View from the cop: Crime & punishment
View from the Cop is moving to a new site on Wordpress. Blogger Steve Rose of the Sandy Springs Police Department gives his take on crime, offers safety tips and give his weekly picks from the police blotter. Follow Steve Rose to the new blog site.
AJC.com > Metro > View from the cop > Archives > 2008 > July > 10 > Entry
An eye on crime keeps thieves away
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Since the beginning of time and man, back when the Stones had their first “final” tour, people figured out that good stuff is good to have.
At the same time, others who, too, liked the good stuff decided that working for it was hard to do so they made a deal with the devil and left their morals behind.
They decided stealing it was easier. Thus began the long back and forth—the whole crime thing.
O.K, we move forward several hundred—perhaps thousands of years to when the people with all the stuff realized they couldn’t control the bad people so they created the police.
This came about the time the Stones did their third, maybe fourth, “final” tour. What the police found was that the crooks weren’t necessarily that smart, but they were somewhat committed to stealing. In other words, if they see something, they take it, unlike us who stop to think about the consequences.
You should take heart in knowing that most of us are honest.
Of course, there are reasons we’re honest. Not all of us are because we’re brought up to be good moral souls of good faith and believe that it is wrong to steal. Those guys are called “Orthodox Honest People” or OHPs.
The fact is that many of us are honest because we believe that the one time we dip into the depths of the criminal cesspool, well, we’ll get caught. Murphy’s Law. Like my Uncle Dewey says: “Whatever keeps your fingers out of the cookie jar.” (It was actually one of the rare moments when he made sense.)
What the police found, after years of patrolling and looking for bad guys, was that crooks were good at moving fast to steal what they wanted but skittish about where they stole from. Seemed they didn’t like being caught. Ah hah! Now we had a plan to deter them thus the first concept of the Neighborhood Watch Program.
Early NW programs were basic. Each home was set on hundreds of acres of land so the owner of the house posted signs showing a moose trampling a man who was in the process of stealing a chicken.
The program proved difficult because of the price of moose so people soon started watching out for each other and talking. Soon Neighborhood Watches spread all across the land bringing new hope to victims of crimes and a new popularity to the moose world.
Fast forward again to the present. The Stones dropped the word “final” from their tour motto and Neighborhood Watch has proved an effective crime prevention tool. It is, in fact, the single most effective anti-crime program that you can participate in, outside of Alaska where you can still employ the moose.
If your police department has a NW, sign up or start your own program. Learn the benefits of risk vs opportunity and know how to make your home, car and, well you, unattractive to the crook.
It’s much cheaper than spreading moose poop around your house.
Services »
Comments
By Blogfather
July 10, 2008 8:16 PM | Link to this
The neighborhood watch is a great program and I highly recommend it for every subdivision in the greater metro area.
By Tailgunner
July 11, 2008 6:03 AM | Link to this
Neighborhood watches are great, but as the enthusiasm of everyone wears off it’s just another sign on a post somewhere on my street.
An eye on crime? Yes - we should all be vigilant. My .357 Magnum on the night stand or in my shoulder holster? Even better.
By mafuta54
July 11, 2008 7:14 AM | Link to this
That is one of the reasons why the Second Amendment is so important! We all should be able to protect ourselves wherever we are because let’s face it, the police can not be everywhere and they legally do not have any responsibility to protect us at all!
By ERB
July 11, 2008 7:59 AM | Link to this
You @#(*@#ing right-wing NRA wackos.
First of all, there’s a good chance that you won’t be home when you get robbed (as my friend wasn’t yesterday). Congratulations…you just gave another criminal a gun since I’m sure you don’t have enough of a brain to lock it up when you’re not home. Great! Now the crook has something to take with him next time he robs someone.
And if you are at home, sure…you might be able to defend yourself. Or, you might shoot yourself. Or, they might be just a little better than you, and shoot you instead of just robbing you. (Get over yourself…you’re not as good with that .357 as you think you are.) Or, you may just think you’re being robbed and instead shoot your teenage daughter when she sneaks into the house late at night.
Yep, three cheers for the misinterpretation of the second amendment.
By moose fan
July 11, 2008 8:05 AM | Link to this
Our neighborhood formerly employed the Moose watch program. When my neighbors switched to people watching I collected all the moose droopings and spread that over my entire yard and parking area. Thieves initially continued to steal my stuff but as word was spread, similar to the way mooses dropings were, they left me alone. As one potential thief put it: “Dmn man, That s is hard to wash off and it smells like moose s*.”
Love your column and words of wit and wisdom.
By Tailgunner
July 11, 2008 8:29 AM | Link to this
Hey, ERB
Let me tell you 3 things.
First of all, IF (and that’s a gigantic IF) someone breaks into my home, they will be leaving with the county coroner. Just because you are an incompetent boob with a pistol doesn’t mean I am - I can hit a moving target at 40 yards anytime I choose to - and from the hip.
Second, there is no misrepresentation of the second amendment. I have the absolute right to carry a gun. You don’t want to? Fine with me - your choice. The herd will be thinned by the taking of the weakest member of the herd, and you consciously choose to be the weakest. Works for me!
Third, if you are so opposed to people exercising their GOD GIVEN right to self defense, move to Washington DC, Illinois, or Wisconsin where only the criminals have guns (because they ignore the laws) and live where the crime rate is 3 times greater. Oh, yeah - smart move on your part, ERB. I’m sure you and your family will be SO much safer there.
The bottom line is this - anyone who tries to steal from me, harm me or any of my family, is going to die trying. I have shot on 2 occasions a criminal intruder in my home - and that is exactly why my daughters were able to come home after a date - they hadn’t been dragged off and used as some perverted sex object for some sick psycho to finish with them and leave their body in a ditch someplace.
Maybe that is what you want for your daughters - I just hope as you cower under the covers as the coward that you are you can stick your fingers in your ears and block out the sounds of your daughter screaming as she is dragged out the window by a pervert.
Have a nice life, ERB. It, or one of your loved ones, is gonna be short.
By Robopop
July 11, 2008 8:29 AM | Link to this
Right-wing NRA wacko’s, huh? When the dust settles it’ll be gun owners like me who still has their property. And you? Like all other liberal nuts you’ll be just standing there peeing your pants. Now, go on home to Mama like a good little boy.
By Tailgunner
July 11, 2008 8:48 AM | Link to this
It constantly amazes me that everyone who always brings up something about “NRA gun wackos” has never been to the NRA website and read anything about the NRA .
First of all, the NRA is totally opposed to illegal guns. We believe that guns should not be in the hands of criminals.
Secondly, they believe that restrictive gun laws work. Let’s see now - cocaine is illegal, so obviously nobody snorts cocaine. Marijuana is illegal, so obviously nobody smokes pot. Robbing banks is illegal, so obviously nobody dares to rob a bank. So it naturally follows that, if guns are illegal, nobody will have a gun., and the whole world will be just like Mister Rogers Neighborhood.
Boys and girls, can we say, “Delusional”? Can we say “Naieve”? Can we say “Willing victim”?
By mayretter local
July 11, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this
Steve, lay off the Stones, I don’t think they’ve announced a “final” tour. A better band for slagging on would be The Eagles, or Barbara Streisand.
Eat a Peach for Peace
By Bob
July 11, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this
You want to have a gun, fine. You don’t want one, fine. (Although I think the odds are better that you’ll have an accidental shooting in the home than that you’ll actually have a chance to use it against an intruder.)
While overstated, ERB does make one good point. For all of you that have a pistol in your nightstand, of course you lock it up when you’re not home, right? Because, guess what…there’s a good chance that you’re not going to be home when you get robbed. And, now that you just armed your thief, that means he’ll be that more dangerous when he goes to the next place.
By Blogfather
July 11, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this
Guns in neighboorhoods? Yes. Protection. Guns in airports? Please.
I used to worry that airport lounges held some cultish Hari Krishnas and the mettlesome racket of their chants. Now I’m afraid of the brutish, hairy kitsch of cowboys and the full mettle jackets in their pants.
By Blogfather
July 11, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this
Guns in our homes? Yes! (Protection from.) Concealed weapons in our airports? Please. (Protect me from.)
I used to worry that airport lounges held cultish Hari Krishnas and the mettlesome drum-drum racket of their chants.
Now, I’m afraid of the brutish, hairy kitsch of dumb dumbs and the full mettle jackets in their pants.
Bingo!
By Tailgunner
July 11, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
Bob,
First of all, the odds of having an accidental shooting in my home are virtually nil - while I do not leave a loaded fun within reach of my children, I have showed it to them, taught them all about it, taught them exactly what it is for, and taken them out in the country to teach them how to use it and exactly what it does - and I have taught them the deepest respect for guns. The only people who have “accidental shootings” are those who “hide” the gun from Jimmy and Suzie and just pray that their natural curiosity doesn’t allow them to find it and experiment or play with it. Education, not denial, is the key here. You and I both taught our kids not to put their hand on a hot stove or why they cannot run out into the street - this is the exact same thing.
As far as there being a “good chance” that I will not be home when I get robbed, that is a possibility. But define “good chance”. 10%? 40%? 85%? I don’t care for any of those odds. Recent statistics show that robbers and home invaders many times choose to prey on people while they are at home because they know there is a much better chance of the home alarm system being turned off if someone is in the house. So much for a “good chance”.
The real threat to having my gun stolen comes not from my home, but from all the places I am not supposed to carry it with my legal concealed weapons permit. What do you do with your gun if you want to have a bite to eat and a bottle of beer? Leave it in your car? What a fabulously handy resource for criminals who need to steal a gun – just check out the cars at their local neighborhood bar and grill because there’s a really good chance they’ll find one stashed in someone’s glove compartment or under the seat! That’s so much easier and safer for criminals than breaking into someone’s home, a pawnshop, or a gun shop!
