only point.

[Starboard Tack]

164. Irrational to you perhaps

It has served me well for close to seven decades. So, I think it's rational enough. How's that gun thing working for you? How could anyone think that carrying a gun everywhere might be irrational? LOL

[hack89]

165. I have never said I carry every where.

only when and where I think I need to.

[Starboard Tack]

166. Cool. Sounds like your not one of the extreme compusive toters.

That's the only thing I can't wrap my head around. You know, like carrying to church or school or a bar. I can understand people feeling insecure when venturing into high crime areas or high risk situations like a Walmart. Especially those of us who are not as spry as we used to be.
I'm not saying compulsive toters don't have the right or shouldn't have the right. I just don't think toting a gun is going to solve their problems. In fact, I think it does the opposite. It reinforces their problems and enhances the probability of them or someone getting hurt.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

159. Just for the record:

equate - Consider (one thing) to be the same as or equivalent to another.

compare - Point out the resemblances to; liken to.



Perhaps it's time to get knots out of your underwear?

[PavePusher]

119. "I don't suck on any government or corporate tit for my survival..."

Those GPS satellites didn't get into orbit with prayer and community spirit. And all that fancy electronic gear, and the infrastructure that supports it. Just sayin'...

[friendly_iconoclast]

155. And who do you think employs the Coasties that will try to save your ass should you require it?

You know, those folks that map the waters you travel and maintain the buoys and lights you navigate by?

[Starboard Tack]

156. What's your point? You think I have a problem with the Coast Guard?

They provide an excellent service, most of the time, which we pay for.
Sometimes they don't do so well.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jul/12/ntsb-widespread-problems-coast-guard-factor-boys-d/
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/dec/05/should-coast-guard-have-forced-owner-from-sailboat/

[pipoman]

89. So then, you acknowledge

"survival gear" selection is environmental? You do know that there are many places right here in the US where possession of half of the things on your survival list would make you a likely target, and some of those places, just your presence would make you a target for violence, no? Bug spray will not really be a survival item if, say, you became turned around and found yourself in Compton at 11pm.

[Starboard Tack]

92. Really. I used to party in Compton at an after hours club.

Never felt threatened. I don't own anything worth shooting someone over.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

97. You know what they say...

...about opinions...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

101. BTW...

...I stay in Inglewood, myself.

[Starboard Tack]

108. I used to work in Inglewood

Not the worst of places. Not the best. No Walmart thankfully.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

109. I work in...

...El Segundo but I only go there every few weeks.

Know any good Middle Eastern restaurants?

[Starboard Tack]

127. No, can't think of any. We don't eat out much.

When we do it's usually Japanese, Italian or Mexican.

[pipoman]

102. Really?

Do you own anything someone else would be willing to hurt or kill you to take? My safety and the safety of my family are, for me, worth shooting (or otherwise inflicting injury) someone who is a threat.

[Starboard Tack]

103. Nope, I can't think of anything I own worth shooting someone for.

Kids are all grown. We don't own our safety. We risk it daily, just by being alive. Some think they can guarantee it with guns, others with prayer, insurance, bodyguards or whatever. But there are no guarantees. Whatever choice you make it's calculated, or should be. Sure, my family is worth shooting someone for, but as they are all adults and none of us owns a gun, it's unlikely. I could see being a target if a bad guy thought I had a gun worth stealing. Apart from that, I honestly can't think of anything anyone might want that I own, that I'd have a problem living without, except my integrity, which is the most important thing I own. And it is not for sale and is not stealable.

[gejohnston]

104. Your boat perhaps?

I remember not too long ago (until the USCG and Royal Navy took on the problem) pirates would steal boats to use for drug runners.

[Starboard Tack]

107. If I ventured into pirate infested waters, I would include the boat.

I keep forgetting you're in Florida. Might consider a stainless steel 12 gauge if I were in those waters. I used to sail those waters back in the 70's and there were a few pirates around in those days. Haven't heard much about them recently. If I were a pirate, I wouldn't messing in US waters these days. Apart from that, drug smugglers want fast boats to evade LE. Using my boat would be like using a motor home to rob a bank.

[gejohnston]

161. good choice for pirate gun

but they would have less interest in my kayak than your sailboat. I guess they put money ahead of polar bears. Wait, does that mean the Kochs are pirates?

[Starboard Tack]

162. Right, but kayaks are easier to steal.

I have a nice inflatable 1 or 2 person convertible sea kayak. Keep it on board. Lost one a few years ago to thieving seals. And stop insulting pirates LOL.
Happy New Year!

[oneshooter]

130. But it is not yours to determine this. It is the Goblins that determine if you have something

worth shooting you for.

