Right-to-carry guns is proven way to reduce the crime rate

[RoeBear]

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/03242004/opi_20040324016.shtml

Some Daily Oakland Press readers had mixed emotions last week when we reported a Farmington Hills woman had frightened away would-be robbers because she was legally carrying a gun.
They praised us for printing the story, but wished we'd put it on the front page.

It may be the first such local story we've printed or known of - and that was because the chief of police there wisely brought it to public attention.

The successful threat of a weapon in the hands of a potential crime victim is an event that rarely becomes public.

This surely was not the only such happy ending since Michigan residents were permitted by the state Legislature to exercise a constitutional right to keep and bear arms about five years ago.

Before the law was passed people outside the law enforcement community rarely were granted concealed weapons permits. The main qualification of too many who did get them was political clout of some kind.

[MrBenchley]

1. Wow, 30 seconds on google

"Schaitberger called the Oakland (Michigan) Press editorial an "outrage and a slap in the face of every fire fighter." The IAFF president said the editorial "desecrated the memory of the 347 fire fighters who gave their lives that day in service to their fellow citizens and their country."
The editorial by Oakland Press editor Neil Munro used the words "foolhardy, childish, inadequate, and cowboys" in his editorial criticizing the actions of New York fire fighters on 9-11. He described the response as "macho madness" and said the fire fighters "acted like a mob."
Schaitberger said he was appalled that the newspaper would publish such an offensive editorial as its official opinion. "The tone of the editorial was downright nasty, particularly since it was targeted at dead men who cannot even defend themselves against the attack," he said.
"These men died doing something that mattered," Schaitberger said. "You can gripe from afar all you want about how the New York fire fighters responded to the most horrific disaster to ever hit our nation, but the fact remains, they did their job in the face of incomprehensible adversity, they did it well, and thousands of innocent people are alive today because they lived - and died - as heroes."

http://forums.somd.com/archive/topic/2014-1.html

Here's Munro comparing this unelected drunk to Churchill and trying to spin away the lies about Iraq...look who quotes him approvingly...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/950450/posts

[demsrule4life]

3. Hey I see Free Republic is back on the air

I bet that broke a lot of hearts.

[MrBenchley]

8. Which way?

[demsrule4life]

13. Go through yesterdays threads on GD

it was one hot topic.

[pnb]

5. And your point is...

???

[demsrule4life]

6. Something about turds posting links to

freerepublic.

[MrBenchley]

10. No, more like turds actually believing the crap

written by people freepers think are swell....

[MrBenchley]

9. Pretty obvious

But hey, somebody would have to be so fucked up they thought Chimpy WAS Chruchill to buy this crap...

[iverglas]

16. damn

I had an assortment of his stuff in the National Review all assembled and thought I might be first this time, but something crashed my netscape ...

Here's one, a companion piece to that one from freeperland:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-munro110601.shtml

And I have to say, I'm still wondering where the "proof" of anything was in the screed that started this thread.

.

[MrBenchley]

18. No such thing as RKBA "proof"

Just the ranting of loonies like this in "scientific journals" like free republic and lucianne.com and National Review.

[orwell]

2. The Third Way

Other ways to reduce the crime rate.

Less poverty.
Better wealth distribution.
More home ownership.
Better education.
Better criminal rehabilitation.

O

[demsrule4life]

4. Not quite right

that is how you reduce crime rates. Banning guns have never reduced crime rates.

[TX-RAT]

11. Has anyone here suggested the banning of guns?

I'm new here, so please cut me some slack.
Back ground checks, licensing, more training, but I haven't heard banning.

[demsrule4life]

14. Ok I will put it this way

"sensible" gun control laws have never reduced crime.

[iverglas]

17. you win! you spotted the big straw fella!

As I was just sayin' ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=47066&mesg_id=47174&page=

"If you and I are prohibited from owning guns then the criminals will simply turn theirs in and resort to a life of helping little old ladies to cross the street."