Any thief who breaks into my home has an extremely high probability of already being armed. If they find a gun in my home (which is doubtful as I virtually always have it with me) it is not “Oh boy - now I am armed!” but “I wonder how much I can sell this for?”
Why do people in the gun ban crowd invariably assume the worst intentions of the gun owner and the best intentions of criminals? The best intention I have is being a responsible gun owner and the best intention I have for a criminal is that they leave my home with the county coroner in a body bag.
If you can tell me the exact time, date, and place I will need my gun, then that is the only time I will take it with me or have it out of the closet unlicked. But obviously you will never be able to do that. I am not willing to gamble with my life and the lives of those I love in that way, and I sure as he11 won’t allow you to do it, either.
By Jimbo I
July 11, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this
I don’t just lock it up, I lock it up in a safe that when fully packed weighs in at almost 800 pounds!
Also, I’m a pretty left wing gun nut. Look at the battles between armed citizens and the pinkerton men during the homestead strike and other labor movement battles like the Ludlow massacre and the Columbine massacre (of 1927) and you start to really see the value of armed citizens. Have a look at the battle of Athens, Tennessee in 1945. These are the reasons that the militia is mentioned in the 2nd amendment and also why it is clear that the right to bear arms is an individual right of the people (like everything in the bill of rights… do you think that the right to free speech is a collective right? Are you seriously incapable of comprehending the meaning of the bill of rights that badly? If you think that your rights are granted and controlled by the government then it’s no wonder congress just passed a law that violates your fourth amendment rights, because they actually DO represent their constituency.
The weak can never stand against the strong if they don’t have the will and the means to protect themselves. It always amazed me that the self proclaimed “protector of the little guy” the “friend of the worker” the “champions of the common man” are against the right to bear arms. It just doesn’t compute at all.
By Jimbo I
July 11, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this
Tailgunner is right. I want to be able to carry in more places not because I’m concerned with the possibility of having to use it in those places but because I prefer it to leaving it in my car.
By Tailgunner
July 11, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this
Bob,
First of all, the odds of having an accidental shooting in my home are virtually nil - while I do not leave a loaded fun within reach of my children, I have showed it to them, taught them all about it, taught them exactly what it is for, and taken them out in the country to teach them how to use it and exactly what it does - and I have taught them the deepest respect for guns. The only people who have “accidental shootings” are those who “hide” the gun from Jimmy and Suzie and just pray that their natural curiosity doesn’t allow them to find it and experiment or play with it. Education, not denial, is the key here. You and I both taught our kids not to put their hand on a hot stove or why they cannot run out into the street - this is the exact same thing.
As far as there being a “good chance” that I will not be home when I get robbed, that is a possibility. But define “good chance”. 10%? 40%? 85%? I don’t care for any of those odds. Recent statistics show that robbers and home invaders many times choose to prey on people while they are at home because they know there is a much better chance of the home alarm system being turned off if someone is in the house. So much for a “good chance”.
The real threat to having my gun stolen comes not from my home, but from all the places I am not supposed to carry it with my legal concealed weapons permit. What do you do with your gun if you want to have a bite to eat and a bottle of beer? Leave it in your car? What a fabulously handy resource for criminals who need to steal a gun – just check out the cars at their local neighborhood bar and grill because there’s a really good chance they’ll find one stashed in someone’s glove compartment or under the seat! That’s so much easier and safer for criminals than breaking into someone’s home, a pawnshop, or a gun shop!
Any thief who breaks into my home has an extremely high probability of already being armed. If they find a gun in my home (which is doubtful as I virtually always have it with me) it is not “Oh boy - now I am armed!” but “I wonder how much I can sell this for?”
Why do people in the gun ban crowd invariably assume the worst intentions of the gun owner and the best intentions of criminals? The best intention I have is being a responsible gun owner and the best intention I have for a criminal is that they leave my home with the county coroner in a body bag.
If you can tell me the exact time, date, and place I will need my gun, then that is the only time I will take it with me or have it out of the closet unlicked. But obviously you will never be able to do that. I am not willing to gamble with my life and the lives of those I love in that way, and I sure as he11 won’t allow you to do it, either.
By Bob
July 11, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this
Jimbo/Tailgunner-
As soon as you can guarantee that EVERYONE that has a carry permit is as responsible and expert as you are (or think you are), than I will agree with you 100%.
Which is why I assume you’re pushing for the tightest possible regulation for anyone who has the ability to carry.
Until then, if you’re concerned about leaving your gun in your car, either leave it locked up at home, or mount a lockbox in your car for it.
I have absolutely nothing against gun owners. I just think I have a better chance of getting shot by someone who has a carry permit and shouldn’t (or should have one, but should have enough sense not to have their gun on them when having a few beers) than of being in a life-threatening situation with a criminal.
I’m sure you don’t agree.
Every adult should have the right to have a gun. I’m sure that my autistic 18 year old nephew would love one…it would make a great toy. How about the guy that could be an expert marksman, but can barely even stand up to his boss without shaking and wetting himself? The guy that is the perfectly responsible businessman/fireman/whatever until you happen to look at him the wrong way after a couple of beers, and then he starts coming after you with his fists..yep, it would be much better if he was armed.
No, I’m sorry, it should not be a right. It should be a privilege that only the most responsible are allowed to have a gun.
This is not a personal attack on you or your qualifications. Do I really think you need a gun? Nope. But some people think they do, and if that works for them, fine. But I think that too many people have them that shouldn’t. Which is why I don’t understand why responsible gun owners are not pushing for more background checks, testing, etc to make sure that the people who are buying a gun (or getting a permit) are not as responsible as they are.
I would guess that most people who seem ‘anti-gun’ aren’t really against the idea of people having them…they just don’t trust that the people who have them know how to use them and have the proper respect.
By Jimbo I
July 11, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this
Possession is a right for law abiding citizens, carrying is a privilege.
You invalidate your whole point of view right here: “As soon as you can guarantee that EVERYONE that has a carry permit is as responsible and expert as you are (or think you are), than I will agree with you 100%.”
That should be applied to cars, liquor, prescription drugs, library cards, voter registration, food, water, exercise, industrialization, computers.. just insert any word you choose in place of “carry permit”.
I agree that Georgia should require training instead of just the background check and I would vote for any referendum that offered training and certification of some sort at a reasonable price..
but to say that anyone should have to guarantee 100% responsibility with humans involved is completely unrealistic, like rolling around on the ground beating your fists and screaming about how life isn’t fair, unrealistic. Life has no assurances, no guarantees except that you’re going to die eventually. The entire life process is an exercise in risk management and as any risk management professional can tell you there is no such thing as completely eliminating a risk. Conveniently, I’m a risk management professional.. so let me tell you “There is no such things as a risk that can be completely eliminated”.
By Jimbo I
July 11, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this
Possession is a right for law abiding citizens, carrying is a privilege.
You invalidate your whole point of view right here: “As soon as you can guarantee that EVERYONE that has a carry permit is as responsible and expert as you are (or think you are), than I will agree with you 100%.”
That should be applied to cars, liquor, prescription drugs, library cards, voter registration, food, water, exercise, industrialization, computers.. just insert any word you choose in place of “carry permit”.
I agree that Georgia should require training instead of just the background check and I would vote for any referendum that offered training and certification of some sort at a reasonable price..
but to say that anyone should have to guarantee 100% responsibility with humans involved is completely unrealistic, like rolling around on the ground beating your fists and screaming about how life isn’t fair, unrealistic. Life has no assurances, no guarantees except that you’re going to die eventually. The entire life process is an exercise in risk management and as any risk management professional can tell you there is no such thing as completely eliminating a risk. Conveniently, I’m a risk management professional.. so let me tell you “There is no such things as a risk that can be completely eliminated”.
By Jimbo I
July 11, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this
Let me help you out Bob,
Total number of people injured by some form of transportation (cars, bicycles, planes, what have you) without drilling into circumstances:
4,279,070
killed?
47,894
Injured by firearms total: 71,417
killed?
30,697
So I don’t see why you’re so concerned with 100% responsibility with firearms when you should probably start with a bigger issue that does more harm to society (because once you consider the suicides.. and I frankly support a person’s right to end their own life.. the firearms numbers drop considerably and the transportation numbers.. don’t)
All these numbers come from the 2006 CDC injury and mortality statistics as presented by WISQARS.
By Cubby
July 11, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this
I know it is off topic but as I strolled through the grocery store I had no less than four opportunities to snatch purses and wallets from the female shoppers who left the items in plain view in the cart.
I guess these women are not reading Lt. Steve’s columns.
Good thing for them I was an MP and not a criminole.
By Tailgunner
July 11, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this
Bob,
You said, “No, I’m sorry, it should not be a right. It should be a privilege that only the most responsible are allowed to have a gun.”
It already is. In order to receive a carry permit in Georgia, I have been thoroughly investigated (complete with a full set of fingerprints) by the FBI, the GBI, and it has all been overseen by a duly elected county judge. Yet anti gun people always seem to somehow magically know better - without having ever met me or investigated my background. And your PHD and expert and intensive training is in what specific field of Psychology and/or law enforcement sciences?
Leaving my gun at home is the whole point of all the ridiculous restrictions placed on legitimate concealed weapons permit holders by the gun ban airheads. That’s exactly what they hope I will do. Once again, criminals will not obey that law or any such restrictions. Get it? Criminals obey no laws. Get it? Criminals don’t care about laws. Get it? Criminals will do whatever they please in spite of any and every law. Get it? Criminals break the laws by breaking and entering, rape, theft, battery, carjacking, murder, and more. Breaking one more law by illegally carrying a weapon means absolutely nothing to them. Get it?
Restrictions on guns only pertain to honest citizens such as myself. Get it? Know guns, know peace, know safety, know freedom. No guns, no peace, no safety, no freedom. It is not gun control, it is victim disarmament. Get it? Gun control does not now, nor will it ever, disarm any criminal. Get it? Do you honestly get it?
