Republican Congressman Giving Away Gun to Lucky Follower

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-stir/ ... 83597.html

http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/122338/5075.pdf

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2011/08/03 ... ce-project

[silverscreenselect]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-stir/ ... 83597.html

http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/122338/5075.pdf

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2011/08/03 ... ce-project

Another straw man argument. More children are killed in cars than by guns so we should ban cars. That argument overlooks the facts that (1) children are in cars or shopping carts a lot more often than they are exposed to gunfire, and (2) the benefits from cars and shopping carts outweigh the harm.

[ten96lt]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-stir/ ... 83597.html

http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/122338/5075.pdf

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2011/08/03 ... ce-project

Another straw man argument. More children are killed in cars than by guns so we should ban cars. That argument overlooks the facts that (1) children are in cars or shopping carts a lot more often than they are exposed to gunfire, and (2) the benefits from cars and shopping carts outweigh the harm.

200+ children (and God knows how many are injured) are killed in DUI's each year according to MADD so do you support bringing back prohibition? I can't see where there's a benefit to alcohol that can be argued.

Your paranoia about gun owners is worse than the gun owners you claim are paranoid.

[silverscreenselect]

Your paranoia about gun owners is worse than the gun owners you claim are paranoid.

The stated purpose of owning a gun in almost all cases is to protect yourself and your family, even though all the evidence indicates you actually put yourself and your family at greater risk by doing so. If BiT and TMITSS and those like them want to do that, that's their business and they'll have to live (or not live) with the consequences. And if one of their family members get injured or killed, they'll have to live with that as well.

But people with that mindset do put me and my family at risk, something of which I'm acutely aware every New Years Eve when they start shooting off their guns. And I got to witness first hand what happened to my neighbor Ray when gun ownership goes awry.

Alcohol can be abused, and it does contribute to a lot of deaths, both DUIs and a lot of shootings, but it's not by its very nature lethal. Guns are.

[ten96lt]

Your paranoia about gun owners is worse than the gun owners you claim are paranoid.

The stated purpose of owning a gun in almost all cases is to protect yourself and your family, even though all the evidence indicates you actually put yourself and your family at greater risk by doing so. If BiT and TMITSS and those like them want to do that, that's their business and they'll have to live (or not live) with the consequences. And if one of their family members get injured or killed, they'll have to live with that as well.

But people with that mindset do put me and my family at risk, something of which I'm acutely aware every New Years Eve when they start shooting off their guns. And I got to witness first hand what happened to my neighbor Ray when gun ownership goes awry.

Alcohol can be abused, and it does contribute to a lot of deaths, both DUIs and a lot of shootings, but it's not by its very nature lethal. Guns are.

Those statistics have been analyzed and are not reliable as they have always not accounted for underlying factors such as alcohol being involved or that those firearms were accessible to unauthorized persons (children who were not taught about guns, elderly parents not in the right mental state of mind). If I keep a gun in a holster, I am putting you in no greater risk than if you walk by a cop who has a gun holstered. And most of the time, you won't even see it, so how can you be in fear of someone who you can't see is armed if it's concealed?

Alcohol by it's nature is poison and is lethal. It just takes more than one sip to consume to become lethal. Guns are lethal because you can't eat an animal alive and the most efficient way to stop a threat is to hit them in the center mass which is where the vital organs are.

I got to see first hand what alcohol can do first hand when two kids I knew got killed in a DUI celebrating their high school graduation, yet people go on and still go to the bars and get wasted like it's a great thing to do.

I've been in the house with a gun for over 24 years and nothing has happened. And if you mention it's because of the training my father has received, the training he received in the academy on handling firearms is no better than the training many people receive to conceal carry. It's a tool and must be treated as one responsibly. If you can't get over your paranoia that a gun can magically jump out of a holster or safe and hurt someone that's on you.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Cars, alcohol, shopping carts, electricity all have utility to make our lives better, so we keep using even thought some people die as a result of misuse. SSS is unwilling to acknowledge that guns also have utility to make our lives better.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... lack-home/

[silverscreenselect]

Cars, alcohol, shopping carts, electricity all have utility to make our lives better, so we keep using even thought some people die as a result of misuse. SSS is unwilling to acknowledge that guns also have utility to make our lives better.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... lack-home/

The fact that you had to go back to 1892 to come up with an example of the usefulness of guns in the home rather proves my point.

