Robbery-Mahogany Welcome STX
hi from southwest florida. a lot of times i'll write a comment then not post it. on this subject they are putting a cop in the ground today because of lack of enforcement. the 26 year old guy that shot the cop was to have been deported years ago, had 20 felonies and just got released from a night in jail while on parole. blew the cops head off. so what's so different about STX? see you all in October.
my gun is used for only one thing: targets at the range. pure sport. i agree that guns are only around to hurt, but i also believe in education. one well educated person with a gun in his home is better than 100 kids running around thinking they're 10 feet tall b/c they have a gun in hand. i also agree that if one of those kids ever comes in your home late at night, it isn't to tuck you in and read you a story. you don't have to shoot to kill just b/c you have a gun. my first shot goes into the ceiling, and then i count to 3. if they haven't turned tail and run, then they will be in trouble. everything today is dangerous, so why not take a little of the danger out by being educated.
I'm really curious about the "education" that gun owners get. I'm not trying to be critical or judgmental here... I'm truly just curious:
- I'm sure it goes into the safe "handling" of a gun... don't look down the barrel to see if there's anything in there when it's loaded, etc
- I'm sure they go over registration laws, carrying laws, transporting, etc.
- do they talk about how to assess a potentially dangerous situation where you might have to use your gun?
- do they talk about how to protect a home with a gun?
- do they talk about what to do if you do shoot someone (medical, legal)?
How do you get this level of education, and are you required to get this level of education?
I am on the wagon w/mrj1182. Owning a gun should NEVER under ANY circumstance be used to "shoot to kill" that behavior is saved for "non-civilians" however if a punk misguided child or adult finds his/her way into your "personal space" I 'personaly would not let them know that I am not afraid and would protect my family in any means necessary to see that my children & or husband didn't have to go on living w/o oneanother. As I said before,the rotten punk who finds himself trying to "jack" me is gonna be a sorry punk,because I won't kill him,I will mame him!
ps. I have been in just the situation we are disscusing here,I was "a child" 17,years old,two men forced them selves into my home(I was married) I vowed that feeling of helplesness would not cause me to appear afraid to anyone ever again. Plus my father has taught me how to use a gun,I started target practice as child,my would hold the gun up for me so I could see how powerful it was when that trigger is pulled and to show me what damage could happen if you were careless ,I never knew where he kept them in the house,never thought about it,but I know they were locked away. He taught me to NEVER point a gun in anger ever,he wanted me to understand that just because you are trained to use a gun it is not for aiming at someone.(Unless I was being "threated" and had to injure someone,shoot them in the foot,leg,arm,graze the ear,don't kill)needless to say I got really good at hitting my target(the red dot on a 7 up can!!
It is a fine point, Stephanie, but a gun in the hands of a "good guy" is used to stop a "bad guy" attack. A single shot is rarely sufficient...if you have to shoot at all. Most bad guys will see that you are serious and armed and will back off to find a weaker, unarmed victim. From a legal standpoint (and I am NOT a lawyer) you are only justified firing a weapon if, "you are afraid for your life." In that situation, you would shoot until the attack stopped. If you aim for a foot or a hand or some non-lethal area, a good lawyer can argue that you didn't really think you were in mortal danger. Off to jail you go. On the other hand, if you aim for his heart and "happen" to miss, well, that's just the way it is.
EngRMP: "education" is an ongoing process. The initial class I took at D&J's was a firearm safety course. We were taught the very basics of safe handling and marksmanship and we spent some time on the range. There was a cursory introduction to the laws. That was all that was necessary to be able to get a license to have a gun in the home. Further courses are available, but not required.
IMHO the basic course is not enough for a person who would be willing to carry a concealed weapon. The responsibility is far greater and I would expect anyone willing to accept that responsibility to get much more detailed training, whether through books or structured courses. Apparently tehy do as 10 years of observation reveals that gun owners with concealed carry permits tend to be the least aggressive, safest individuals around. (I know that seems illogical, but it is a fact)
I understand your feedback. I do not in any way want to be on the wagon for "everyone" who choses to be armed can be armed. With out picking apart every sentence I want to just add that ofcourse there would have to strict guidlines. Trade, guidelines for guns vs.guidlines for parenting??? I'm trying not be REALLY pissed off at that comment we are after all entiled to our own opinion but, had not had that understanding of what a firearm is capable of ,don't you think it would always just be a "toy" in a walmart to some? In my opinon, I was taught the real danger rather than a squirt gun on a hot sunny day I knew the harm a gun could cause if in the wrong hands. Not to mention that that perticular "training" made me scared of guns,but if I HAD to use one,I would know what to do!