By Tailgunner
July 11, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this
Bob,
You said, “No, I’m sorry, it should not be a right. It should be a privilege that only the most responsible are allowed to have a gun.”
It already is. In order to receive a carry permit in Georgia, I have been thoroughly investigated (complete with a full set of fingerprints) by the FBI, the GBI, and it has all been overseen by a duly elected county judge. Yet anti gun people always seem to somehow magically know better - without having ever met me or investigated my background. And your PHD and expert and intensive training is in what specific field of Psychology and/or law enforcement sciences?
Leaving my gun at home is the whole point of all the ridiculous restrictions placed on legitimate concealed weapons permit holders by the gun ban airheads. That’s exactly what they hope I will do. Once again, criminals will not obey that law or any such restrictions. Get it? Criminals obey no laws. Get it? Criminals don’t care about laws. Get it? Criminals will do whatever they please in spite of any and every law. Get it? Criminals break the laws by breaking and entering, rape, theft, battery, carjacking, murder, and more. Breaking one more law by illegally carrying a weapon means absolutely nothing to them. Get it?
Restrictions on guns only pertain to honest citizens such as myself. Get it? Know guns, know peace, know safety, know freedom. No guns, no peace, no safety, no freedom. It is not gun control, it is victim disarmament. Get it? Gun control does not now, nor will it ever, disarm any criminal. Get it? Do you honestly get it?
By Tailgunner
July 11, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this
Jimbo,
You contend that Possession is a right for law abiding citizens, carrying is a privilege.
That’s like saying that eating is a right but swallowing is a privilege. One is absolutely no good without the other. Simply by being a citizen of good character, I am entitled to both. Period.
By Jimbo I
July 11, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this
I’m sorry tailgunner, I think a driver’s license is a privilege and I think concealed carry is too.
But I’m a hypocrite, because I’d move to Vermont in a second to take advantage of (apparently) unlimited open or concealed carry.
By Jimbo I
July 11, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this
Actually Bob, we’re saying the same thing.
It’s the good character and law abiding thing where we combine to the same ideal. Yes, you’re entitled to carry until you prove you’re not of character to do so. I concur.
By Jimbo I
July 11, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this
and by bob I mean tailgunner.. oops.
By Tailgunner
July 11, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this
Well, we finally do seem to agree on a few fundamentals. One thing I do disagree on is the analogy between a driver’s license and a right to carry. As the right to drive a car is not guaranteed by the Constitution, it is indeed a privilege. I agree. However, the Constitution does guarantee me the individual right to not only keep, but to bear arms - which by any definition means carrying it with me. It, therefore, is a right.
Granted, rights can be taken from you, but only by due process of law. Convicted felons lose their right to vote and their right to keep and bear arms - but these rights must be taken from an individual on a case by case individual basis - again due process. A blanket ruling denying everyone a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is not due process, being flawed in that while it may strip a few people of the right to bear arms who may not warrant having that right, it also inherently and by its very nature indiscriminately strips the majority of the citizenry of that right without just cause or due process. The Bill of Rights is not void where prohibited by law.
By Blogfather
July 11, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this
Wootie and his blowfish trolls like the concealed weapons law at airports.
I used to worry that airport lounges held cultish Hari Krishas and the cacophonous, mettlesome drum-drum racket of their chants. Now I’m afraid of the brutish hairy kitsch of cowboy dumb-dumbs and the full metal jacket in their pants.
Conservatism is dead, and buried on the trash heap of history.
Stalwart GOP stall wart Sen. Craig sounded taps, with his flag at half mast.
Obama 08: Vision Accomplished.
By Stone
July 11, 2008 3:45 PM | Link to this
I can’t legally carry or own a firearm and won’t waste the cop’s time trying to get a carry permit. Some people, like myself, aren’t permitted to carry a concealed weapon because we screwed up a couple of times in our youth (OK more than a couple of times) and have a record. That’s cool, I understand the law and its reasoning in trying to prevent certain people from walking around with a firearm, even if I fall into the “certain people” category. However, I have absolutely no problem with someone who hasn’t made the mistakes I have, who can withstand a background check from the FBI and who wants a concealed weapons permit or at the least a legally registered handgun from getting what they want. I believe in clear, sensible and enforced gun laws that allow people to protect themselves. Also, a word to the anti-gun crowd, no offence, but what is it you expect or want to happen, the right to own a firearm to be abolished? Who will go door to door to collect these weapons, the poor cops who are already getting shot at enough? Who will enforce the laws, the courts who routinely let people off lightly for gun violations? Where will we stick the offenders like my father who will never give up his arms? Are we to build even more jails? We can’t keep drugs out of this country, what makes you think we can keep more firearms from being brought back in when others get confiscated? Won’t banning firearms drive the cost of existing ones even higher, prompting more thefts of weapons? America loves it’s guns and it loves its rights. Attempting to take away a right that Americans have enjoyed (ie.- alcohol, legalized abortion)has been fraught with disaster ever time its been tried in the past. Sensible gun laws and proper enforcement of existing laws is really the only answer to this problem.
By Tailgunner
July 11, 2008 5:02 PM | Link to this
There are many things I believe are worth sacrificing my life for. Love. Family. Honor. Country. My God given rights.
Sorry, all you liberal gun haters out there in la-la land - I am not willing to die unarmed at the hands of a criminal because you are too naive to know that there are plenty of people in this world who are just plain mean, just plain evil, and just don’t care whether someone else lives or dies as long as their selfish, momentary need is fulfilled. Victims of crimes, in the mind of a criminal, are always expendable - whether cold blooded murder of a victim is just something cool to do at the moment or whether “leave no witnesses” is their mantra. I am not willing to die for your perceived “right” to enforce your ludicrous fantasy on the rest of society that gun laws and banning all guns will make our homes and streets safer. The world is not Mister Rogers Neighborhood. Grow up and learn that.
Like the man said, “From my cold, dead hands”…
By gwarfan
July 11, 2008 5:09 PM | Link to this
Really when did someone with a conceal permit go out and shot anyone on the street that was not comitting a crime? Look “accidental shootings” are going to happen no matter how much training is out there, but they are amounting for less than .01 percent of gun deaths. I do know one old man that shot his wife with a shotgun and killed her in the night thinking she was a buglar, but he was a little loopy in the head and why didnt she turn on a light or something. If you have little kids and do not want to have a gun around the house I could understand that but most people who do have their guns locked away from kids and teach them about guns and safety. The ones that do not are 80% illegal guns and 100% not concealed permit holdes.
By gwarfan
July 11, 2008 5:15 PM | Link to this
Tailgunner, how many guns do you own?
By gwarfan
July 11, 2008 5:19 PM | Link to this
Tailgunner
how many guns do you own?
By Tailgunner
July 11, 2008 5:56 PM | Link to this
*By gwarfan
July 11, 2008 5:15 PM | Link to this
Tailgunner, how many guns do you own? *
Enough. Each is kept fully loaded and ready to fire on a seconds notice.
By Girl Talk
July 11, 2008 6:17 PM | Link to this
U better hide your guns, tailgummer, lest a girl scout finds them and shoves them up yourass.
You’re a real bushwhacker, aintja Josie Wales?
What a maroon. Honestly.
By Tailgunner
July 11, 2008 6:58 PM | Link to this
Hey, Girl Talk,
If you want to be a victim, be my guest. Thinning the herd and all that. Darwinism - it’s a wonderful thing!
When some “girl scout” kicks in your door for a home invasion, or when some “girl scout” drags you into their van in the mall parking lot to see what kind of brutal sexual perversion they can joyously inflict on you, you’ll be praying for a gun of your own or that some responsible armed citizen with a legal carry permit comes to your rescue.
But hey - why don’t you just whip out your trusty cell phone and dial 911 - yeah, that’ll scare that “girl scout” off. Your best hope will be letting the cops know where to find your body.
When will you gun ban airheads ever catch on to the fact that it is not the responsible armed citizen that you need to worry about - it’s the criminal who carries a gun for no other purpose than to deliberately inflict harm on unarmed people like yourself.
Go ahead, Girl Talk - keep on denying reality. Sooner or later you’ll get a very rude and severe lesson in the way things are in the real world. But it will be too late for you, won’t it now. I feel sorry for your family, who will do most of the suffering for your patent stupidity.
By gwarfan
July 11, 2008 7:21 PM | Link to this
Tail I only asked because you sound like a paranoid person and honestly like a nra wacko. I whole heartedly agree with the right to bear arms and conceal permits. You go sidewasys when you paint the home invasion, van rapist, and kinapping your daughter for brutal sexual perversion they can joyously inflict you sound a wee out there. It has happened and will happen again but having a gun in Dennys, Lenox Mall, or the Airport is not going to stop it. They have old west style gun laws for conceled and unconcealed in Arizona and they still have home invasion, murder, and rape. I do agree we do not need more laws for guns but to enforce the ones we have and better educate the public on proper firearm usage and safety. So carry your weapon with pride but easy on the decaf maybe.
By Get me out of here
July 11, 2008 7:32 PM | Link to this
Hey Tailgunner, how many times have you had your front door kicked in and home robbed that you feel the need the keep multiple guns loaded and ready to fire? Maybe you should just move to a better neighborhood.
By Tailgunner
July 11, 2008 8:24 PM | Link to this
gwarfan,
I am far from being paranoid - but I refuse to be unprepared. Just what is “an NRA wacko” anyways? Someone who disagrees with the Brady Campaign? Someone who actually believes in the Bill of Rights? Someone who would rather not live in Washington, DC where all guns have been banned and has just about the highest crime rate in the US?