... have you given that straw fella a name? Does it need any kind of special diet, to keep it so hale and hearty and capable of being dragged out at a moment's notice whenever the whim strikes?

I propose we call her "Ida". As in "Ida know whether it will fool anybody this time, but let's give it a shot". (haha, a firearm joke)

But maybe it's a he. "Ike". As in "Ike ant think of anything meaningful to say, so I'll pretend somebody said something that nobody ever said and point at it and shriek in terror and maybe I'll manage to scare a bunch of other people enough that they don't notice there's nothing there".


Yup, there's a whole lotta pointing and shrieking at thin air goes on around here.

.

[Columbia]

19. Not on this thread yet

But don't worry there is plenty of support from certain posters in the Gungeon for prohibition of arms.

[iverglas]

22. yuppers

But don't worry there is plenty of support in the Gungeon for prohibition of weapons.

But you put the proof of that allegation in a shoebox somewhere, and put it at the back of your closet under a bunch of other stuff, and then you moved house and it got lost ...

.

[Columbia]

98. More like

The elephant in the room that no one mentions.

[FeebMaster]

20. Please explain to me

how background checks, licensing, more training, or even banning are going to reduce gun crime.

[TX-RAT]

21. Not a suggestion, simply a observation

[iverglas]

23. damn Fridays

put the post in the wrong place

[FeebMaster]

25. I see.

I think you'll find that gun grabbers, in general, like to pretend that they don't want to ban guns and get all huffy if it is implied that they do. Some of them seem to think that if they advocate banning pretty much everything but single shot .22 rifles, then it's unfair to call them gun grabbers or to say that they want to ban guns since they don't want to ban all guns.

[iverglas]

29. I don't

And I really really want to.

Who *are* these crazy people you speak of??

We leave Pert_UK out of this, right? (And Spentastic, of course, too.) Since he isn't advocating anything for the USofA (any more than I am), and isn't actually advocating anything for the UK either, for that matter.

So -- tell. I want all the dirt. Who are the loons among us?

.

[FeebMaster]

34. If there were any people

like those I've mentioned here at DU, it would hardly seem wise to name names. I would think that sort of thing is frowned upon.

I never said they were crazy, either. I would classify them as dishonest or, if they actually believe that being called a gun banner is unfair, stupid. Crazy, though? I don't think so.

[iverglas]

38. never mind the bollocks

Here's what you said:

I think you'll find that gun grabbers, in general, like to pretend that they don't want to ban guns and get all huffy if it is implied that they do.

You aren't talking about the faeries at the bottom of my garden when you say "gun grabbers". You're talking about people who, you claim, exist, right here at DU. You're alleging that there are people who DO want to ban guns (those are the only people who could pretend that they DON'T want to ban guns, obviously).

Now, we can leave aside your allegation that anyone is lying about his/her intent. We'll pretend you never said it -- or just assume that you certainly didn't mean it to apply to ALL "gun grabbers".

And certainly you never said they were crazy. *I* did. You can just identify the people you were talking about; I'll be wholly responsible for any characterization of them I might make once I know who they are.

We'll just talk about "gun grabbers": people who DO want to ban guns.

Surely it should be an easy matter to identify these people, and to offer the facts that establish that they do want to ban guns. I see nothing at all improper about doing that, and cannot imagine why it would be frowned upon. Hoisting people by their own petard is an entirely proper tactic in debate. Use their words and deeds against them; what better evidence could there be?

I would classify them as dishonest or, if they actually believe that being called a gun banner is unfair, stupid.

We don't have to worry about these little characterizations either, which of course would be very much against the rules if you were to put your money where your mouth is. Because I'm not asking you to identify people who object to being called a gun-banner; I'm asking you to identify people who ARE gun-banners.

And if you circle back with any crap about somebody wanting to ban some guns, well, I'll just be very disappointed in you. 'Cause we all know that that wasn't what you were saying about them, and only a silly person would think that anybody else was silly enough to buy that.

.