I totally respect and agree with everyones opinion regarding the danger, need for proper instruction, safety, etc. But as a business owner and the victim of several break ins at my home and business, I have carried a weapon for 34 years. It is part of my business attire. After one burglary, the responding officer happened to be an acquaintance of mine and he asked me what I would do if I were confronted with a situation where a weapon was deemed necessary. He wanted to know where my aim would be. I responded that if I were to draw the weapon, 1) I would feel that I or others were in mortal danger and 2)that I would empty the clip. He said that was the correct answer. He said attempting to be "Wyatt Earp" and wound or shoot the weapon from the bad guys hand , with the excitement , trembling, and fear of the moment, would be a very poor gamble to play with your life. I am truly a pacifist, and will turn a cheek unless pushed into that corner with no other way out. I apologize for "rambling" on too much. Regards.
Trade, guidelines for guns vs.guidlines for parenting??? I'm trying not be REALLY pissed off at that comment we are after all entiled to our own opinion but, had not had that understanding of what a firearm is capable of ,don't you think it would always just be a "toy" in a walmart to some?
What I meant was that if there were as many instructions about parenting as are required to have a legal firearm there MIGHT be less need for guns by law-abiding citizens. I have no idea why that would make you mad but if you are I'm sorry. (Not really.) But maybe if some of these young ones were raised as a lot of us were there wouldn't be as many thugs & murderers who, IMO are even too young to date, as there are now.
Here's an example: When I was 16 I took the car for a drive without permission & got a ticket for going 7 miles over the speed limit. I really got in trouble BUT the worst was when a letter came from the courts that "due to the nature of this offense it will be handled in judge's chambers." That was only because I was a juvenile. After being grounded for 6 months, my parents took my license away for 6 months also & that's a lifetime when you're 16. The judge was so impressed with my parents that he waived any fine & congratulated them on making me feel the consequences of my actions, especially after they told him I had taken the car without permission.
Many, not all kids raise themselves. They're babysat by a TV, are fed junk, get in trouble in school & then when the parents are told about it they get in the teacher's face. So they have no respect for themselves or anyone else. If they keep on that path, the results are often not very good.
Sorry Trade, I apologize for my nasty words(PMS ANYONE?) I tend to get a bit over the top on my attitude. I do get your words and I TOTALLY took it wrong. You're right kids have no outlet for thier pent up anxieties and boredem. In the "good ol days" kids wre getting up at 4 am to do chores,feed &milk cows,plow the fields,then go to school too tired to pick a fight ,come back home to do the same chores and farm work until bed time at 10pm. How did parents deal w/unruly children then who protested then? A lashing in the barn w/a leather horse harness from dad! Now we'd be put in jail. Parents have no control over thier children because they dont know what to do,most of the dicipline has gone away.and power given to the children,"if you spank me,I'll call the cops!". I'm sure I missed the add for the present day child rearing group. I raise my children with thier father,big thing these days, we have been together for 13 years and counting,it's is sooo not easy to motivate them do get outside,shut off the TV,put down the cell phone texting-you get the picture.It's a tough job. I used to be addicted to TV-really,when I got here,I didn't have TV for two months, now i have innovative and hardly watch it! It acctualy aggrevates me w/the sound!
All in all,I just wanted to let Trade know that I appologize!!
tiki hit the nail on the head. that about sums up how i feel. as far as education goes, i regularly go to the range, and have taken several non-required home defense and close quarters shooting classes that i feel are interesting and essential to being well-informed. also, my future father in law is a vietnam vet and my fiance's cousin is special forces. i feel that i get a decent amount of advice, instruction, etc. from a group of professionals that know what they're doing b/c they've been in the real life situation.
Yes Stephanie, ALL of us 'old timers' were raised that way -- NOT. Not even my mother was raised that way, and she actually lived on a farm, did do chores and walked several miles to school. Not my dad, and he was raised by a widowed one-room small town schoolteacher.
Parents can legally spank their children today if they aren't leaving marks, although I STRONGLY believe there are much more effective ways of motivating and deterring them. (From my experience one of the single most effective motivating tools is to give them your undivided attention -- play indoor and outdoor games with them, read with them, do chores together with them, etc. If they cannot be pulled away from their television or video games it may be that the parent has let a box become their babysitter.) Note that Trade's parents did not "beat her with a strap" when she took the vehicle. They took a firm position in applying what parenting manuals call a "logical consequence."