Home invasions are a reality. Rape is a reality. To people who insist we all melt our guns down those are only statistics - until it’s your parents, your sister, your wife, your child, your friend. These things are not going to go away. Are they highly likely? No. But neither are they something that can never happen to you, me, anyone. That’s not paranoia - it’s practical, reasonable caution and facing reality rather than sitting around wishing for a Utopia that never will be.
In the meantime, I take care of my own by being alert and prepared. I refuse to hide in my home after dark and avoid anything and everything that might be a threat. I won’t walk across the street to pick a fight, and I sure as hell won’t run across the street to get out of one someone picks with me.
In the meantime, visit these 2 websites: http://nra-ila.org http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp and learn the facts the liberal, gun grabbing politicos never talk about - because they don’t want you to know.
By ron
July 12, 2008 7:44 AM | Link to this
During the time my friend’s home was unoccupied,thieves broke in and stole copper pipe and wiring.The resulting police investigation turned up two suspects.They told my friend it could either be her brother,who is a college professor and resides 90 mile away ,or it could be her aunt,who lives nearby and is 81 years old.I’m not joking about this.My friend called me to see why the power was out,so I suppose I’m high on the list of suspects also.I see why crime is rampant.
By No way. Yahwey.
July 12, 2008 8:37 AM | Link to this
Back to the stones. I loved the stones in 1965 more than the beatles. The image. Brian Jones’s hair!
If you look at the video in 1969 of the stones playing a live concert for a small audience that included John Lennon, Brian Jones is shown in close up as a total burned out cross-eyed zombie. He drugged himself stupid.
The problem in life: Success itself. Everyone wants to lay around and get drugged. They keep chasing that original high and never grasp it, because it cant be grasped. It was only fun because it was the first time.
Why is success a problem? The mental image we play in our heads about “someday, I’ll be a success” is that all our friends are now very impressed and really like us alot and we are the people we admired before. It’s that high school thing of being popular and having cool moments that everyone knows about and talks about and wishes they were a part of that cool moment, but aren’t and never could be? Remember? that’s the idea we chase with drugs.
How is success a problem? We assume people who dislike us now, or think we’re boring or not worth the effort, etc will all of a sudden be sorry they were short with us. We can be like royalty to people we once wanted attention and respect from. That’s the fantasy.
Where is success a problem? We cant occupy the same space with another human being. We occupy our own space/time no matter what we think is happening to other people’s opinion of us. We go through life totally alone that way, (unless we do page 37 of the Kama Sutra).
There is no special reality where we stay the cool popular hannah montana/miley cyrus person. Life is lonely, success or not. We cant be anyone else, but ourselves.
What in success is a problem: We drag ourselves everywhere we go. We are there. No matter where we go, there we are. “I got sick of me so I went somewhere else but I showed up there too”.
Why are drugs always the success partner? Drugs complete us and our unfulfillable fantasy about success and our friend’s envy.
Who is a problem with success? We all have a need to be the king, to be worshipped and respected and glorified. Most of us dismiss the urges. None of us could if we had satisfied the unique criteria our little minds had fantasized about what was supposed to happen to us and our friends after we became a success.
So we drug ourselves to feel good. Baby boomers have started dropping like flies because of cocaine. Some of us did a few years worth of regular use in our twenties and thirties. No heart muscle could withstand the damage. It doesn’t kill right away. It’s a time bomb even if you only did coke once, man. The heart just stops. cocaine damages the pump mechanism and the electricity and bio-functionality. Cocain snorts are like little IEDs going off in your heart. Eventually the hearts fall apart. A 90 year old wannabe will only live to be 40 to 65, give or take, on average, with lucky exceptions, but overall, early death comes to the majority of cocaine abusers, even if he does even one hit of cocaine.
That’s the truth. If you are in your fifties, and you did cocaine in your twenties, you can expect to live maybe ten more years, but I dont think so. You probably have a few years left.
Insurance companies know this. Never tell the truth on a life insurance application form, man. No fortunately for me, I never did coke. I never knew anyone who did coke. It’s a miracle. I never did acid either, because of the luck of the draw. People around me were either too cheap to share, or they weren’t doing it either.
No, pot was my sin. I didn’t smoke until I was 20. Then I was stoned for about five years. Then I quit for three. Then I stayed stoned for another 42 years.
Now I’m completely sober. The effects of all that pot have completely disappeared. I have no ill side effects, (ninny nick nick), and I have total command of all my mental and bodily functions, (gobba goo goo), and plan to spend my twilight years as a productive citizen. (I want my mommie).
Dont…….Do……..drugs.
By Bob
July 12, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this
@ No way. Yahwey.
Mind your own damm business preachin’ busybody jackazz goofball.
By No way. Yahwey.
July 12, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this
ISAIDDONTDODRUGS!!!!!
By Van
July 12, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this
OK, here goes.
1.) I am a moderate more left leaning. 2.) I own 3 firearms and love going to the range to target shoot. 3.) My wife and I took the NRA Basic Practical course at a local gun range to get comfortable with our guns. 4.) Obama or McCain. I pick Obama.
Point: Not every person who enjoys firearms does so out of a deluded dream that a bad man is about to kick their door in and rape their women. I also don’t live in fear that the goverment is going to come and take my guns. Calm down guys, it is not going to happen, I beieve in the 2nd amendment but some would call me a liberal.
Not every person who owns a gun is a right wing nut.
By Dale Jr.
July 12, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this
Obama/Nascar 08: It’s about changing right side tires, and hoping for a caution.
By Lynda
July 12, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this
Wimpy damn liberals, who never heard of a criminal or a criminal act that you couldn’t come up with an excuse for and who freak out every time a law-abiding person exercises the right to self-defense.
My dad had the good sense to teach me and my siblings about guns from a very young age — teach us to respect the power of a gun; never to point a gun at anyone or anything you didn’t intend to kill; never assume a gun is unloaded.
It’s real simple. If the idiots who “don’t believe in guns” would use their brain instead of always going to the knee-jerk reaction, there wouldn’t be ANY accidental shootings by children because they’d ALL know better.
I’ll never forget a former friend — a liberal — whose condo was burglarized. She had a young son and I told her she should buy a gun, learn to use it so she could protect her son. Her response? “Oh, well, the burglar doesn’t want to hurt anybody.” What total B.S. naivete. Rather than accept responsibility for her own safety and her son’s, she chose to follow the liberal party line. Another idiot liberal.
By Rodney
July 12, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this
I like to jump outta tree right now and kick some Azz. Yeah!
By bp
July 12, 2008 11:41 PM | Link to this
The author of HB89 has explicitly stated that it intended to allow carry in the non-sterile parts of the airport. Atlanta has lost to state premption in their attempts to ban guns from city parks, it seems likely they will lose this lawsuit, too. Maybe if the city didn’t have to spend so much on lawyers to defend lawsuits, they would’t have to lay off so many employees. Seems to me their money would be better spent hiring and keeping more police than stopping non-criminals from carrying firearms.
By Tailgunner
July 13, 2008 4:35 AM | Link to this
Van,
I still don’t know what a right wing gun nut is - maybe something like John Hinkley Junior was a left wing gun nut? Seems like anytime someone either cannot or will not understand, just label them a right wing nut of some kind and that is explanation enough. No - I’m not accusing you of that - just an observation of some of the comments posted here by others. If the definition of “a right wing gun nut” means someone who insists on being allowed to exercise his or her constitutional rights, then I guess that makes everyone in this country a “right wing” nut of some sort.
Obama has voted for every - repeat every gun restriction bill ever put before him. Not a nay vote among them, and has publicly stated he agrees with the extreme Washington DC gun ban. Chicago’s anti-gun policies are right behind Washington’s, and Obama both supports the Chicago laws and indeed helped institute many of them. When are people going to learn from his actions, not from his political doublespeak speeches as he tries to fool people into thinking he is something he clearly is not?
Obama has even introduced a proposal to outlaw gun shops within 5 miles of any school. Sounds neat, huh? But 2 things - one, there would be about 3 gun shops left in the US - one somewhere in Alaska and maybe a couple somewhere in barns in the middle of cattle country in Nebraska - and anyone who wanted to shut those down would only have to open a day care center with a pre-kindergarten within 5 miles and the gun shop would have to shut down. Second - just how stupid does Obama think gun shop owners (and the general population, for that matter) are? Does he really think that they will sell a gun to any 3rd grader who walks in the front door? Puh-leeze! If that’s anyone’s fear, see a shrink and get some meds.
The bill of rights is sort of like the 10 Commandments in that the 10 Commandments are not “the 10 Suggestions”. Same with the Bill of Rights - they are not 10 suggestions that can be ignored or stepped on by any person or government - local, state, federal, or foreign. All you folks out there who do not want a gun? Then don’t own one - that is your right, and I have no right - moral, political, or otherwise to stand in your way of exercising that right. But what you must understand is that you have no right - moral, political, or otherwise - to stand in the way of any responsible citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. Keeping means owning one and -bearing* means having it on or about your person. If that qualifies me in anyone’s mind as a “right wing gun nut”, then, by that definition, I am.
Anyone who does not agree with the Constitution and the rights it guarantees is free to live elsewhere. There is no Berlin Wall around the US, no guards in towers to try and turn you into swiss cheese if you try and leave. Why? Because of the second amendment!
By Tailgunner
July 13, 2008 5:30 AM | Link to this
Here’s a rich one for you… from the letters to the editor: Due to Georgia’s irresponsible new gun law, I no longer feel comfortable in restaurants, on public transportation or in public places where guns are allowed. I will look with suspicion at fellow diners, travelers, etc., wondering if they have a weapon. More people will carry a weapon, even those without a permit. A concealed weapons permit does not automatically confer good judgment or a lack of grudges. MELISSA WADE Alpharetta
Melissa, you need to get some serious help. I visit Alpharetta frequently - and am willing to bet you have passed me many times in a store, in your car, or on the street. I carry a gun legally. So how come you are still alive?