Actually, the so-called "Wild West" wasn't that violent a place originally in the post-Civil War era. The Colt Company, faced with the loss of a ton of revenue when its Civil War contracts expired, actively promoted the idea of a wild lawless land to persuade people they needed to buy Colt firearms to protect themselves. Enough of them bought guns so that it became a self-fulfilling prophecy when guys, usually fueled on alcohol, provoked fights with each other that ended in gunfire and bloodshed (although many of the pistols in use during that time were very inaccurate).

[silverscreenselect]

I've been in the house with a gun for over 24 years and nothing has happened. And if you mention it's because of the training my father has received, the training he received in the academy on handling firearms is no better than the training many people receive to conceal carry. It's a tool and must be treated as one responsibly. If you can't get over your paranoia that a gun can magically jump out of a holster or safe and hurt someone that's on you.

As the studies have shown and I've admitted, most guns do not cause harm. They don't do any good either, and the chances of them causing harm far outweigh the chances of their doing anything good.

Guns do not jump out of the holster and shoot people. But kids get hold of guns (including a case here in Georgia in which the child of an NRA official got into a locked gun case and accidentally shot a playmate). And depressed people get hold of guns. And people who hear funny noises that turn out to be kids coming home late at night get out of guns. And people who get in arguments or abuse spouses or children get hold of guns. And drunks get hold of guns. And "unloaded" guns go off when being cleaned or holstered or unholstered. If my child gets shot by a playmate, it's no consolation that his father who bought the gun knew better than to play cops and robbers with it and may or may not have told his kid it was dangerous.

I don't know what training you've had, but I do know that police and soldiers undergo weeks of intensive training in the use of firearms so they have a better idea when and how to use them and can keep their judgment in a stressful situation and determine how best to react... when to shoot and when not to shoot. Most "self defenders" have had a couple of lessons on firearm safety and some time at the shooting range in controlled conditions, at best. And if someone does intend to rob you, the odds are they are going to have their guns out and ready before you have yours.

[SportsFan68]

Cars, alcohol, shopping carts, electricity all have utility to make our lives better, so we keep using even thought some people die as a result of misuse. SSS is unwilling to acknowledge that guns also have utility to make our lives better.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... lack-home/

The fact that you had to go back to 1892 to come up with an example of the usefulness of guns in the home rather proves my point.

Actually, the so-called "Wild West" wasn't that violent a place originally in the post-Civil War era. The Colt Company, faced with the loss of a ton of revenue when its Civil War contracts expired, actively promoted the idea of a wild lawless land to persuade people they needed to buy Colt firearms to protect themselves. Enough of them bought guns so that it became a self-fulfilling prophecy when guys, usually fueled on alcohol, provoked fights with each other that ended in gunfire and bloodshed (although many of the pistols in use during that time were very inaccurate).

Most of the pistols in use today are very inaccurate, but not because of the pistols themselves. It's hard to hit ANYTHING with a pistol unless it's really big, like the broad side of a barn, unless you're shooting at point blank range, or unless you're very well practiced. Those television shows where the good guys always hit what they're aiming at even when they're shooting at a moving target or on the move themselves crack me up.

[silverscreenselect]

If I keep a gun in a holster, I am putting you in no greater risk than if you walk by a cop who has a gun holstered. And if you mention it's because of the training my father has received, the training he received in the academy on handling firearms is no better than the training many people receive to conceal carry. It's a tool and must be treated as one responsibly.

I googled "police academy firearms training" the first hit that came up was from the New York State Police. I would gather that most major law enforcement agencies have similar requirements. Here's what they have to say:

In the New York State Police Firearms Training Program, these priorities are: Safety first, Accuracy second and Speed last.

State Police Firearms Training is a continuing process that begins with a 90-hour course in the Basic School and continues throughout one's career with semi-annual, in-service Field Firearms Training sessions of five hours each. With guidance from trained firearms instructors, each trooper works to develop and maintain an appropriate level of "combat accuracy" under realistic time-constrained conditions; that is, the ability to perform quickly and efficiently without sacrificing safety.