Yes, our social world has changed. But the world 25 years ago, 50 years ago or even 75 years ago was not Amish a la "The Witness".
Trade, loved your point. I bet Tammy's thoughts on this would be interesting, too.
I think an important point to consider is that the children who robbed Cory's friends were in all likelihood not registered/licensed gun-holders and they almost certain acquried the weapons illegally. Moreover, it is likely that many crimes committed at gunpoint are committed by individuals that are not legally entitled to possess a firearm. That being said, having high education standards and ambitions for individuals legally possessing guns would have no bearing on preventing similar future crimes since the criminals would not be requried to go through the increased educational and safety requirements.
I'll tell that I comforted to see that at least some folks have gotten training above just "gun handling". I think I would feel comfortable being around these people if trouble erupted.
I think I'd still feel very uncomfortable being around folks that only had the "required gun handling" training. Especially if they've had a traumatic past which prompted the desire to own a gun. I sympathize with the desire for the gun, but worry that more harm than good is likely to occur in a bad situation.
I like the discussion that sailaway and Lizzard are having. I tend to see a solution to both sides:
1) I agree with sailaway that as a society we don't do enough of the "supply" side of this problem. Not all kids that think abut crime, commit crime or get a gun are evil and should be shot or put away forever. This reminds me of the way republicans and democrats see things like this differently:
- a republican only sees the spoiled kids and sees that a good whooping is all they need to get straightened out.
- a democrat only sees the misguided kids that just need a little compassion and guidance to get their heads on straight.
Both approaches are valid, given the right circumstances... one size does not fit all.
2) Someone that commits a violent crime (with or without a gun) should be removed from society until proven that they are no longer a threat to society. I really don't care if that only takes 5 days, or requires 100 years. Just the punishment of time is no guarantee, and the main issue is to stop threats to society. So, I think this meets Lizzard's point.
Finally, I don't think we want to require everyone to have to have a gun. So, there has to be a solution other than guns. I'm fine with properly educated folks having guns (I think), but how do the rest of us get protected?
but how do the rest of us get protected?
Big dogs that bark a lot when something is amiss and will defend you and your property to the death if needed. That's all the protection I need. And when you are outside of the home--well, during the hours and places I frequent, I feel quite safe on STX as I'm sure most other people who live here do too.
I thought you had misunderstood what I said, Stephaniev. I should have been clearer. I think an awful lot of kids get the message (and some from our esteemed (?) leaders like Adelbrain & before that, Chucky) that they don't have any hope & with their example, it's what you can scam the people for to afford the good life. Most kids don't have access or the connections to get contracts they can't fulfill but stealing is stealing, right? Often single mothers are raising kids without a father figure in the home or no support so they're away working all hours & the kids are left to their own devices. And the peer pressure is enormous. I'm quite sure it's the macho gangsta thing that kids get sucked into & can't gracefully back out of until they're headed for jail. It's very hard in a small place to live down an early bad reputation.
I don't think all these kids are all evil but a lot of them sure have the wrong heroes. Maybe we have some better ones with the current governor. I remember "back in the day" that boys who were sort of wild got put in the military & while I'm not suggesting that's the panacea these days BY ANY MEANS, I know many who shaped up because for once in their lives they had structure & discipline with no way of conning their way out of it. So a lot of it is the lack of structure & follow through.
I never got by with a thing when I was a kid. I don't know how they knew what I was up to 24/7 but they sure did. I learned really early to never tell my mother I was bored. She would immediately give me a list of chores. I was also not allowed to just lay around & the TV didn't come on in the daytime - period. If she saw me doing nothing, I was soon very busy. BUT, I was encouraged to read & was allowed to read anything as long as it wasn't movie magazines (that's REALLY dating me.)
I just hope there's some solution before this current trend gets any worse.
stxem... ummmm, duh, good point! You know, I'm now trying to picture how that would have played out in Cory's friend's situation. I don't think we heard if they had dogs or not...
Yes, Terry, you're right, democrats only see the rich, greedy fat cats that never want to part with their money, and could care less about anyone else; and want them to "pay their fair share, and help society solve more problems". Republicans only see lazy people that don't want to do honest work and solve their own problems; they want to pay less to a corrupt lazy government and let honest american ingenuity lift everyone up economically.