Contrary to what you would love to delude yourself and others into thinking, people who legally carry guns are not just itching to blow someone away for any and every reason or lack thereof. It is the criminal who is illegally carrying a gun who has that in mind. Why is this such a foreign concept to you? Once again each and every person in Georgia who has a Concealed Weapons Carry Permit has been checked out by the FBI, the GBI, and by a county judge who oversees the entire investigation. The exact opposite is true of those who carry guns illegally.
Contrary to your paranoid fears, the only time you will ever know I am carrying a gun is if someone attacks me or a loved one. That does not involve discussions over who was in the deli line first, telling the waitress I ordered fries and not mashed potatoes, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam.
It would involve someone snatching my fiancee’s purse, someone trying to carjack my car, someone wanting to punch my lights out because they feel they are more entitled to the contents of my wallet than I am - I’m hoping you get the big picture here. I doubt it, but I do hope so.
It is not now, nor has it ever been, cause for anyone other than criminals to fear legally licensed armed citizens, so unless you intend to try and steal my car or commit some other crime against me or mine, you have nothing to fear. Any and every fear you may have is only a result of your own paranoia and unstable, irrational imagination. That, madam, is not my fault, it is yours. That, madam, is no reason for you to deny me my rights under the Constitution. But I would suggest it is reason for you to get some serious counseling by a trained professional.
By Pee'er Pressure
July 13, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this
You’re a real bushwacker aint you Tailgunnah! (shoot him now, jeb, shoot him now) Shut up, Lige. I always wanted to face down one of you fancy pistolero’s ! (shoot him now, jeb, shoot him now) Shut up, Lige.
Tailgunner: here’s why your argument fails in any clean debate where debaters are using logic instead of Lugers.
You can never smell an ambush. You can watch all the people approaching you all day long for fifty years, and you wouldn’t pick out the one who’s going to get the drop on you.
Well, you say, that doesn’t matter, after the mugger gets his gun out and has me at bay while he robs me, I can wait for the right moment to draw my machine-pistol and shoot him clean….through……thegizzard.
Yes, you can wait for the right moment, but with most shootouts, the danger of collateral damage is simply too great. There are people everywhere just being people. Only a fool would start a shootout over a mugging. If a mugger has his gun drawn out and seems distracted and you go for it, he’s likely to blow your head clean off.
Well, you say, I can wait till the mugger has turned to leave and has his back to me, then I can take my time, aim, and shoot him clean….through…..thegizzard.
Yes, you could, however then a jury would send you to prison. And remember, Cody is still in prison and when he finds out you got ma in the back, he’s gonna gitja….clean….through….thegizzard.
Safety is best served with unarmed citizenry who let the police do their job.
period.
By Tailgunner
July 13, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this
Pee’er Pressure
I don’t want to shoot anybody - but I will. If you want to be a complete wuss and be the clown who begs on his knees “oh please, mister criminal - don’t shoot me!” then you go right ahead. Be my guest - or better yet, be the guest of someone with no compunction of blowing a hole in you for 6 bucks and your cell phone.
You, sir, are destined to die a sniveling coward. At least if I die it will be defending myself - not kissing some criminal’s hind end with tears in my eyes - and I will in all probability take his sorry a* with me. I’ll let God sort us out.
As far as your claims of “collateral damage” - find me 3 times that has happened in the United States by a licensed gun carrier. You can’t - because it has not happened. All the “collateral damage” has been as a result of criminals who just plain don’t give a damn who gets hurt.
Go ahead, Pee’er Pressure, disarm yourself. In fact, why don’t you take it to the next level and hang a big sign around your neck that says, “willing crime victim with no gun” I’ll even buy you a custom imprinted t-shirt with that on it! But it will be a cold day in Hell before you disarm me.
I can’t “smell an ambush”? I see you at least admit to the fact that people get “ambushed” in this world (that would be the real world in which you choose not to live).
Sure - leave it all to the police. Uh huh. The police have effectively prevented every single crime this year. Every last one of them! If you believe that, I have some ocean front property in Nebraska I’ll sell you real cheap. If you believe we don’t need guns to prevent crime, then you also must believe we don’t need smoke detectors and fire extinguishers because the fire department will handle everything.
Go ahead, Pee’er Pressure - cower in your home. Hide under your bed. Barricade yourself in your closet. You are a victim just waiting to happen, and when it does you will have brought it on yourself by open invitation and your own fantasy denial of reality.
Hey - here’s an idea - move to Great Britain where they took every registered gun from all the law abiding citizens (but not the illegal ones from the criminals) and violent crime went up over 200% overnight! Or how ‘bout Australia, where the exact same thing happened?
If that’s what you want for America, all I have to say is this: From my cold, dead hands, you wacko. From my cold, dead hands. The validity of the second amendment is, thank goodness, is not something you personally get to decide for everyone. You can decide for yourself, but only for yourself. For every other American, you have no say in the matter. Get used to it.
By Tailgunner
July 13, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this
Here are the lies and facts about gun control:
The lie: If we allow people to have guns, there will be shootouts in the streets and blood will run. We will go back to the days of the Wild West. The truth: * “As you know, I was very outspoken in my opposition to the passage of the Concealed Handgun Act. I did not feel that such legislation was in the public interest and presented a clear and present danger to law abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed state-wide, has proven my initial fears absolutely groundless.” * - John Holmes, former Harris County (Houston – the 4th largest city in the United States) District Attorney, several years after the passage of the law restoring right to carry in Texas.
“I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn’t happened,” Glenn White, President of the Dallas Police Association told the Dallas Morning News. “All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn’t happen. No bogeyman. I think it’s worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I’m a convert.”
After ten years, the Concealed Handgun Law in Texas is a shining example of what happens when elected officials have faith in the citizens they represent. The record in every other state which allows its citizens to carry concealed weapons is virtually identical.
Just a note here – if your Federal, state, or local representatives think you are too stupid or too untrustworthy to be allowed your Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, don’t you think it’s about time to reciprocate and vote them out of office because they are too ignorant of the facts, too arrogant in their mistrust of you, and too untrustworthy to govern you?
The lie: Banning guns keeps the people safer. The truth: Washington D.C. enacted a ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.’s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.
Flash back to March 30th, 1981. John Hinkley Junior shoots President Ronald Reagan outside the Hilton Hotel in Washington DC. But how could that have happened? Virtually all guns had been banned in Washington for 5 years! Gee – maybe it is true after all that criminals will consistently ignore just one more law, tote their gun with them anyway, and use that illegal gun to commit a crime! Ya think?
Reagan was also surrounded by Secret Service agents and police officers when he was shot. So much for some people’s belief and assertion that a ban on guns and law enforcement officers nearby will prevent gun violence by criminals…
The lie: Citizens being armed makes the job of the police more difficult. The truth: Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence and warned that the “Sunshine State” would become the “Gunshine State”. The founder of NOW (the National Organization of Women) Betty Friedan issued this statement: “lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence.” Oh really? In the first 10 years of the good citizens of Florida being issued RTC permits, only one permit holder our of over 350,000 in the state was convicted of homicide.
After the right-to-carry law in Florida went into effect in 1987, the Dade County (Miami) Police began keeping records of all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. From September of 1987 until August of 1992, Dade County recorded only 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The program was subsequently scrapped because there simply were not enough incidents to justify tracking them.
Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred in Florida: Florida Nationwide The homicide rate minus 36% minus .04% The firearm homicide rate minus 37% plus 15% The handgun homicide rate minus 41% plus 24%
Can someone from the Brady Campaign or any other gun ban organization please explain how significant drops in crime because citizens have (finally!) once again been allowed to exercise their God given right and constitutional right to keep and bear arms makes the job of law enforcement more difficult? Of course they can’t – because it simply doesn’t make law enforcement more difficult – and in fact the opposite is true. Lower crime rates make the jobs of law enforcement officers easier, and statistics prove it. It is not now, nor has it ever been, about guns – it is simply about control. But one thing you had better believe – it amounts to victim disarmament – plain and simple. I sometimes think that is part of the plan.
“Know guns, know peace, know safety, know freedom. No guns, no peace, no safety, no freedom.” – Unknown
By Duhng Undone
July 13, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this
Shoot ‘im now, jeb, shoot ‘im now. (shut up, lige)
You wont smell it, tailgunner. You wont smell it, and you’ll be tempted to be a hero, and think about a mugger who has a gun drawn, and is desperate, and is experienced, believe me, he’ll smell you, and worse, if he finds that ridiculous piece on you, he’s going to go all “No Country” on yoursorryass.
You are more apt to shoot a guy approaching you for directions, or he’s a male hooker, or some other innocent explanation, (wink), and if you’re halfcocked, a tragedy could result and you will go to prison.
The odds of you correctly anticipating a crime are 1 in a million. the odds of you shooting yourself, your wife, your children or any relative or friend or bystander are 1 in 5000.
Good luck, Josie Wales.
ANd that’s the real problem. Clint Eastwood type movies have made desperadoes and rambos out of a certain immature percent of our population. People like Tailgunner really think they can out draw, out shoot, out think, and out survive any criminal assault. The real danger is rrom real criminals, and rambo.
Let the cops do their jobs and stfu.
By Tailgunner
July 13, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this
Duhng Undone (or is that Dung One?)
Oh yes, you surely know so much about me. Just because you are such an incompetent coward doesn’t mean the rest of the world is. I am not Rambo or Dirty Harry - but unlike you, neither am I just going to curl up in the fetal position and wet my pants in the face of danger.
One in a million odds against anticipating a crime? Shooting yourself, your wife, your children or any relative or friend or bystander are 1 in 5000”? and you get your amazing statistics from where? C’mon, Dung One, give the whole world the impeccable source of the “statistics” you use to back up your ridiculous claims. I know you can’t because you just made them up. You have no proof. You have no statistics. You have no history to back up your lame, hair-brained assertions. You are lying - plain and simple.