Basic School Firearms Training covers not only qualification with pistol and shotgun, but also tactical firearms training, the use of deadly force, which includes training on FATS (Firearms Training System), chemical agent training and practical "demonstrations" of the effects of oleoresin capsicum (OC or "pepper spray"). FATS is a state of the art training system which stimulates real life situations in a controlled atmosphere. This tool was designed to aid in decision-making skills, judgmental use of force and marksmanship training.

Basic School qualification requires the recruit to score 84% or higher on each of three consecutive runs of the pistol qualification course. Pistol qualification requires a minimum proficiency score of 84%, at specified distances and within established time limits; shotgun qualification requires 80% proficiency. In addition, all Basic School trainees must pass a comprehensive written examination with a minimum score of 80%.

Emphasis also is placed on "tactical" training, in which recruits are confronted with realistic situations specifically designed to reflect actual deadly force incidents troopers have faced in the line of duty. This begins even before the three-in-a-row standard has been achieved on the static range; once it is achieved, the qualification course is not revisited until semi-annual, in-service training in the field.

In-service Field Firearms Training requires ongoing semi-annual qualification with pistol and shotgun. It also includes an array of ever-changing tactical courses. This training is decentralized and occurs locally in troops. All troopers must attend each training session. The State Police train its own firearms instructors in a state-certified 63-hour Firearms Instructor Development Course. The minimum marksmanship standards for this course are increased to 92% for the pistol and 90% for the shotgun and written exam. Instructors also must complete an additional Instructor Development Course for General Police Topics.

I tend to doubt that a whole lot of people with concealed carry permits, unless they are ex-police or military, have gone through that type of training.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

I think Curtis Reeves had the training

[ten96lt]

I don't know what training you've had, but I do know that police and soldiers undergo weeks of intensive training in the use of firearms so they have a better idea when and how to use them and can keep their judgment in a stressful situation and determine how best to react...

That statement shows how ignorant you are of how much they train. My dad spent 30 years as a police officer and general recruits in the academy along with veterans spend about the same amount of time learning to use a firearm as regular CCW holders do. Unless they go into something specialized like SWAT, all other officers just go to a range at the end of the year and prove they can still hit the target. You have also never been to CCW training. In Illinois for example, you also learn the law and when you can and can't shoot. Anyone who tells you different on police training is just trying to impress you or was an exception, not the rule as they most likely went into a specialty. I can't attest to military training, so I won't comment on that.

The FATS training machine is not as big as they crack it up to be. It's just a large screen with a simulation video and you decide when to pull the trigger on a laser gun. There are public one's available also for those that want to try it out. The training you cited is as inflated as Donald Trump's ego.

Training is also perishable, even if the department puts them through decent training, if they don't practice, they will forget. Most do not even practice until that day they re-qualify.

Proof: When the man that shot someone at the Empire State Building in 2012 went on the run and the NYPD cornered him. 9 innocent bystanders got shot in the process of taking him down. Guess who shot all of them with their fantastic training you think they all have? NYPD

I'm not trying to bash police officers, but don't think they are all robo cops who do nothing but train how to use a gun. Many gun enthusiasts train more than cops. Look up simunition training, but why bother; you'd bash them by saying they shouldn't be pretending to be the police by going through additional training.

[silverscreenselect]

So the fact that police don't get as much training as they should somehow makes me feel more comfortable about your carrying a gun?

That's the same argument as saying that if commercial airline pilots aren't as well trained as they should be, therefore I should feel better about getting in a plane with a private pilot.

[BackInTex]

If BiT and TMITSS and those like them want to do that, that's their business ....

But people with that mindset .....which I'm acutely aware every New Years Eve when they start shooting off their guns.

Those are idiots. Most likely voted the same as you in the last election.

I have never, as I'm sure TMITSS has never either, fired a gun on New Year's Eve or even just fired up in the air on any day of the year.

[BackInTex]

The fact that you had to go back to 1892 to come up with an example of the usefulness of guns in the home rather proves my point.

How about 1939-1944 in Poland. 2 million armed households would have made our history books much different.

