That's correct. And your point is?
Just that its usually the person you know, not the one you don't, that does
you in...
And tell them that what they experience in the comfort of a flat
gymnasium floor when they're expecting it is far different than the dark
of night, the alleyway, or an obstacle-ridden home. I'm sure the
assailant is going to follow the rules and regulatioins of the victim's
dojo. If the person is unable to apply martial-arts to real world
scenarios, than his training is wasted.
Don't know who YOU know in martial arts, but I wasn't talking about the YMCA
weekender or the "Bob's BlackBelt" chain recipient... I had an associate
that was a very small fellow (5'6" and about 160 lbs. soaking wet) who proved
himself MORE than once while we were overseas. It was NEVER the gymnasium
floor... it was usually some back alley in Singapore or the Philippines.
Of course, he was very well trained.
You also don't know my medical/physical status, other than my height,
weight and gender.
And don't need to...
In hindsight I knew it was an empty threat. At that time I did not. He
very well could have burst in and tried to kill me. But...he might not,
so I might as well sit around with my thumb up my nose, right?
Well, again, I was making a point about a lot of gun owners who would rather
shoot than evaluate. Not accusing you of such, but I grew up down south and
there are a number of those types. Correction... MANY of those types. In
fact, my own father almost killed my youngest brother because he came home
late one evening and Dad was not expecting him. It would have been most tragic
had my brother ended up a statistic because Dad was "protecting his property."
And in 30+ years, my folks have been vandalized only once and it was a car
in the driveway. So I was never really clear on WHO exactly my father was
"protecting himself" against.
It's good that you came out intact. Did some of your response to the
situation come from your Navy training?
Actually, no. Its mostly from a very loving, wise grandmother (deceased)
that imbued me with an abiding faith in God.
How about someone who's disbled, aged, or petite like me? I'm sure that
if I was submissive and do what he wants, the mugger will go away. But
wait, he sees we're alone, and it's been awhile since he's had a woman...
If you are familiar with the statistics on rape, you would know that virtually
EVERY rapist is not looking for sex. Its a form of power trip... a domination
game played for something other than sex. Most muggers are looking to get
IN and get out. Take the money and run, if you will... and frankly, I think
the risks of tossing $20 on the ground and running is far cheaper in the
grander sense than gun training, a gun and ammo.
"fear of being overwhelmed by the one they want to rob"
Well, that one's easy. Don't rob someone, and you won't worry about
having to have the victim possibly fighting back.
Instead of fear, how about anger? Don't people use guns out of anger?
Sometimes people commit crime because they like to. It's not fear that
drives them, it's thrill.
Hmmm... I would have to see your actual statistics on this. Do you know someone
personally that did such? With the marked exception of serial slayers, most
of the time its not like that. Most "thrill" driven crime involves straight
theft or joy riding. And about the "anger" issue, yes... but again, most
of the time its from a person you know.
My ex was an ass. A controlling ass who no longer had control. Too bad.
He needs to learn to grow up and cope with things like a real man.
Well, but what I was saying was, that anyone who seeks that much control
over others is seriously deficient inside. And dealing with things "like
a real man" can be interpreted a number of ways.
Then I'll clarify the comparison:
I have a fire extinguisher *just in case* there's a fire. I wear my seat
belt *just in case* I get into a car accident. I have a gun *just in
case* of rape, robbery, or worse. There are fires and car accidents,
right? There are rapes, robberies, and murders, right?
Yes, but you are far more likely to get into a car accident than to be murdered.
Do you also have an extensive insurance policy to provide for your family
in case you DO get murdered? Do you also carry plane tickets to anywhere,
JUST in case you need to leave your home state?
I don't mean to be flippant. I am just saying that life is filled with a
number of risks. Taking action to ensure you minimize those risks is not
a bad thing. However, there are SO many issues surrounding gun ownership/screening/usage,
that it seems the risk need be evaluated. I never advocated taking anyone's
gun away. I am just frustrated by folks hiding behind a sliver of an amendment,
a rabid denial that some controls could provide benefit overall and a real,
definable sense of paranoia about what other want.
America's Most Wanted is there to catch the people who committed these
horrible crimes. But I suppose you're right; it's there for
entertainment so I can get a few cheap thrills over the demise of
others. Over 700 criminals have been nabbed so far by watchful viewers,
and the numbers are growing. And I suppose it's all fake - they stage
phony actors, fake dead bodies, and use fake policemen on their show.