“Clint Eastwood” is not the problem. The problem is jackasses that don’t live in the real world and expect everyone else to live in their little half-baked fantasy - everyone except the criminals, that is.
Disarm yourself. Do not presume to have some “right” to disarm decent and brave citizens who refuse to lay down and die because you cannot or will not face reality. You want to believe that no harm will ever come to you? Go ahead. You want to believe that everyone with a legal gun is some half-cocked wacko with a cowboy mentality? Go ahead. But there is one thing you had damned well better believe - because of people like me who can, and do, legally carry a gun for protection, it makes the job of being a criminal infinitely more difficult. It makes criminals play Russian Roulette every time they consider a crime.
You see, Dung One, there are damned few criminals who would go deer hunting if the deer shot back. That keeps everyone, including you, safer.
By Stone
July 13, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this
Uh oh! Looks like we have a squatter. Someone really likes listening to himself/herself with five out of the last seven posts. At what point does one start posting to themselves, eight out of ten? It’s becoming repetitive and I even agree with them, mostly.
By bob
July 13, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this
First I’d like to say to the folks complaining they don’t feel safe with people and their guns, SHUT THE HELL UP! If we ban guns only criminals will have them and if you cant see that then your a idiot and i suggest you challenge your self and win a Darwin award
However I’m not so sure about all these shooting intruders posts. isn’t that kind quick ? I have a whole garage full of power tools and a large variety of edged weapons. It seems it would be more fun to make it last so they recall before they breathe their last breath that this was a really bad idea.
By jim
July 13, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this
Bob,
Love the post. Maybe I’ll just use the Mossberg to herd them toward the table saw:-) Much, much more entertaining.
As for the “no guns” whiners, please try to understand that there are millions of people in this country who are safe firearm owners and users. The only reason you’d ever even know I’m carrying, is if I had no choice other than to draw my weapon as a defensive measure. Period.
I grew up in an area where everyone, and I mean everyone, had a rifle, and probably a pistol Drive through the high school parking lot during deer season, and you’d have seen a rifle in the rack of every pickup. Guess how many people I saw shot during the years I lived there? ZERO. That’s because most of us are smart enough to understand that a gun is a tool, just like my aforementioned table saw. And, like my table saw, it can be deadly to the user. However, used correctly, a firearm is only a threat to an attacker.
And yes, I do know how to shoot, and no, no one will ever, and I mean ever, take my gun and shoot me with it.
By Tailgunner
July 13, 2008 4:02 PM | Link to this
Right on, Jim!
If someone takes my gun from me and kills me with it, they’re gonna have to beat me to death with it - ‘cause it will have been emptied very recently! But I doubt that will happen - I have bou cous of practice and can hit what ever I want to at 35 - 40 yards from the hip.
Bob - not shooting an intruder? Are we all supposed to believe in our hearts that the guy in our living room at 3 a.m. is delivering girl scout cookies? Sorry - someone breaks into my home, they are leaving with the county coroner. I already know what that person is up to.
Stone, I don’t know if you think I’m the “squatter” - but if I am attacked - verbally or physically - I will defend myself. I am just so tired of the “but what if” BS lies of these liberal gun ban idiots. I am not the dangerous one here - the criminals are. But the liberals will never get that. Their minds are already made up, and no one will ever be able to confuse them with the facts.
By MissPriss
July 13, 2008 5:32 PM | Link to this
Tailgunner- just because you have been investigated, fingerprinted, etc. does not mean you have proven to be a sane, well trained gun owner who can clean, fire and secure your weapon. We need to do better. That is all there is to it. I believe in the second amendment but the regulations which govern our ability to own weapons are a joke. Your finger prints don’t mean squit to me.
By Tailgunner
July 13, 2008 6:06 PM | Link to this
MissPriss,
Gee, let’s see now - my fingerprints mean a lot to the FBI. They mean a lot to the GBI. They mean a lot to the county judge. So you have magically divined that I am somehow unfit just exactly how?
Let’s see now - just because you are over 16 and are purportedly sane and have had someone whose credentials are completely unknown to me show you how to drive a car - I don’t believe you know how to clean a car, drive a car, or are intelligent enough to lock your car and take your keys so someone doesn’t steal it from you and go on a killing spree.
Do you see the parallel here? Probably not. But not because you can’t - but because you don’t want to. Do I need to stay off the roads and hide under my bed because you might decide to drive to the grocery store? I mean, let;s face it - there are one hell of a lot more people killed by idiots with legal driver’s licenses in America than are killed by legal and illegal gun owners combined.
Every time you go to the mall, the grocery store, a movie theater, a park, or walk down Main Street, statistically somewhere between 3 and 5 people out of every 100 you see are legally carrying a concealed weapon. That should not scare you - that should comfort you. If, as you say, you believe in the 2nd amendment, you should have absolutely no problem with that.
By GunOwner
July 13, 2008 11:37 PM | Link to this
I’m a gun owner, but I’ve never been a right wing wacko. I voted for Clinton twice, never for W. And I don’t belong to the NRA, but I do belong to GeorgiaCarry.org.
If guns scare you, too bad. I carry. I may be standing behind you in the supermarket. I may be walking past you on the street. I PROBABLY won’t shoot you, but who knows… it’s a dangerous world we live in. I PROBABLY won’t run you down with my car either, but it all depends on my mood.
It’s perfectly legal. I’m not going to brag about the background checks, because I really don’t think that I should have had to give my fingerprints to anyone. But I did. I complied with your laws, and now I can carry a gun.
Anyone competent enough to drive ought to have at least a gun in their home. It’s not that hard to secure it. Take a gun safety course. If you don’t have any weapons, you are defenseless against a professional burglar who may or not have known that you would be home. Like I said, it’s a dangerous world. Deal with it.
By LiberalDave
July 14, 2008 8:47 AM | Link to this
Guns should be banned totally in the U.S. There is just too much violence from gun owners. The police should take all guns away—-and the U.S. will be better off.
By Tailgunner
July 14, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this
*By LiberalDave
July 14, 2008 8:47 AM | Link to this
Guns should be banned totally in the U.S. There is just too much violence from gun owners. The police should take all guns away—-and the U.S. will be better off.*
OK - if I’m being branded an “NRA wacko”, I’ll label you a Left Wing wacko. What part of criminals will never, ever turn in their guns don’t you get?
Oh, yeah - only criminals having guns will make everyone so much safer! Did the little green men from the UFO tell you that?
By Tailgunner
July 14, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this
*By LiberalDave
July 14, 2008 8:47 AM | Link to this
Guns should be banned totally in the U.S. There is just too much violence from gun owners. The police should take all guns away—-and the U.S. will be better off.*
OK - if I’m being branded an “NRA wacko”, I’ll label you a Left Wing wacko. What part of criminals will never, ever turn in their guns don’t you get?
Oh, yeah - only criminals having guns will make everyone so much safer! Did the little green men from the UFO tell you that?
By PJ
July 14, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this
Where’s that bus to LaLaLand? Got some folks who need to be on it.
By Tailgunner
July 14, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this
Hey PJ
“Where’s that bus to LaLaLand? Got some folks who need to be on it.”
It’s the Barak Hussein Obama express - leaving America and her core values every hour on the hour. But to get on board you have to check your brain, your common sense, and your patriotism at the door…
By PJ
July 14, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this
“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.”
This is the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States. What’s not clear? The word ‘infringed’? It means ‘violated’. “…the right of the people to keep and bear Amrs, shall not be violated.” Still not clear? Then please step over to the line marked “Next Plane to China. Leave your guns and your other rights here.”
By Tailgunner
July 14, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this
Bingo, PJ!
And with regard to the second amendment, there is also the 14th amendment, which states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.
The Supreme Court, in the Heller Case, has just affirmed that the right to bear arms is, indeed, an individual right.
“An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.” — Unknown.
By Stone
July 14, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this
Squatter!
By UberPudwit
July 14, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this
The second amendment says, “A well regulated militia”. That implies that the gun owners know how to handle their firearms.
Most americans use handguns as accessories, like belts, hats, tatoos.
Most importantly, I can give you 100% guarantee that if Tailgunner’s concealed weapon ever went off accidently, and killed some 5 year old girl, he would make up a million excuses about how he didn’t know it was loaded, or the little girl pulled her Glock first, or it was just an accident, no big deal, not his fault.
That’s why I say, who needs suppositories when you got Tailgunner’s gun?
By LiberalDave
July 14, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this
The Supreme Court got the 2nd Amendment interpretation wrong! It was meant only for state militias, not individuals walking around like the wild west with guns, assault rifles, etc. After Obama gets elected, he needs to appoint more liberal Supreme Court justices to get this amendment interpretation overturned and back to the right rule—-then, the government can order all citizens to give up their guns or go to jail!
By UberPudwit
July 14, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this
No, not give up their guns, just keep them locked away in safes, and no way should any citizen be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. no way.
The average concealed weapon clown will forget he’s got a weapon on him and do things that may discharge that firearm.
It happens every day. Guns just “go off”. for no reason sometimes. Even unloaded guns just go off, and the owners say, under oath, “I swear that gun was unloaded. I swear.”
The dead five year old girl, whose head was blown off by the unloaded gun, doesn’t get to testify, so the killer, I mean the guy with the concealed weapon gets off scott free.
Obama 08: Change. Oh, change.
By Tailgunner
July 14, 2008 5:39 PM | Link to this
Hey UberPudwit,
It would seem you know better than anyone how well I, or any other citizen, can handle a gun. Typical liberal BS - make up some ridiculous claim to try and prove an unprovable point. Yes - let’s base everything on the worst case imaginable scenario your little mind can conjure up. So - when you are on your cell phone driving down the street and dump your hot coffee in your lap and run over a 5 year old girl - you will make up a million excuses… Funny - my concealed handgun hasn’t “gone off accidentally” in 38 years. That crap only happens in the bad old “B” Hollywood movies.