[FeebMaster]

40. Oh, I'm sorry,

did you want to pretend that there aren't people, even here at DU, who want to ban all guns? We can do that. It will be fun. No one wants to ban anything. Tra la la la la.

[iverglas]

45. excuse me

did you want to pretend that there aren't people, even here at DU, who want to ban all guns?

Actually, I'm quite sure that somewhere at DU there is someone who wants to ban all guns. Just as I'm quite sure that there are a fair number of people who believe that the stars affect events on earth, and that same-sex marriages are an abomination on the face of the earth, and abortion is genocide, and Bush was right to invade Iraq, and the Queen is the head of an international drug cartel.

I just didn't think we were playing kindergarten games here.

In any case, I wasn't the one making the allegation, and what I believe (or, as you put it, what lies I tell about what I believe, if I don't believe it) is entirely beside the point.

You're the one making the claim. You're the one who has refused to substantiate it. You're the one who's all hat no cattle, an emperor all undraped for all to see.

The kindergarten classroom is down the hall, on the left. If I feel like playing a game of I Spy, I'll join you. In the grown-ups' area here, people who make allegations substantiate them or retract them.

.

[FeebMaster]

53. Well iverglas,

maybe you haven't been following this thread too closely, so I'll walk you through it.

TX-RAT said he was new and asked if anyone had suggested banning guns. Then after a brief misunderstanding over his advocation of background checks, licensing, and more training I explained that he would find that people who like to ban things don't generally like to say that they want to ban things. Let's face it, no one wants to be seen as some authoritarian asshole who wants to ban things.

As I've said, I'm not going to name names, but I think that TX-RAT will figure out who is who and who wants to ban what if he sticks around for awhile.

You mentioned something a few posts back about leaving our foreign friends out of this, since they aren't advocating anything for the United States. Is that really fair, iverglas? Why, the easy availability of weapons in the United States is a threat to the whole world. People can just go down to Virginia or somewhere, what with their gun show loopholes, and buy all kinds of guns to smuggle into the UK and Canada. Maybe they'll even smuggle them into some places where it's really hard to come by guns, like Somalia or Iraq or Colombia.

[iverglas]

67. ah yes

TX-RAT asked a question, you chose to answer it, you have refused to offer anything to substantiate the answer you gave.

I'll bet you can guess what my sage advice for the future would be. It might be: keep it zipped if you aren't prepared to put the money on the table.


You mentioned something a few posts back about leaving our foreign friends out of this, since they aren't advocating anything for the United States. Is that really fair, iverglas? Why, the easy availability of weapons in the United States is a threat to the whole world. People can just go down to Virginia or somewhere, what with their gun show loopholes, and buy all kinds of guns to smuggle into the UK and Canada. Maybe they'll even smuggle them into some places where it's really hard to come by guns, like Somalia or Iraq or Colombia.

And that's all very, very true.

Of course, if it is offered as some sort of substantiation that anyone *does* advocate anything for the US, it's a miserable failure. Do you actually understand the concept of "substantiation"? You say that something is "X", and then you demonstrate that it is "X". It's an amazingly useful trick.

Of course, I (and possibly they) do advocate that the US stop being a source of firearms illegally trafficked into other countries. How you go about achieving that is entirely your own business.

Not, you'll notice, quite like how the US advocates that other countries stop being a source of, oh, cocaine and heroin illegally trafficked into the US ... and then sets about colonizing them, (allegedly) to achieve that purpose ...

.

[FeebMaster]

73. Nice of you to drag the drug war into this.

I of course, would like to see the war on drugs ended, completely.

Here, I'm going to make another unsubstantiated observation for you. I think you'll find if you take the people who want to ban guns (or maybe just want a little more gun control :eyes: ) and the people who want to continue or expand the drug war that there will be quite the overlap between these two groups. I'll even tell you why. When you have a bunch of authoritarians who want to ban something, there's a pretty good chance that they don't want to ban just that one thing.