Even the Nashville scenes, where they show local police officers that I
have *actually seen working their jobs*.
I wonder if that 700 number is true. But I don't deny its contributing to
good work. But as for criminals "on" the show? I was cast to do such a thing
as were friends of mine (did a bit of acting in my time). They DO use actors
to portray events that occured. You do know that, yes? And the policemen
in the cut scenes (where the host is talking) are certainly actors.
Now COPS is a different story... thats the real deal.
And I know a number of cops in real life. I even flirted with the possibility
of being one after I left the Navy, but decided against it. And most of them
I know would GLADLY defend certain controls on how gun possession is handled.
Not to take away guns from folks like you, but to ensure that it IS folks
like you that get them instead of folks like Benjamin Smith (who bought a
gun from a classified ad, all above the board and legal, then went on a two
state shooting spree out of revenge). I don't think that's an unreasonable
request.
And? Had he come around and burst in my home and would not stop when I
ordered him to, I would have stopped him with my handgun.Sometimes
stopping means killing. If he decided to hang around outside and issue
verbal threats, than it's the cops' problem. He's no threat if he's
outside and unarmed. He's only going to get shot if I am in imminent
danger of being harmed. That is the law of self-defense in my state.
What state are you in? TN? (Since you mentioned Nashville) That's where I
grew up and I know the laws are different down there. Unfortunately, so is
the lifestyle. And folks in TN aren't like folks in the cities... it can
be a volatile (but to be sure, a very lively and enlightening) experience
to live in such close quarters with others. Its THESE situations that the
gun folks I know are concerned with. Not disarming Betty from the suburbs...
Better tried by twelve than carried by six, the saying goes.
I have a question for you: Do you consider it more honorable to die than
to have to use violence to save your life?
Well, having been a member of the military, I was placed in the situation
of dying for YOU and yours instead of you being there. Thats the harsh realities
of the job. I also know that whatever you think about police, they too put
themselves in harms way so you don't have to. So how do you think I might
answer that question?
And I was with you right up until the "carried by six" comment... Betty,
we are supposed to live in an enlightened, advanced society with great wealth
and living standard. Don't you think that comment is a bit barbarous? Don't
you think part of that barbarity is what we fight worldwide? So how is it
that we are better by acting as such...?
Insurance is a money driven industry. I know money isn't going to
*prevent* my home from being burned, but if my home did burn down, I
sure do want that monetary compensation to help me rebuild. It's tough
starting from scratch again.
Yes, of course it is... but how do they make money by giving it away? It
is a business after all...
You told Oleg you were in the Navy? You've had military training then?
Of course. Thought I had mentioned it to you as well... sorry.
Why is it so horrible that civilians would want training? LEOs go to
Thunder Ranch. Regular Joe's go there. Why are you so intimidated? Are
you allowed to have this training and we're not? You trust yourself with
the weapons and training and not "us"? Why the elitism?
I am not intimidated... All I am saying is, for me to do my job, I was expected
to go to boot camp, to train endlessly AND to be ACCOUNTABLE for my actions.
No elitism at all... But where is your accountability? Do you get regular
psych evals to ensure you are not too volatile to use your gun? Is your gun
inspected by an authority to ensure its accuracy? What sort of checks and
balances do I have that say you won't go off and start a shooting spree other
than your word? Its clearly just about accountability... and in the military,
there is a HIGH sense of such.
Question: did you or Oleg ever serve? And if you were physically unable,
did you volunteer your time in some other way to further the causes of your
country and patriotism?
Again, I am not being flippant or baiting you... its just that you assume
I have some problem with trained, armed civilians. Thats the SECOND part
of the second ammendment that seems to always be overlooked...
"A well regulated militia,
being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
A WELL REGULATED militia... so why are so many gun owners opposed to regulation,
but so willing to scream "Second Ammendment Rights!" ?
Also, the second ammendment is followed by two very related ammendments:
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the
consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed
by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
It is the spirit of the ammendment that I think constantly takes a beating.
Please consider the context of the ammendment as it was written. If we want
to get literal and challenge EACH and every aspect of Constitutional law
then look at this ammendment:
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted.
Do you think this ammendment has been violated in the strictest sense of
the wording?
You seem to be implying against using a gun for self-defense, and yet
you question a less-than-lethal alternative? Tamara used an alternative
means of self-defense because she didn't want to have to kill the guy -
that was obvious in the link I provided. But - she had the means and the
ability, and if it really hit the fan, she would have used her gun. And
she came that close.