LiberalDave - the Supreme court got it wrong? Read the Federalist Papers. Read Jefferson’s, Madison.s, Adams’, and Thomas Paine’s comments about it. At the time the Constitution was written, there was no National Guard - it didn’t appear ‘til 1917. Gee, I guess Madison was a psychic! And get off the wild west stuff. Look at the records in states like Florida, Indiana, Texas, and other states that have had RTC laws for as long or longer than Georgia. There has been no wild west. You simply are desperate to invent some non-existent scenario to try and prove your pointless point. Look up some facts before you continue making a fool out of yourself.
UberPudwit - Guns “just go off”? Since when? Since it made a good story line in some dime store novel or a B rated TV special? Put the URL of the credible source of your statistics in here for all the world to see. Go on - prove yourself right with verifiable statistics. You can’t do it - because the statistics do not exist. Your 5 year old girl argument is a real tear jerker there, UberPudwit. Complete BS, but a real tear jerker.
If you need to lie or invent bogus statistics to prove your “point” - then you ought to be smart enough to realize that your point is not true. But then, you are a screaming liberal who doesn’t care what the truth is, so long as you can force everyone to walk the line you draw.
Obama 08, Osama 09.
By Stone
July 14, 2008 6:31 PM | Link to this
Repetitive Squatter Alert!
By Tailgunner
July 14, 2008 7:20 PM | Link to this
OK, Stone - and you are doing exactly what???
If you want to be the moderator of this forum, drive down to the AJC and fill out an application. Self appointed (or is that self anointed?) doesn’t cut it with anybody here - especially when you are one of the “squatters”! And repetitive? Virtually all you have said is something about repetitive squatters. Physician, heal thyself!
By Stone July 11, 2008 3:45 PM | Link to this I can’t legally carry or own a firearm and won’t waste the cop’s time trying to get a carry permit….
By Stone July 13, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this Uh oh! Looks like we have a squatter. Someone really likes….
By Stone July 14, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this Squatter!
By Stone July 14, 2008 6:31 PM | Link to this Repetitive Squatter Alert!
By Stone
July 14, 2008 8:03 PM | Link to this
Oh did I hurt your feelings tailhumper? Too bad! You are squatting all over this blog and I’m just pointing it out. If you don’t like it stop repeating the same crap, we get it already! LOL, now you have a problem with me, too, even though I agreed with you the first time you made your point, oh some 20 posts ago? What are you going to do, shoot me? What a tool.
By Tailgunner
July 14, 2008 8:15 PM | Link to this
Stone - I know that you agreed with me in your first post - but now you’re the pot calling the kettle black? Sorry - whenever someone in these posts says something stupid or patently wrong, I reply. Period. And your problem with that would be….???
We agree fundamentally on the issue of right to carry. Are we (and that would be both you and me) going to let some of these gun banners post a bunch of lies and falsehoods, make statements that have no statistics to support them, and convince even one person who reads this that guns should be banned?
Not me. When attacked, I respond. Physical attacks I have a .357. Verbal attacks I have words and reason - just as you do. You made some satient points in your first post - let’s keep it there. Works for me…
By Stone
July 15, 2008 6:24 AM | Link to this
No one is attacking you, sir, they just have a different opinion. That is their right. You, however, after making your opinion known, seem to need to badger and bully anyone who doesn’t agree with you including calling them names and such. Just because someone disagrees with me doesn’t mean they are spreading “a bunch of lies and falsehoods” and I don’t find it my mission in life “to convince even one person who reads this blog” and disagrees with me, that they are wrong. You want verbal warfare and it is my opinion that you have made your point well and that you should just let it go with out all the name calling and bullying. This has gotten stale, gunner and boring.
By Tailgunner
July 15, 2008 8:15 AM | Link to this
OK stone - here’s the deal:
By ERB July 11, 2008 7:59 AM | Link to this You @#(@#ing right-wing NRA wackos.*
By Girl Talk What a maroon. Honestly.
By gwarfan July 11, 2008 7:21 PM | Link to this Tail I only asked because you sound like a paranoid person and honestly like a nra wacko.
*By Pee’er Pressure July 13, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this You’re a real bushwacker aint you Tailgunnah! (shoot him now, jeb, shoot him now) *
By Duhng Undone July 13, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this Shoot ‘im now, jeb, shoot ‘im now. (shut up, lige) You wont smell it, tailgunner. You wont smell it. Good luck, Josie Wales.Let the cops do their jobs and stfu.
By MissPriss July 13, 2008 5:32 PM Your finger prints don’t mean squit to me.
By Stone July 11, 2008 3:45 PM | Link to this I can’t legally carry or own a firearm and won’t waste the cop’s time trying to get a carry permit…. By Stone July 13, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this Uh oh! Looks like we have a squatter. Someone really likes…. By Stone July 14, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this Squatter! By Stone July 14, 2008 6:31 PM | Link to this Repetitive Squatter Alert!
And I’m the one badgering? You seriously need to start at the top and reread all of this. Sorry - when people disseminate BS as fact and resort to extreme and unsubstantiated irrational hyperbole to try and prove an unprovable or wholly erroneous point, I react.
If you think that makes me a “squatter”, then so be it. You are entitled to your opinion, and are entitled to express that. But I am equally as entitled to express anything eminently germane to this article, and everything I have put forth here can be backed up with facts and statistics from reputable, unbiased sources such as the FBI & CDC.
By WOW
July 15, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this
How I choose to protect myself and my family is my business as long as I operate within the law. And I appreciate the right of some to NOT have a gun. Heck, don’t even keep any steak knives if that makes you feel better. Criminals can stab with steak knives as easily as they can shoot guns… Oh, I almost forgot why I posted. If you don’t want guns in your house and do want to rely on the police for your total protection please put your money where your mouth is (so to speak). Post a sign in your yard, notebook paper taped to your door, etc. stating your beliefs and letting everyone know that you are willing to follow your own advice. I’ll be watching the headlines…
By Jimbo I
July 15, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this
Hey LiberalDave? You have no idea what you’re talking about. Your complete knowledge of constitutional law could fill a greeting card with room to spare.
UberPudwit, show me some numbers on guns just “going off” Also some numbers on people who carry concealed killing people.. Also numbers on people with carry permits committing crimes. I know you watch a lot of television and you probably surf the internet a lot.. I know that’s good solid information you have there on how guns operate.. I just want to see something created by some noted scientists or statisticians.. maybe something from the CDC or DoJ perhaps.
Please provide statistics and number to back up your claims.
As for me being a right wing nut? I’m a registered democrat.. Tell me where that fits into your little stereotypes.
You people disgust me. You see some television and watch some news stories where something was done with a gun and you think “THAT’S THE DANGER” you know nothing about them, you have no context on their effect on society.. you spout crap you read on the internet from biased sources instead of seeking unbiased data because you want information that supports you view. You never consider that more people are killed by the flu. You don’t think about the fact that more people are killed by diabetes.. More people die from cirrhosis of the liver than from guns. More people are injured on bicycles every year than are injured by guns. Those clove cigarettes and marlboro lights you smoked in high school to be edgy kill more people every year, orders of magnitude more people than guns do in this country.
It would never occur to you that a gun could be used safely. It is beyond your comprehension that in Georgia there are probably half a million to a million people with concealed carry permits and most gun crimes are not committed by those people. It wouldn’t occur to you because you don’t even know who we are or where we are..WE ARE ALL AROUND YOU. As for your grade school interpretations of the constitution? Stay out of law, because you’re high on drugs if you think that the bill of rights was created to cede power to the government in any way shape or form. It limits the government and that is it’s SOLE PURPOSE. No right in there would be collective because the WHOLE focus of the bill of rights is about the rights of the individual.. if you can’t get that.. and I know you won’t believe me.. because it doesn’t support your precious child like belief system.
If you don’t get the reproductive freedom, separation of church and state, the right to free speech and peaceable assembly, the right security in your papers, person and effects or trial by jury is exactly the same as the right to bear arms then you are irredeemably stupid. For the open minded left, you sure are a bunch of close minded fascists.
If you want to make the militia argument one more time.. I suggest you take a look at the militia act of 1903 and prepare to understand that if you are a male between the ages of 17 and 45.. YOU’RE ALREADY IN THE MILITIA. You’re in the unorganized militia.. I am too.. once again, no idea what you’re talking about.
By Stone
July 15, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this
Whatever tailhumper. Your just making your critic’s case for them. I don’t know you, but your posts seem to indicate someone who, at least, appears to be paranoid and delusional in thinking he is being attacked when he is only being disagreed with. This gives someone pause when considering you are walking the streets with a loaded weapon. You seem almost eager for a confrontation, verbal or otherwise, and don’t care to see that there may be an alternative approach. I feel less safe knowing folks such as yourself are walking the streets with loaded weapons and I’m all for the 2nd Amendment and the right to carry. I have stated my opinion that you are squatting, repetitive and badgering and its your right to disagree. You can continue with this silliness, but for me, I’ve grown bored with your repetivive drivel. Good luck to you.
By Riffing w/RiffRaff
July 15, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this
Tailgunner: two cops were shot here in metro atlanta today. Yes, you are right, there are bad boys out there. But did you notice those cops couldn’t prevent getting ambushed, and they were trained!
They were armed, and trained, and know to sense danger.
What I’m saying is that when it comes to shootouts, the issue is always in doubt, and never a sure thing, thus shootouts are to be avoided at all costs, even if it means that some of us are unarmed when a mugger points a gun in our face and sez, “HIT THE DECK”.
By Tailgunner
July 15, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this
By Riffing w/RiffRaff
So I’m better off being totally unarmed with absolutely no chance just how? And when I “hit the deck” and some crack head decides to put a pistol into my back and pull the trigger, being completely unarmed is to my advantage just how?