[iverglas]

82. oh goodie, more baseless speculation out loud

I think you'll find if you take the people who want to ban guns ... and the people who want to continue or expand the drug war that there will be quite the overlap between these two groups.

Am I in that overlap??

That should be easy enough to answer.

It should be easy enough to tell us who is, actually. Why don't you do it? You must have SOME reason for saying what you have said and I can't for the life of me imagine why you wouldn't share it.


I of course, would like to see the war on drugs ended, completely.

And that, of course, is of the most supreme irrelevance to the fact that the US *does* attempt to force other nations to do what it wants in its stated interest, of stopping the illegal trafficking of drugs over its borders -- while neither Pert_UK nor Spentastic nor I nor anyone else I know of advocates that any such thing be done in the interests of countries into which firearms are illegally trafficked from the US.


When you have a bunch of authoritarians who want to ban something, there's a pretty good chance that they don't want to ban just that one thing.

Yeah, and when you have a bunch of faeries at the bottom of the garden, there's a pretty good chance there are some talking dogs there too.

Now ... if only I could produce some faeries ... and if only you could produce any authoritarians who want to ban something ...

.

[FeebMaster]

85. I told you

"Am I in that overlap??

That should be easy enough to answer.

It should be easy enough to tell us who is, actually. Why don't you do it? You must have SOME reason for saying what you have said and I can't for the life of me imagine why you wouldn't share it."

It was an unsubstantiated observation. That means I don't plan on substantiating it.


"And that, of course, is of the most supreme irrelevance to the fact that the US *does* attempt to force other nations to do what it wants in its stated interest, of stopping the illegal trafficking of drugs over its borders -- while neither Pert_UK nor Spentastic nor I nor anyone else I know of advocates that any such thing be done in the interests of countries into which firearms are illegally trafficked from the US."

Sorry, but I don't control the United States or it's policies.


"Yeah, and when you have a bunch of faeries at the bottom of the garden, there's a pretty good chance there are some talking dogs there too.

Now ... if only I could produce some faeries ... and if only you could produce any authoritarians who want to ban something ..."

Unsubstantiated. Remember?

[MrBenchley]

90. Conversely

I think you'd find people who have childish, badly thought out and reckless attitudes about drugs and public safety, probably have much the same attitudes about guns and public safety.

And that the same people who want to pretend there isn't a serious gun violence problem in the US also want to pretend that the problems of substance abuse and crime would go away magically if "drugs were legalized."

By the way, it surely is not a coincidence that some of our most feeble-minded and coirrupt pro-gun politicians have also been gung-ho about letting dangerous substances like ephedrine get on the market unregulated.

"Scorin' with Orrin
How the gentleman from Utah made it easier for kids to buy steroids, speed, and Spanish fly.
Since DSHEA became law, substances as varied as paint stripper, bat shit, toad venom, and lamb placenta have all been imported from overseas, bottled up---often by people with no scientific or health backgrounds---and marketed as dietary supplements to unsuspecting American consumers. Many supplements have been tainted with salmonella, arsenic, lead, pesticides, unapproved foreign prescription drugs, as well as garden-variety carcinogens. And despite their New-Age health aura, a significant portion of these "natural supplements" are stimulants, depressants, and other mood-enhancers that some medical experts believe would be classified as drugs if they were synthetic. A surprising number of these products are addictive.
Thanks to Hatch, the U.S. now has standards as low as those in many Third World countries for the sale of many products with serious, pharmacological effects. The results have been deadly. Between 1993 and 1998, the FDA linked at least 184 deaths to dietary supplements, which are now suspected of contributing to the sudden deaths of three football players in August. "

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0109.mencimer2.html

[FeebMaster]

92. Badly thought out and reckless?

I find that insulting. My positions are carefully thought out and perfectly responsible.

"By the way, it surely is not a coincidence that some of our most feeble-minded and coirrupt pro-gun politicians have also been gung-ho about letting dangerous substances like ephedrine get on the market unregulated."