[Starboard Tack]

134. I don't believe in goblins.

I think there are humans who sometimes have evil intent. That intent usually comes from a rational mind. A rational mind can be confronted without the need for a gun. If the gun is in the hands of someone with an irrational mind, then shit will likely happen. I think our drug laws exemplify that.

[gejohnston]

84. at the time

three of them had not been invented and one was in experimental stages. I am guessing the rabbits in England are less aware than the ones in Wyoming.

[Starboard Tack]

85. I don't know about the rabbits, but Grandma could've beaten Wyatt Earp to the draw.

[pipoman]

41. Using the same logic

there is then nothing for you to fear by people legally carrying since the streets are so safe.

[Starboard Tack]

54. Why would I fear anyone carrying a gun?

The idea that I might be a target is as laughable as someone wearing a gun as underwear. You gotta love that one. You guys get funnier by the minute.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

56. Pardon me...

...for being so deliberately non-obtuse but what exactly is your position firearms being simply tools which lack any intrinsic evil qualities?

[Starboard Tack]

58. Not sure I understand your question

The term "firearms" covers a lot. They are designed for different purposes. Some are designed to be used solely, or primarily against humans. I think it could be argued that they are intrinsically evil, by design. I never owned a gun designed for that purpose, but I have owned long guns designed for hunting and sport, which if necessary, could perform double duty by protecting the home. I never saw any intrinsic evil in those weapons.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

60. Well that explains a lot.

Have a nice day.

[Starboard Tack]

67. You are more than welcome

You too have a wonderful day.

[ManiacJoe]

62. Some abnormal thinking there.

Some [guns] are designed to be used solely, or primarily against humans.
No, guns do not work that way. Feel free to point out any that you are referring to, and we will see if we can increase your knowledge.

... that they are intrinsically evil, by design.
Things/objects to posses the ability to be good or evil. That attribute belongs solely to the user.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

42. re: "A tool so low on a survival priority list as to not be worth carrying."

A concealed firearm is like underwear; I assume everyone has one and that it's in bad taste to ask about it.

[Starboard Tack]

53. A concealed firearm is like underwear

Really?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

55. I never said...

...it was an exact analogy.

Don't go Plaxico on us.

[Starboard Tack]

70. If you don't want to be quoted, you'd better watch your analogies.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

74. I don't mind being quoted. n/t

[Remmah2]

126. YES, a firearm is like underwear.

Keep them both clean!

[PavePusher]

48. Except, of course, for the many documented instances that it works.

But yeah, if you can ignore those, worthless, sure. Whatever.

[Starboard Tack]

52. Where did I say it didn't work?

Works very well. It kills and maims people every day . Very well documented.

[ObamaFTW2012]

65. Yeah, except for those times

when you REALLY, REALLY need a gun. Kinda like fire extinguishers.

[Starboard Tack]

68. That's what diapers are for.

Have you ever had one of those times. I have asked that question before and nobody who carries a gun has responded in the affirmative. Of course, they've read about others who have, or they know someone who knows someone's cousin who knows someone. Yeah, that'd be a good reason to wear a gun as part of my underwear.

[ObamaFTW2012]

75. Never had a shootout or anything,

but I have had moments where a gun was useful. I have drawn a firearm to rush to the aid of a woman being mugged in a parking lot, but did not need to fire a shot. He fled when he saw me coming. I've intercepted trespassers (poachers) on my property (480 acres) while armed with a rifle, and I'm certain the rifle helped persuade them to leave. Thankfully, I've never had to fire on anyone, and I hope that I spend the rest of my life carrying a gun that I never need to fire at anyone, but there may be a day when I need it.....so I carry it.

I also wear a seatbelt and carry a fire extinguisher in my vehicle, not because I expect an accident or a fire, but just because there may be a day when I need it. I also carry a flashlight, pepper spray, and a folding knife. All are useful tools for various situations.

[Starboard Tack]

77. Just as I imagined.

Your drawing your firearm for the woman was unnecessary, as your presence was all that was needed. And the trespassers were on your property, which had nothing to do with carrying in public. Your other tools are all sensible. Good luck out there.

[Straw Man]

93. A completely unfounded assumption.

[div class = excerpt]Your drawing your firearm for the woman was unnecessary, as your presence was all that was needed.
Really? On what do you base this conclusion? Have you interviewed the mugger?

[Starboard Tack]

94. "He fled when he saw me coming."

Not when he saw me waving/pointing/brandishing, threatening to shoot. Based on my reading the post.