An Automatic Weapon is not just a Gun. You can't own an automatic weapon in the US " legally "unless you are a Federal Weapons Merchant. These weapons are made for Superior Fire Power ( One does not have to Aim but just point in the Direction of your target and empty your clip). Soldiers use these weapons to insure they inflict quick and decisive deadly action against the enemy force. Maybe you all remember the two bank robbers in California that were armed with AK47's (automatic Weapon). They held off a very large police presence until the police were able to go to a sporting goods store and get a caliber weapon they could pierce their body armor( the robbers body armor). These type weapons are difficult to come by, but are available to the "mutts" that use them at a very high "price", so much for the misguided youth theory.
I've said that I have not been a victim of a violent crime due to common sense and a bit of Luck. I have been shot, stabbed, fragged. head butted, punched, kicked in a combat situation. Training and reflex reaction saved me each time. Regardless of how much training I had, I was scared to death, my mouth had no spite, my heart pounded that I thought the enemy could hear it miles away, at times I couldn't catch my breath, my entire body trembled. I don't think that there would be a heck of a difference in a violent crime and a combat situation, both would be very fluid and fast moving.
So for all that are concerned about the misguided youth, intervention might help "some", but once they rob that bank or Kill someone ,the next day they can't say, I'll give the money back and the life I took. "Evil people are Real"! They do not belong in our society ever!
"a republican only sees the spoiled kids and sees that a good whooping is all they need to get straightened out." You also forgot that giving their future jobs to the Chinese, the Vietnamese or the Venezuelans would unspoil them". 😀
(Had to say that in the interests of equal time... actually I'm anything but a classic "Democrat". I am a little closer to what Arnold called a "Shcwarzenegger Republican": fiscally conservative (okay a little more conservative than conservative), socially moderate (okay a little more liberal than moderate), and environmentally liberal (okay a little more liberal than liberal... but in that sense I'm ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE in the sense that most Republicans are Rapture-based liberals). What I really am is someone who believes we owe it to our children to assume the Rapture is not coming next month since we've been wrong about that for a couple thousand years. I seem to recall something about "the day nor the hour", but Gingrich Republicans will tell you that's a misinterpretation of literal text.
To give you a little better picture of me personally, I was a very active member of the Young Republicans in my 20's until my party cancelled its contract with me in 1994, acquired the open-mindedness of a Newt, and started the Christian Taliban. I was impressed with the President I voted for in 1980 (partly for his concern about a "social safety net" ) in spite of the fact that he outspent any President before him, deeply disappointed with the President after him for his idea of "prudence", and quite amazingly impressed with the President after that for his willingness to cross the aisle to accomplish social action and at the same time reduce the cost of government to the point that it wasn't costing my son one penny for our nation to continue its businesss. The following President has proven once and for all that ignorance knows no bounds and that an IQ of 125 is far too low for any government -- much less the most powerful government in the world prior to his term -- to run on.
Still, I cannot and will not choose a government that supports what in my youth what we called "pinkos"... people who think the government should support everyone who chooses not to support themselves.
The actual fact, Eng, is that I was quite impressed with your post.
Oh Sailaway, if I could just hold a candle to your posts I'd be tickled pink. I'm sorry that you were such a misguided youth (read "Young Republican"), but am happy to see that you didn't turn out evil (read "Old Republican")... (Lizard, not trying to belittle your sincere and honorable comments... just jumping on an opportunity to find some light within a serious thread.)
Woke up from my laughing gas hangover and realized my last post didn't sound the way I meant it. My hilarity was over the ironic image of my "misguided youth" and my eventual salvation from "evil", not the sincerity of the post.
As far as my preference for "mauve", in my mind there are no 'red' or 'blue' states nor 'red' or 'blue' issues. The world is much too complicated for that and the solutions to any problem involve responding to both the "supply" and the "demand" side of any issue, not one or the other by itself. We desperately need leaders who will seek solutions that respect the polar opposites on any question without favoring either one too much. (Can you sense that, like Mohandas K. Ghandi, the guiding words in my life can be found in Kipling's poem "If"?) My impassioned plea is that we blend our thoughts and come up with answers that are "Mauve" rather than "Red, White, or Blue"... Or to quote Rodney King, the unlikely hero of1991, "Can't we all just get along?"
The last seven and one-half years have taught me one thing if they haven't taught anything else: answers only come from honest words, open ears, wide-open minds, willingness to compromise and very creative thinking. When I read the words "Anti-gun need not respond" in another post I was struck by the sense that no issue is that simple, nor will it ever be solved with that kind of attitude. Let's open our minds, talk about our ideas, and get along, people.