Hmm. Pro-gun politicians who are against regulations on drugs? That's something. Are you trying to tell us that our pro-gun Republican representatives are also against the war on drugs? I don't know. I think I can agree that the Republicans are as against the drug war as they are for guns.

[MrBenchley]

93. Yup.

I suggest you take the issue up with Orrin Hatch.

[FeebMaster]

94. He isn't my senator. (nt)

[MrBenchley]

95. Neither is Trent Lott, whom you never heard of...

[FeebMaster]

96. I never said that I never heard of Trent Lott.

If you keep up this Republicans are anti-drug war and pro-gun business I may get confused.

[MrBenchley]

105. You professed to be totally unaware

of anything Trent Lott had ever done....

[FeebMaster]

108. Well obviously I should have learned more

about him long ago. Who would have believed that a guy who had all the outward appearances of an authoritarian jackass would in all reality be pro-gun and against the drug war?

[MrBenchley]

31. Why?

You've repeatedly said that the only problem with the GOP is that they're not screwloose enough...

[FeebMaster]

36. Actually,

my position has consistently been that the GOP, despite all the cries that they are pro-gun from Republican and Democrat alike, is anything but pro-gun. I think the Republican's legislative record more than confirms this position.

My own position on firearms law has also been consistent. I don't think there should be any. If the Republicans suddenly became pro-gun tomorrow, I certainly wouldn't start voting for them, though. They have plenty of other problems.

[MrBenchley]

56. So you think the GOP isn't irresponsible enough

[FeebMaster]

76. On the contrary,

I think they are very irresponsible on a number of issues including guns. I thin anyone who wants to make it harder for people to buy guns is being irresponsible.

[Narf]

27. Definitely mandatory background checks and training...

Even licensing individuals as "trained and capable" of carrying guns, just like we're supposed to be trained and licensed to drive cars, perform surgery, or fly a plane.

[Columbia]

7. The Best Way

End the drug war.

Incarcerate violent criminals until true rehabilitation.

Reduce unemployment.

[MrBenchley]

12. How will the gun industry profit from that....

But you are right on the money...and it is no coincidence that the people fighting for those things are also fighting for gun control...

[Narf]

26. Good points...all except one:

Better wealth distribution

In America wealth isn't distributed, it's earned. Your other points are quite good though.

[MrBenchley]

30. Is THAT how Chimpy got to be a millionaire?

He EARNED his wealth?

Amazing, the right wing sludge that comes out of the RKBA crowd....

[iverglas]

41. yup, *right* over there with Uncle Miltie Friedman

In America wealth isn't distributed, it's earned. Your other points are quite good though.

And in some places, people have the education and integrity to recognize and acknowledge what other people are saying.

distribution
Statistics the way in which a characteristic is spread over members of a class

If someone says that blue eyes are evenly distributed in a population over all age groups, can I expect you to point out that nobody goes around handing out eyes to anybody?

.

[Narf]

42. I am willing to accept your definition...

I read it differently but now agree that your statement is certainly valid, when explained in the way you just did.

[iverglas]

78. it's a topic that has been discussed here at length

There's a thing called the Gini index which measures disparity in income distribution. An explanation, and the scores for most if not all countries in the world (some of which are unfortunately quite out of date), may be read at http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fbhome.html

The US has hugely greater disparity in income distribution than any other comparable country (western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand). For instance, as I recall a little research I did a year or so ago, there is a whole 10% more of total income in the hands of the top 20% of the population in the US than in Canada.

Some studies have been done in homicide rates have been crosstabbed income disparity scores (as compared to crosstabbing them with average income, which is a far less meaningful measurement of economic reality, but does show broadly similar results). It appears that homicide rates correlate positively with income disparity -- the more unequal the income distribution, the higher the homicide rate. This appears to be true both cross-nationally and intra-nationally. E.g., Canada has much less income disparity than the US, and much lower homicide rates; states in the US with relatively less income disparity have lower homicide rates than states with relatively more income disparity.

.

[orwell]

51. The Death of Horatio Alger

Thanks.