You may be right part of the time, Riffing - but only part of the time. Someone may get the drop on me. But they would do that if I were unarmed, too. There is a difference between being outmaneuvered and surrendering before I even leave home. I refuse to surrender.
I will be prepared to defend myself. If in some circumstances that only gives me a 50/50 chance, it is still infinitely better than disarming myself and having zero chance. I am a responsible citizen - not the French Army.
By Jimbo I
July 15, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this
Um, no. If anything, your assumptions show that if cops can be ambushed what hope does the average citizen have of avoiding trouble?
Unfortunately, training in fundamentals is a problem in many police forces and it means that though a cop may’ve been trained at some point (in a lot of rural areas deputies and city cops don’t require POST certification or any formal training), his training may’ve receded over time because with cuts in funding, manpower shortages, and double shifts it’s all a cop can do to cover their job, much less do that and train. Also, if you ever saw a police qualifier you might feel a little less confident in their weapons handling capability. Working in a range we saw a lot of cops come through who were practicing for annual (or semi-annual) quals and frankly it wasn’t pretty. It wasn’t what I’d call “confidence inspiring”. I’m not saying that there aren’t cops who keep their skills up and train with their weapons, but I am saying there are cops who don’t, it’s a known issue in the law enforcement community.
Lastly, what do you know of my training? Based on your assertion that once you’ve been trained you’re always trained I’m prepared to engage in full scale warfare against communist bloc forces.. what makes you think I can’t handle a few petty criminals looking for my wallet? If your assumptions about training hold true I am trained to fight in nuclear and chemical environments, perform battlefield first-aid, prepare and hold fixed defensive positions and engage in fire and maneuver tactics against targets up to 300 yards away..
I can use a bayonet and fight hand-to-hand if needs be and I can use a map to navigate into and out of trouble and in a pinch call in artillery, not that I’ll have those resources available to me on the street.. If I had my ful resources I could defend myself with an AT-4, or my home perimeter with a claymore mine or trip flares..
In the long run I’d rather revert to my boyscout days. Be Prepared.
If proper preparation means rendering first aid.. I’m reasonably prepared to render assistance. If it’s to fix a flat, I’m good to go. If it’s having a gun after all other risk management techniques, strategies, and plans have failed.. I’d rather have one in hand than be empty handed. Hell I’ll give them a knife given the opportunity. Am I paranoid? Hell yes, that’s what my career path is all about. I am paranoid so you people don’t have to be (infosec/risk management) so don’t tell me about the risks and rewards of carrying, I’m quite knowledgeable and aware of what I’m getting myself into and where that path could lead me. I’m also a hell of a lot more aware and capable than your average citizen and if there’s anything I know about a risk is that the most effective way of mitigating it is to avoid it altogether. (cops don’t often have that option by the way)
By Jimbo I
July 15, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this
Whoa whoa whoa there tailgunner. Before you judge the French army in WWII, read about them in WWI.. you should really know the whole story and the two are intrinsically linked, not to get off topic. Besides, you mean the ITALIAN ARMY, they did way worse in both wars.. all wars really.. any war for hundreds of years to be honest.
By Tailgunner
July 15, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this
OK. Jimbo - point taken.
But I honestly have to say that neither one did much besides wave a white flag. The French Resistance is a whole different story - heroes to the last one of them. The French Army? Remember the Maginot Line? If it were not for the Yanks in WW1 and WW2, French would be less commonly spoken today than Latin. Everyone in France would be speaking German.
The last time France helped the United States was during the Revolutionary War – and the people of France executed the king (Louis XVI) who approved that! France is a nation that ceased being great almost 200 years ago when Napoleon died. We can always count on the French to be there when they need us…
By Tailgunner
July 15, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this
OK. Jimbo - point taken.
But I honestly have to say that neither one did much besides wave a white flag. The French Resistance is a whole different story - heroes to the last one of them. The French Army? Remember the Maginot Line? If it were not for the Yanks in WW1 and WW2, French would be less commonly spoken today than Latin. Everyone in France would be speaking German.
The last time France helped the United States was during the Revolutionary War – and the people of France executed the king (Louis XVI) who approved that! France is a nation that ceased being great almost 200 years ago when Napoleon died. We can always count on the French to be there when they need us…
By Jimbo I
July 15, 2008 4:56 PM | Link to this
The problem in WWI wasn’t the French fighting man, it was the relentless strategy of attack the french general staff subscribed to.
For years with the loss of literally millions of men the french army attacked german lines laced with mines, barbed wire, and machine guns with no success.
Finally the french soldiers decided they’d had enough. They declared that they would hold any defensive line they already held against all assaults but would no longer attack until a new strategy was developed.
We certainly ended the war in WWI, but we came at the very end of a war that had destroyed the best both the French and the British had to offer for years to come.
In WWII we would’ve been defeated by the Germans. If the third reich had risen in Canada instead of Germany we’d be talking about the American Resistance.. No one stood up to the Blitzkrieg in 1939-1940 and the only reason the Russians did is because they had plenty of space to let the Germans run themselves out while Stalin brought up reserves with fresh equipment from the west. The french did admirably in Vietnam considering the state of their nation and military.. Dien Bin Phu was once again the fault of french leadership and not the french fighting man.
The defeat of the french by the prussians during the the reign of Napolean III can be attributed to Napolean III..
I have a lot of issues with France and Republics 1-5 (various issues) and both empires, but they do in fact have a pretty decent warrior tradition.
It’s like the pols. People talk about how stupid the Polish Army was for attacking panzers with lancers (yes, men on horseback with lances) but they fought bravely (some still insist stupidly) with what they had..
By Jimbo I
July 15, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this
Also France doesn’t help the United States, it’s not their thing anymore (see statement about issues: republics 1-5, empires 1,2)
Also, Jean Lafitte, in the war of 1812 and the Louisiana Purchase both came after the Revolution.. and both were great for our nation.
By Jimbo I
July 15, 2008 5:03 PM | Link to this
Also France doesn’t help the United States, it’s not their thing anymore (see statement about issues: republics 1-5, empires 1,2)
Also, Jean Lafitte, in the war of 1812 and the Louisiana Purchase both came after the Revolution.. and both were great for our nation.
By Tom T
July 15, 2008 5:37 PM | Link to this
To Riffing with Riff Raff……while these officers were, in fact ambushed, they were armed, affording them the opportunity to return fire and prevent the cretin who shot them from moving in and finishing them off. Being armed and trained didn’t prevent the assault, but it sure as hell saved them from further injury and death. Same thing for a CCW holder in a situation where he (or she) is ambushed.
By Tailgunner
July 16, 2008 7:35 AM | Link to this
Hey, Riffing with Riff Raff
To quote directly from the story you cite:
On Tuesday morning, the violence reached a new level when two police officers, apparently trying to clean up the streets, were shot. Police returned fire, killing one suspect and wounding another.
*Neither officer suffered life-threatening injuries, Atlanta Police Chief Richard Pennington told reporters at Grady Memorial Hospital, and the officers were released from the hospital late Tuesday afternoon. *
Before you point to a news item as proof of anything, you should at least read the story. You have succeeded in disproving your whole line of thinking that having a gun with you does nothing to save lives or prevent crime. The lives of 2 men were saved because (GASP) they were armed and shot back and didn’t allow the criminal with no right to have a gun to continue firing at them until they were dead.
Thank you so much for making my point for me!
By Analchord
July 16, 2008 7:58 AM | Link to this
D’OH!
By Alex
August 11, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this
:))
By Neil
November 7, 2008 5:18 PM | Link to this
The article was about Neighborhood Watch. Nothing in it referred to guns. The second poster managed to change the subject to guns being better than Neighborhood Watch. In many forums someone would politely point out that that was off topic. But no, several persons wanted to brag about how intelligent they are and what excellent marksmen they are. Some decided the best offense is to deride the others.
None of what I read seemed to be very smart (and I didn’t read all the comments because they just didn’t seem to be very intelligent). If you are truly interested in protecting the people that live in your home and your property, why would you not make your home extremely difficult to break into?
From what I’ve read, most break-ins occur through doors and windows. Install windows with impact-resistant glass and strong steel doors with high-security locks and keep the intruders outside.
A few days ago I called two top security-system manufacturers. I asked for a system that would keep intruders out. They were perplexed. Nothing can do that. “We let the intruders in and then set off an alarm or call the police” is the gist of their services.
Why are the machos not designing systems to keep intruders outside? Does flashing a pistol do more for their ego than coming up with a true solution? Cowboy, put your pistol back in its holster and start putting your creative brain to work.
By Steve
January 2, 2009 4:05 PM | Link to this
Would you really kill someone over superifical material possesions? A couple hundred dollars missing does not give you the right to kill someone. Even if these people are “criminals,” I think you really need to stop and re-evaluate the value of a human life. Even if these people are “criminals,” they are people JUST LIKE YOU. They have a family. Their criminal activity shows to me that they are troubled and need help and love, not bullets to the head. Have you never messed up or done something wrong in your life? Following your logic, we should’ve killed you a long time ago for being so “evil.” What if your son fell on some hard times and tried to break into someone house to take some money.. do you think they deserve to be shot and killed? And you cannot say, “oh well my son would never do that.” One, you can’t be sure, and two, even let’s say YOUR son never would, okay. But the person you just shot and killed for breaking into your house IS someone’s son. Take a stand then, either you would accept and agree that your son should be killed as well, or you are a hypocrite. I want to hear it.
And on the issue of FBI background checks, just because someone hasn’t gotten caught doing a serious criminal offense in their life does NOT mean they are a responsible, cautious, fair-minded person. It just means they haven’t been caught doing a serious criminal offense in their life. They could have done many terrible things and just gotten away with it, or have changed as a person and are beginning to commit crimes. Just because you may be responsible and carry a weapon lawfully doesn’t mean that everyone will.