Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5875
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Stebben84 » Tue May 01, 2012 9:18 am

Dangerousman wrote:
Yeah, we know criminals were never killed prior to the invention of firearms.
I'll wait for you to find and cite references to firearms in the self-defense statutes. Here's Wisconsin self-defense law, I don't notice the words "firearm" or "gun" or even "weapon" in there.


The first mechanical device for firing the hand gun made its appearance in...
1424


http://armscollectors.com/gunhistorydates.htm

Can't really tell you the criminal activity and self defense laws around the 1400's.

I don't have a huge issue with the original self defense law. I have a much bigger problem with the castle doctrine. And if you don't think that one wasn't about guns, then your head will never come out of the sand. Funny how that was passed the same time as concealed carry. Oh, and this little tidbit:

Last year, the N.R.A. spent $97,701 and 627 hours lobbying or engaging in other activities in Wisconsin on behalf of the self-defense law and the concealed carry law, according to the State Legislature Web site.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/us/nr ... wanted=all

Now why would the NRA lobby so hard on a bill that really WASN'T about guns? Hmmmmm.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21172
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue May 01, 2012 9:41 am

Dangerousman wrote:
Stebben84 wrote:You've already called the police and the dispatcher says back off. You don't. Now what? Play vigilante? Many questions.

You have an actual case, or just throwing out a hypothetical?

Actual case.
...George Zimmerman made his first courtroom appearance Thursday in the shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, and prosecutors outlined their murder case in court papers, saying the neighborhood watch volunteer followed and confronted the black teenager after a police dispatcher told him not to.

jjoyce
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12168
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:48 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby jjoyce » Tue May 01, 2012 10:08 am

I love the way gun guys talk. As we've noted here before, they specifically avoid using the word "gun." Check out this bit from Colbert last night, especially around the 1:40 mark where the guy talks about these pants designed for concealed carry (of a gun).

http://gawker.com/5906529/stephen-colbe ... un-fashion

Our goal was to make these pants appear 100% non-tactical.


What language are these guys speaking?

I have a hidden zipper at the side-seem where I can deploy a weapon from concealment.


At least I think that's what he said. Does that mean he can unzip his pants and pull his gun out (cue shrieking sound effect) to shoot somebody with it?

Hearing gun guys talk is like listening to somebody who's way too into fishing spouting jargon about tackle. It's all a bunch of conspicuous consumption chest thumping. Nobody cares, Shooter! Being really into guns is just another hobby that makes people roll their eyes when you leave the party, just like the dude who makes his own wine and the other guy who manages 14 fantasy baseball teams.

"Gosh, I'm so happy you invited G. Gordon Liddy to the barbecue. We learned so much about ammo today!"

wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3216
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby wack wack » Tue May 01, 2012 10:10 am

Dangerousman wrote:...Get off the drugs and you won't hallucinate so much. And grow up.


This has got to be the most ironic comment ever posted to this forum. EVER.

jjoyce
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12168
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:48 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby jjoyce » Tue May 01, 2012 10:15 am

Another citizen with a gun, defending freedom.

http://gawker.com/5906480/idiot-films-h ... rriage-ban

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Dangerousman » Tue May 01, 2012 10:43 am

Thanks for the mob attempt to hijack the thread off topic. With time, I'll respond to all of your idiotic statements.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Dangerousman » Tue May 01, 2012 10:49 am

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:Don't know what your "professorship" is in...
Good stuff. So, this is your first day on the Internet then?

Anyway, if you'd simply stopped typing one sentence earlier, I would buy that you meant "more likely to cause death." But you appended, "Dead is dead regardless of the method used", oh Master Lexicographer, which is what I responded to. Not my fault you subverted your own point with nonsense.

Also: Love that your scenario requires two "identical" men. Because that's usually the case when someone gets killed, right?


It's far from my first day on the Internet, but why would I have a personal interest in YOU or your background?

What's wrong with two identical men? How else would one make a fair comparison? If we're comparing a gun versus knife, let's compare THEM, and not the people holding them. I guess that professorship isn't in a scientific field.