Actually, wealth is distributed through tax policy, non-competitive barriers to certain professions—primarily law and medicine— class-based subsidies, and other direct and indirect means such as developmental admissions to colleges.

There are a lot of romantic notions about the Horatio Alger myth as far as wealth creation and retention in America. The rules are written by the elites to benefit them. In point of fact, elites benefit far more from "big Government" than the so called welfare queens. This is one of the great dirty little secrets. The last I saw, there weren't too many welfare recipients profiting from billions in no-bid contracts in Iraq. Is this earned? Some of it is. But there is also a part that is essentially corporate welfare.

Don't get me wrong, I expect most people who were writing the rules would skew the playing field in their favor. I'd like to think I wouldn't. But let's not kid ourselves that Mr. Smith has been writing the tax policy rather than a phalanx of heavily monied corporate lobbyists.

One thing is still true in America. In the end, you get what you pay for.

O

[iverglas]

86. yup

distribution Economics a the dispersal of goods etc. among consumers, brought about by commerce. b the extent to which different groups, classes or individuals share in the total production or wealth of a community

(The latter is just a particular instance of the general definition I offered earlier.)

And that dispersal, and those shares, depend on the mechanisms established for the "commerce" that brings them about ... which will depend on who gets to decide what those mechanisms will be.

.

[MrBenchley]

15. Right wing humholes all over the web love this guy....

http://www.lucianne.com/threads2.asp?artnum=125321

Next up from the RKBA crowd, Ann Coulter on CCW...(she's for it).

[iverglas]

24. wasn't there a rule someplace ...

... something along the lines of how, if one posted a link to / excerpt from a patently right-wing source, one was required to offer one's comments on the material?

I see a patently right-wing source. I don't see any comments.

Agree or disagree with this patently right-wing source, RoeBear?

Do please show your work while you're at it.

.

[Narf]

28. The right to carry doesn't reduce a darn thing...

A well-trained, armed citizen however, is far less likely to become a victim of some street punk than is the unarmed, unaware citizen.

[iverglas]

33. hahaha

A well-trained, armed citizen however, is far less likely to become a victim of some street punk than is the unarmed, unaware citizen.

And a well-trained citizen dressed in blue is far less likely to become a victim of some street punk than is the unaware citizen dressed in yellow.

Of course, a well-trained citizen dressed in yellow is also far less likely to become a victim of some street punk than is the unaware citizen dressed in blue.

Had some red herring left over after feeding the straw fella, did you?

.

[Narf]

35. I have NO IDEA what you are talking about...

Do you not believe that a trained, armed citizen is better prepared to resist an attacker or intruder than an unarmed, untrained one? If not, then why do we bother training and arming police officers?

[Wickerman]

37. source that, please

thanks

[Narf]

39. Source what?

The statement that a trained, armed citizen is better prepared to resist an attacker/intruder than an untrained, unarmed one? It's only common sense. If you have a gun, and are trained to use it properly and effectively you are better prepared than you would otherwise be if your life or safety is threatened by a criminal. If training and arming a person doesn't make them any better prepared for an emergency situation involving a violent, threatening attack then why do we train and arm police?

[Wickerman]

43. A well-trained, armed citizen however, is far less likely

conjecture - its never been proven and its a bold statement. Far less is a quantity. Things that are quantifiable have origins. Common sense is not an origin.

[Narf]

44. Can we change "far less likely" to, simply, "less likely"?

[Wickerman]

46. sure, its friday, why not?

anything is possible in the Gungeon!

:)

[Narf]

47. Thanks...I'm willing to change my mind if reasonable discussion is offered

[Wickerman]

54. Bwwaahaaahhaaa

uh, this is the Gungeon. Reasonable?

just kidding.

[Narf]

57. Actually, there are a few here who are very good debaters

And some who rely on childish retorts and insults as their style.

[Wickerman]

60. hey, I represent that

no insulting the mods, no matter how childish their retorts!