Yes, but why not just show the gun up front and eliminate all the drama?
If you're implying that we're bloodthirsty, out to kill someone at the
first chance we get, you're wrong. As a CCW carrier, the firearm is the
last resort. The first obligation is to de-escalate and retreat, and
ONLY IF those cannot be done, than a firearm may be used when the person
feels he/she is in imminent danger of being harmed. That is the law, and
that is what Tamara did.
I don't know if you are bloodthirsty or not. And do you imply that the
I am obligating you with a respectful debate. I won't waste my time on
snide jabs.
You are wholly correct. I apologize. It was snide... I lost my temper. Sorry.
I felt very stupid for having let it slide by when I sent the mail.
You live in a city around lots of people. Are you saying cities are
safer or that lots of people are there for you to rely on? Kitty
Genovese was in the city with lots of people, too. She couldn't rely on
them. I hope you're not relying on help that may not come.
No, but they are not inherently worse. But I live in an area where police
respond VERY rapidly. The mayor would not get elected if they didn't. I am
not saying that every cop LEAPS to the scene of the crime. Just that they
do their jobs as best they can here.
I live in Nashville. I can walk to the police station, and it still took
20 minutes for them to come. I've lived in the "outlands", too. I was
born and raised in New Jersey, and moved down to TN, where people still
have the right to self defense and "victim's rights" still mean
something. Suburban, urban, and country, I've lived all three.
I'd asked earlier, and now see where you are. Please do not presume to tell
me about "victim's rights" or the laws of TN though. I grew up there and
know that its a very different mindset than much of the country. Your situation
in Nashville is certainly NOT like Chicago, LA or NY and since this is a
FEDERAL issue, all such areas must be considered with regards to gun regulation.
Yes! The user! What kind of laws and regulations can control the user?
Most of them, actually. Thats what laws do...
If "it IS the one the military has or had anyway", than it can't be "a
knock off of the M-16". Either it's the same thing, or a knock-off. It's
a knock-off. Many of the Vets I've spoken to have complained about the
M16; they much appreciated the M14 and hated the tiny little .223
bullet. I've listened to debates over the lack of stopping power of the
.223, from Vets who were there. But, it's whoever we're talking to, some
liked it, some didn't.
Well, stopping power and killing power are two very different things. And
I am sure you would find folks like me which preferred the FNFAL over all
those other American made weapons. Far more reliable and field worthy...
We can go on and on about stopping power, bullets tumbling through body
mass, full metal jackets vs. soft points, etc. Stopping power however -
what's more effective in combat? A round with great stopping power that
kills the enemy right away, or a round that zips through and wounds,
tying up a medical staff and more people to care for the victim, and
slowing down the advancement of the enemy?
Depends on your mission. Ask any number of Special Forces members and they
will tell you that in a hostage situation, the smaller caliber is better
since it minimizes additional casualties.
And to that point, why then do "civilians" need the stopping power of a military
weapon? That is really the issue at hand with most of the gun regulation
sites I visited. Isn't the real issue to get high powered, multi-round weapons
out of circulation from the GENERAL population?
What are the statistics for "drive by" shootings in Nashville? Just curious...
Either you misread, or I mis-stated. I said the .223 was only fun for
plinking at Coke cans (for me), and not much more. If I wanted better
stopping power, I wouldn't be using my AR15. I'll be pulling my Mosin
out of the safe. For accuracy over everything else, I'll use my M1
Carbine. For short ranges, I'll use my trusty 11-87.
Again, why do YOU need that sort of stopping power? Just what enemy do you
expect to encounter? So far, you major argument has been for self defense
against a single attacker. I will concede you that. But now you tell me you
have a safe with heavy weapons? Or at least, assault weapons? What is the
point in that?
Yes, I am very aware of what else it can do. I carry a gun for
self-defense because I know exactly what bullets can do. A man in my
town recently used a .22 derringer to stop his attacker. Any bullet, any
caliber can kill. That's common knowledge.
OK. Well, it just seemed like you were minimizing the .223s ability to do
such. Thus, my challenge...
And again, I loop back to your argument regarding the can plinker. If any
bullet could kill, then how is your AR-15 any less effective than your 11-87.
That is, unless you expect to stop an invading force... and if this is how
you view things, I would restate that you and Oleg came off as being a little
paranoid.