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3417
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby jman111 » Tue May 01, 2012 10:54 am

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:Anyway, if you'd simply stopped typing one sentence earlier, I would buy that you meant "more likely to cause death." But you appended, "Dead is dead regardless of the method used", oh Master Lexicographer, which is what I responded to. Not my fault you subverted your own point with nonsense.

I, too, am curious.
Why include that last sentence, Dman?

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Dangerousman » Tue May 01, 2012 10:54 am

pjbogart wrote:I think "love of guns" takes a disturbing twist when you begin to revel in death and injury caused by guns. Criminals or otherwise, I think an entire thread devoted to how awesome it is when people get shot is pretty messed up. I think our resident "gun nut" is teetering on "resident psychopath."


I'm surprised you're willing to surrender your title. What here "revels" in death and injury? By reporting it? By passing along examples of it? Has anyone here said it was awesome? Have the people in the news stories said it was awesome? I think your title is safe as long as you continue to see imaginary things.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Dangerousman » Tue May 01, 2012 11:06 am

Stebben84 wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:
Yeah, we know criminals were never killed prior to the invention of firearms.
I'll wait for you to find and cite references to firearms in the self-defense statutes. Here's Wisconsin self-defense law, I don't notice the words "firearm" or "gun" or even "weapon" in there.


The first mechanical device for firing the hand gun made its appearance in...
1424


http://armscollectors.com/gunhistorydates.htm

Can't really tell you the criminal activity and self defense laws around the 1400's.

I don't have a huge issue with the original self defense law. I have a much bigger problem with the castle doctrine. And if you don't think that one wasn't about guns, then your head will never come out of the sand. Funny how that was passed the same time as concealed carry. Oh, and this little tidbit:

Last year, the N.R.A. spent $97,701 and 627 hours lobbying or engaging in other activities in Wisconsin on behalf of the self-defense law and the concealed carry law, according to the State Legislature Web site.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/us/nr ... wanted=all

Now why would the NRA lobby so hard on a bill that really WASN'T about guns? Hmmmmm.


Why don't you ask the NRA? I don't speak on their behalf any more than you do. Maybe they would say they're passionate about allowing people to defend themselves? Maybe because "bearing arms" includes more than just bearing guns?

As I recall, there was nothing in the McCain-Feingold bill that was about guns, but the NRA took a position on that, remember? And AARP consistently takes positions on gun-control issues, so can you explain how those issues are related to being elderly?

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Dangerousman » Tue May 01, 2012 11:38 am

Henry Vilas wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:
Stebben84 wrote:You've already called the police and the dispatcher says back off. You don't. Now what? Play vigilante? Many questions.

You have an actual case, or just throwing out a hypothetical?

Actual case.
...George Zimmerman made his first courtroom appearance Thursday in the shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, and prosecutors outlined their murder case in court papers, saying the neighborhood watch volunteer followed and confronted the black teenager after a police dispatcher told him not to.


It would be nice if, when using an actual case, that you use the actual facts instead of trying to taint opinion by casually inserting non-facts. You're not the only one doing this Henry, but it's at least the second time you've done it with the Zimmerman-Martin case. First you repeated the false statement that Zimmerman was released with his gun and now you're distorting the facts by writing that the dispatcher told him NOT to follow-- Stebben84 made it even farther from the truth by saying the dispatcher told him to "back off." The 911 call is there for everyone to listen. Do you not care that your assertions are false and easily disproven? Note: typical of the anti-gun approach that puts more emphasis on pushing an agenda than on finding the truth.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Dangerousman » Tue May 01, 2012 11:46 am

jjoyce wrote:I love the way gun guys talk. As we've noted here before, they specifically avoid using the word "gun." Check out this bit from Colbert last night, especially around the 1:40 mark where the guy talks about these pants designed for concealed carry (of a gun).

http://gawker.com/5906529/stephen-colbe ... un-fashion

Our goal was to make these pants appear 100% non-tactical.


What language are these guys speaking?