[CO Liberal]

61. You Stinkybutt Poopypants!!!!

:-)

[Narf]

69. Icky boogerhead!

[iverglas]

48. but no, you see -- it *is* true

I guess I was too oblique.

A well-trained armed citizen however, is far less likely to become a victim of some street punk than is the unarmed unaware citizen.

See?

It was very clever. You'd almost think that the statement had been made that an armed individual (I just don't get this "citizen" stuff, and find myself wondering whether I'm in France in 1789 ...) is far less likely to become a victim than an unarmed individual.

But it wasn't. ;)

.

[Narf]

64. Are you not a citizen?

And removing the word "armed" from my post doesn't change the facts.

[iverglas]

71. well exactly

And removing the word "armed" from my post doesn't change the facts.

The words "armed" and "unarmed" were exactly as irrelevant to the truth of your statement as the citizenship status of the individuals you were discussing was.

And exactly as irrelevant as the colour of their clothing, or what they ate for breakfast, or what the price of tea in China is ...

A person trained to be aware of his/her surroundings is far less likely to be victimized than a person who is unaware. Duh.

OBVIOUSLY, what *I* wonder is why you thought it necessary to put *those* words in your sentence, if what you'd really wanted to say was:

An armed citizen however, is far less likely to become a victim of some street punk than is the unarmed citizen.

Perhaps, just perhaps, because there *is* no way to substantiate *that* claim?

.

[MrBenchley]

52. I think the source is

either the films of Charles Bronson...or those pecular old men's magazines from the 50s..."I fought the punks of blood alley"

[Wickerman]

55. Don't forget the new Rock movie

Walking Tall - the tender story of a man and his bat - oh, hold it, the topic was guns - damn, nevermind.

[MrBenchley]

58. Apropos of nothing

the character's name used to be Buford Pusser....but I guess that isn't a manly enough name for the Rock.

[Wickerman]

65. I enjoyed the original series

of movies - am NOT looking forward to the new piece of crap "vehicle" for the latest action star creation that can't act. Meet me here in 20 years and we'll be bitching about a man named the Rock running for California governor on the Repuke ticket with only abunch of lamebrained authoritarion action movies as his vita.

edit - added of movies - I am old enought to recall it wasn't a TV series.

[MrBenchley]

75. Here's a somewhat peculiar site

That suggests the real-life Buford Pusser looked more like Sam Waterston than either Joe Don Baker OR the Rock...

He also seems to be toting a gun in the mannikin version, unlike his on-screen persona.

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/TNPIGcarbo.html

The Rock spoke at the GOP Nutsopalooza in Philadelphia in 2000...and I still recall Mary Bono trying to convince Jon Stewart that the GOP stood for diversity because he and Richard Roundtree were on the podium and Jon saying over and over "But the delegates are almost all white."

[Wickerman]

80. Guns are sexier

but I thought his whole sthick was the stick instead of a gun?



I was disappointed to learn the real-life BP was a Republican:

http://www.midsouthwrestling.com/BUFFORD-PUSSER.html

September 1, 1970 was Bufords last day of Sheriff as McNairy County. After three consecutive terms as Sheriff,Buford could not run again, state law in Tennessee prohibited anyone from holding an elected office for more than three consecutive terms.A short time later Buford began traveling around to help some politicians campaign on the Republican ticket.

[MrBenchley]

87. And he was a pro wrestler for a while....

To wander further afield...I've always found it remarkable that the right wing humholes who are always so worked up about sex and violence on TV never say "boo" about pro wrestling.

Vince McMahon actually had a lump of lard who made fun of the Bible (Steve 3:16) and yet Jerry Falwell and his ilk looked the other way.

[Wickerman]

89. What would Republicans be without

hypocrisy? Had Pusser lived he would've been TN gov one day, and we would've heard him railing about Gawd and the 10 commandments and carrying a big stick, I fear.

[MrBenchley]

91. Probably so...

Either that or he'd be married to his fifth wife, braying about the "sanctity of marriage."