Don't try to read in my writing what isn't there. These kids kill
because they're stupid, angry, lost, misguided, and who knows what else.
It's not a lack of firearms knowledge or not learning the basic rules,
it's a lack of respect for human life (and don't compare murder to self-defense).
But again, you support a very strong argument for REGULATION. Its important
to minimize the risks of such attacks, is it not? Hasn't the thrust of your
defense been to assert self-defense? Don't you think that some of the school
shooting perpetrators felt their own lives were in danger? Where is the line
drawn between their right to defend and yours?
Day-Glo orange would be better.
LOL. Spoken like a true hunter...
Same here.
We agree on something... :)
No, I need a gun. Even if my attacker has a knife, a club, or his two
big hands. If I'm in imminent danger of being harmed, I'll need a gun.
It's the most effective way to stop the attacker, especially for a
person my size.
OK. Betty, I am not denying that you feel you need a gun. But why do you
think someone that wants to regulate how guns are purchased and maintained
wants to strip you of it?
Would you support a serialization of ammunition? My wife asked me if that
was an option... to serialize the brass and then make folks show ID which
would be tied to their ammo. I was vaguely amused by the notion, but then
thought, why not? Other than the financial consequence, and the idea that
folks could pack their own casings, what would be your thoughts on such?
Why are the boys evil and what is evil? The definition of "evil" depends
on the individual. Murder is evil to me. The Columbine boys were evil
(to me) because they murdered, because they took the lives of
undeserving people around them. There was hate, thrill, stupidity. It
was mass murder.
UNLESS they felt TRULY threatened by the population around them. I suppose
we will never know since they saved a pair of bullets for themselves.
Thank you. Ted Nugent is quite a man. But he's too old for me and
married. I've got a very warm and cuddly Oleg that suits me better, anyway.
Eeep... While I fondly remember some of the wild Ted concerts, I think he's
a bit right-winged for me. And Ted trophy hunts, which I have ALWAYS been
opposed to, even when I hunted. I NEVER shot something I didn't eat.
But then again, I quit hunting over 20 years ago because it seemed hardly
a sport. Now the fellow that downs his bear with a bow and arrow... or the
shark fisherman who dives in among them and takes them with a knife... THAT
is sport.
You're against hunting, too? Do you eat meat? It's okay for the butcher
to kill the cow for you, but not okay for you to hunt a deer in the
woods for yourself?
I quit eating meat three years ago. It was a combination of a vegetarian
wife, a lifestyle commitment (too many heart attacks in my genetic pool)
and a snub to a VERY corrupt meat industry.
As to being AGAINST hunting, I think I still find some merit in someone hunting
to eat if they NEED to. Its just that "moving away from barbarism" thing
that I was mentioning earlier. There are a number of much poorer cultures
than ours that do JUST fine on a non-meat diet. Maybe the lack of red meat
has calmed me down a bit. LOL. Who is to say?
I just find that I live my own political and spiritual convictions. I don't
judge or expect others to be bound by the same. (In regards to meat anyway.
LOL... )
Your definition of murder differs than mine, then. There's killing
wildlife for food, there's killing wildlife for sport or to reduce an
overpopulation, there's murdering of people, and there's self-defense.
Yes, well... there are a number of world tyrants who share/shared your "killing
to reduce overpopulation" model. I still don't think what THEY did was right.
I don't throw out ad hominems, and I abhor those nasty slang terms.
You do eat meat? It's okay for someone else to do your dirty work for
you, though? How about plants? Those are living things.
Again, I don't eat meat for a number of reasons. If I can minimize the loss
of life in any form, I do so.
And I was a butcher's apprentice when I was living in TN. So, I am fully
capable of doing my own "dirty work".
I, too, came to an epiphany and maturation. I went from being a small
child relying on my parents, to an adult who can take care of herself -
a person who doesn't have rose-colored glasses on.
I quote:
"I am obligating you with a respectful debate. I won't waste my time on
snide jabs."
ditto
Some are desperate. Some commit crime for kicks. And all of them, I am
sure, would like for their jobs to be easier by having the law-abiding
folks disarmed. They wouldn't want to get shot robbing, raping, or
murdering during their work hours.
Who exactly are these criminals you are talking about?
I think if our country would provide social services in the form of public
health care and provide a decent job base, perhaps some of this activity
would decrease. But of course, through rose-colored glasses I imagine my
fellow man and fellow American in a much more respectable place.
Cheers,
Bart