I have a hidden zipper at the side-seem where I can deploy a weapon from concealment.


At least I think that's what he said. Does that mean he can unzip his pants and pull his gun out (cue shrieking sound effect) to shoot somebody with it?

Hearing gun guys talk is like listening to somebody who's way too into fishing spouting jargon about tackle. It's all a bunch of conspicuous consumption chest thumping. Nobody cares, Shooter! Being really into guns is just another hobby that makes people roll their eyes when you leave the party, just like the dude who makes his own wine and the other guy who manages 14 fantasy baseball teams.

"Gosh, I'm so happy you invited G. Gordon Liddy to the barbecue. We learned so much about ammo today!"


As the so-called "moderator" you ought to be the last person to blatantly hijack a thread with unrelated crap. Nice job, you did wait until last. Fine, gun guys use jargon that leave you puzzled, so do doctors, lawyers, archeologists, airline pilots, and any other group of people who have knowledge of a specialized or technical subject. If you want a jargon thread, start one.

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9447
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Tue May 01, 2012 11:47 am

Dangerousman wrote:I guess that professorship isn't in a scientific field.
Really? It is difficult to take anything you say seriously if you continue to pretend you don't know what an online username is. See, I know you're not stupid, D-Man, and I know you're not a troll. So why use Stupid Troll tactics? Especially if you're gonna tell other people they need to grow up?

Dangerousman wrote:If we're comparing a gun versus knife, let's compare THEM, and not the people holding them.
That's exactly what I did when I said a gun was more likely to cause death than a knife.

The facts are on my side.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/267/22/3043.abstract
Results. —Firearm-associated FIAs were 3.0 times (95% confidence interval, 0.9 to 10.0) more likely to result in death than FIAs involving knives or other cutting instruments and 23.4 times (95% confidence interval, 7.0 to 78.6) more likely to result in death than FIAs involving other weapons or bodily force. Overall, firearmassociated FIAs were 12.0 times (95% confidence interval, 4.6 to 31.5) more likely to result in death than non-firearm-associated FIAs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8597008
The hospital mortality rate for gunshot wounds was 8 times that for stab wounds.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7897710
Only 32% of our gunshot cases underwent a significant recovery as opposed to 61% of stab cases and 44% of the motor vehicle crash victims.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7960915
105 patients suffering from gunshot and stab wounds were admitted...Patients with gunshot wounds had a significantly higher mortality rate


Do I really need to continue? Taken together, the overall picture is clear. More people get stabbed than shot, yet far more people die from being shot than stabbed. Conclusion: Guns are more likely to cause death.

(On a side note, there is evidence that fewer gun wounds would translate to significant economic savings, regardless of whether the amount of overall violence decreased or not.)

Finally, the reason why your "identical" man thing is idiotic is because it doesn't reflect reality. Not only does such a matchup rarely occur, one of the reasons why people like guns is that they don't necessarily* rely on the size or strength of their wielder to get the job done. A gunshot from a 6'6" bodybuilder and a gunshot from a 7-yr. old in a wheelchair are equally injurious.

*Hope I used this word correctly!

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21172
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue May 01, 2012 11:51 am

Dangerousman wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:Actual case.
...George Zimmerman made his first courtroom appearance Thursday in the shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, and prosecutors outlined their murder case in court papers, saying the neighborhood watch volunteer followed and confronted the black teenager after a police dispatcher told him not to.


It would be nice if, when using an actual case, that you use the actual facts instead of trying to taint opinion by casually inserting non-facts.

Are you saying that the prosecutor was lying?

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Armed Citizens Defending With Guns

Postby Dangerousman » Tue May 01, 2012 12:03 pm

Wagstaff, I don't remember asking what do the stupid people think.
I can't take anything you say seriously if you continually fail to understand the discussion and miss the point. At a certain point I refuse to talk to a wall. It's not that complex, but evidently over your head. I can dumb it down only so far for you before I give up. Do I have to bring out a doll so you can point at the spot? Would a box of crayons and paper help you? What does it take?


Return to “Headlines”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 3 guests