[ObamaFTW2012]

98. You assume much

I advanced on the mugger with a stainless steel .45 pistol at the low ready position, so I am quite sure he recognized my posture and movement as that of an armed man. I didn't yell, or in any way announce my presence. He and I never exchanged words.

How did you come to the conclusion that my firearm was unnecessary?

[Starboard Tack]

105. From what you originally said "He fled when he saw you coming"

No mention of your "stainless steel .45 pistol at the low ready position". How are you so sure he recognized your posture as that of an armed man, or that being armed made a difference. I such a situation, the presence of another person usually makes 'em run. Especially if you add a little bad juju to the mix.
Anyway, well done. You did the right thing and I would hope you would have behaved the same if you had not had your trusty pistol.

[ObamaFTW2012]

106. Well

it's a very recognizable posture, whether you can see the firearm or not. I suppose we could debate this for a while, and since the mugger isn't available to chime in, I feel it makes little sense to carry on with it.

Thank you for the compliment. In that situation, as always, I did what I felt was the right thing to help someone in need. I couldn't let her cries for help go unanswered. What if that were my wife, and I was not around to help her? I would hope someone like me might do the same for her.

And yes, pistol or not, I would have gone to help her. The pistol was, thankfully, not fired, but it would have improved my chances of surviving the encounter had the mugger chosen to attack me. I do what I can to stack the odds in my favor.

[spin]

128. Look at this picture...

Imagine you are the mugger and you see a man approaching you in this stance. Imagine that the pistol is stainless steel even more noticeable than the pistol in the picture. In my opinion you would have be be almost blind to not recognize that a man walking toward you in in this position was armed.

Low Ready Position

The first ready position was developed at the same time (and by the same guy) as the Modern Technique was. The late Colonel Jeff Cooper, founder and director of American Pistol Institute, in the 70’s developed the Modern Technique which incorporated the Weaver Grip and Stance, based on the then, and arguably still, most advanced and efficient way of shooting a handgun. Named after its creator, Jack Weaver, the Weaver Grip and Stance was light years above how everyone else held a handgun at the time, and its effectiveness was overwhelmingly proven in Jack’s unbeatable shooting record in Police competitions held every year. Jeff Cooper codified the Weaver Grip and Stance while perfecting the Modern Technique, a task he had started in the 50’s, and in doing so developed a way to safely assess threats by simply lowering the firearm down to a 45 degree angle, while still maintaining proper grip and form in the shooter’s arms and hands. It quickly (for obvious reasons) became known as the “Low Ready Position” and was taught as part of the Modern Technique. At the Low Ready Position, the shooter takes their finger off of the trigger and scans left and right, rotating at the hips, keeping the firearm in alignment with the eyes....emphasis added[/
http://www.usacarry.com/ready-ready-ready-set-go/

[Starboard Tack]

131. Thanks. I am familiar with this position

My point was, that regardless of being armed, his very presence was enough to scare the guy away. Also, I applaud him for his coming to the woman's aid and that he would have done so, regardless of being armed. Looking out for each other and being there for those in need, is way better than just looking out for ourselves.
Happy New Year to you and your family.

[spin]

135. And a Happy New Year back to you and yours. (n/t)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

133. "As you all may remember...

...a long time ago, (over forty) years ago, this poor soul cried out for help time and time again, but no person answered her calls. Though many saw, no one so much as called the police. They all just watched as Kitty was being stabbed to death in broad daylight. They watched as her assailant walked away. Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."

I do believe the (POPULACE) has finally got the point.


BRAVO!

[Starboard Tack]

170. "the indifference of good men"?

Kind of an oxymoron. Good men are never indifferent when others are in need. Those would be selfish or amoral men. When it comes to fear, the only thing to fear is fear itself.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

171. It is such a good point...

...that you make!

Truly good men are not indifferent. Within the context of the Monsignor's quote the term "good men" was meant, IMO, to characterize those who were not aggressors in the evil act; those who were OTHERWISE good but indifferent. Those "good men" are to be feared more than the evil aggressors, not because they will harm anyone but because, I believe, they will help NO ONE.

[Starboard Tack]

172. Your reference is also to a movie version of a real event.

The story of Winston Moseley's killing of Kitty Genovese is still unclear to this day in terms of supposed bystanders. A lot of people have cashed in on the "38 uninvolved witnesses", starting with the New York Times. It made a great story, but has largely been debunked. Imagine 38 people standing around at 3.15am watching a murder. Even in 1960's Brooklyn, I find that hard to believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

173. Yes, quite so.

But the apathy and indictment of indifference is rather on the mark.

I have read a few accounts of the Genovese incident. Some are a bit hard to believe.