[slackmaster]

32. Funny how everyone who advances that claim has no numbers

To back it up.

It's exactly the same as the "blood will run in the streets" crowd's argument against fair-issue laws.

Goose, gander, pot, kettle, etc.

[slackmaster]

50. I TELL YOU I GET NO "BOB"-DAMN RESPECT HERE!!!

I post a completely reasonable comment that doesn't cater to the hard-core pro-RKBA side and THIS is the kind of response I get.

NOTHING!

Aren't any of you pro-RKBA folks at least going to castigate me for being a traitor?

Won't one pro-control person say "the jury is still out on the bloodbath?"

:shrug:

[iverglas]

88. I think I must have been gobsmacked

The problem with your request that I recite my line, though (well, I'm "one pro-control person"), is that it never was my line. Maybe I can find an understudy somewhere in the wings who can be dragged out and propped up and prompted ...

What comes next?

.

[slackmaster]

97. I hope you're not trying to claim that nobody has ever taken that line

I did say "one" not "every" pro-control person.

It's amazing what some people will volunteer for.

:evilgrin:

[slackmaster]

107. Thanks to CO Liberal for proving my point

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=47293&mesg_id=47427&page=

Q.E.D.

[CO Liberal]

49. It's Also A Proven Way...

...to have a gun handy if you want to blow somebody away. The Mafia's been using it for years......

:-)

[Narf]

59. The mafia doesn't bother with legal guns.

[MrBenchley]

62. And the gun industry is happy to arm them

[CO Liberal]

63. But They Are Carried Concealed

:-)

[Narf]

66. Yes, they are concealed. Illegally.

Regardless of the laws the criminals will continue to illegally conceal their weapons. It's what criminals do.

[CO Liberal]

68. So We Should Do What The Criminals Do????

Like rob banks?????

:shrug:

[Narf]

72. I carry a concealed gun and I've never committed a crime

I've been fingerprinted, investigated, and licensed to carry mine. Can the same be said for the criminals? I don't propose legalizing crime, just letting law abiding citizens carry guns for defense.

[TX-RAT]

74. How many hours of shoot no shoot training have you had.

I'm sorry but fireing 40 round at 15yrds just doesn't qualify in my book.

[Narf]

79. I've been shooting for about 27 years now...

I shoot at least twice a month, usually about 400 rnds a month, mostly sillouettes and pop-up targets. I usually shoot with a couple of cops (one retired) or the local range-master. They, however, are head and shoulders above me on the range.

[TX-RAT]

81. Prime example

You know how to shoot, not when to shoot.

[Narf]

83. I guess I'll have to deal with that if the time ever comes...

Hopefully, I'll never have to draw my gun outside of the range.

[TX-RAT]

84. I hope your right

[MrSandman]

99. No, we follow the law...

and carry legally.

[hangar18]

104. Yes we do

:-)

[TX-RAT]

70. Thats the part that scares me

21 yrs in law enforcement and never had to fire my weapon.It sure seems some people are just itching to pull the trigger.

[MrBenchley]

77. It also seems some people here

have never even heard the term "innocent bystander."

[hangar18]

101. And yet

...they don't

How many CCW permits were revoked as a result of you arresting the holder? Just curious if you ever arrested a permit holder for something that led to their license to carry being revoked.

[demsrule4life]

106. Then you have been in law enforcement

long enough to know that to many cops consider their duty weapon no more than extra weight on their belt. The only shooting they do is their once a year 50 round qualification course and never shoot on their own time or attend more advanced shooting schools. If you look hard enough you can find story after story of cops fucking up with guns. I would rather have a gun nut that practices all the time and keeps their weapon maintained then some cop that has cobwebs growing on the inside of his barrel. 21 years without firing your weapon? "Well a man has to know his limitations".

[hangar18]

100. Yet it doesn't happen...

...nearly as much with CCW holders as it does to others.

[MrSandman]

102. But it could...

:-(

[hangar18]

103. Sure it could

...But you could drown in someone's pool too.