[Beebs52]

Tell me again how many of the guns used in the many regular Chicago shootings are purchased legally with background checks.

[silverscreenselect]

The fact that you had to go back to 1892 to come up with an example of the usefulness of guns in the home rather proves my point.

How about 1939-1944 in Poland. 2 million armed households would have made our history books much different.

The Polish army had about one million soldiers at the start of World War II. They actually had a larger infantry (in terms of sheer numbers) than the German army that attacked them. What they didn't have were modern tanks, planes, or proper training. They couldn't adequately arm or train the army they had; what makes you think they could magically come up with a couple million more weapons and adequate training for the civilian population?

And over 200,000 Polish civilians were killed during the invasion, many of them targeted by the Luftwaffe, who bombed lots of unarmed civilian targets. To put this in perspective, half as many Polish civilians were killed in a two-month invasion as U.S. troops were killed during the entirety of World War II in Europe and the Pacific (about 400,000). Part of the German strategy was to panic the civilian population through a terror bombing campaign of civilian targets with no military significance so that when they fled they would get in the way of the military trying to regroup. From a humanitarian standpoint, it was a disgusting, sickening strategy, but it proved quite effective tactically. When the aerial bombardment stopped, the Germans sent in their tanks with the idea of moving in fast, using the tanks to break up the bulk of the Polish army, and then sending in the infantry to mop up what resistance was left, military or civilian. And after two weeks, the Russians joined in by attacking Poland from the East, only by then, there was far less organized resistance available. So, more organized civilian resistance would have meant a few (or a lot) more bombs being dropped by an enemy who had absolutely no moral qualms about using such tactics.

In fact, the Polish resistance was the largest and probably the most effective in Europe, once they got organized and trained, and, most importantly, once the Germans moved the bulk of their forces into the Soviet Union, leaving a lot fewer troops behind in Poland than they had in 1939. So, if Poland had a militia available in 1939 the size of their regular army that was somehow better armed and trained then their regular army, it might have made a difference, although the lack of sufficient battle ready aircraft and tanks would probably have done them in anyway.

[Bob Juch]

The fact that you had to go back to 1892 to come up with an example of the usefulness of guns in the home rather proves my point.

How about 1939-1944 in Poland. 2 million armed households would have made our history books much different.

No, that would have resulted in 2 million dead Polish households. I think you've seen "Red Dawn" too many times.

[Bob Juch]

An East Texas police officers association is coming to the aid of of a fellow officer's family.

The brother of a Kilgore police officer was hospitalized with H1N1 last month, and is in critical condition in a Tyler hospital. So, a raffle has been organized to raise money to offset medical expenses, with the prize: an AR-15 rifle.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

The fact that you had to go back to 1892 to come up with an example of the usefulness of guns in the home rather proves my point.

How about 1939-1944 in Poland. 2 million armed households would have made our history books much different.

No, that would have resulted in 2 million dead Polish households. I think you've seen "Red Dawn" too many times.

And yet they left the Swiss alone.

[silverscreenselect]

How about 1939-1944 in Poland. 2 million armed households would have made our history books much different.

No, that would have resulted in 2 million dead Polish households. I think you've seen "Red Dawn" too many times.

And yet they left the Swiss alone.

When World War II started, the Swiss army consisted of approximately 20% of the male working population (over 400,000 men) but it was poorly armed and would not have been in a good position to defend a large portion of the country. Defense plans called for attempts to defend more mountainous regions that would have made German tank advances difficult, primarily through guerilla tactics. In so doing, most of the population would have been under German control.

Instead, the Swiss chose to adopt different tactics. Unlike Austria, which had a significant pro-Nazi element before being annexed, the Swiss were strongly and vocally anti-Nazi, so much so that Hitler's justification of annexing willing ethnic Germans into the Third Reich (which the German people bought in regard to Austria and Czechoslovakia), would not have worked and would have sped up Resistance efforts inside Germany.

In addition, the Germans relied on the Swiss rail system for transport between Germany and Italy. If they invaded, the rail lines would have been destroyed and quite difficult to effectively rebuild. Finally, they needed Switzerland for financial reasons, to convert their gold into currencies that they could use to purchase needed materials. The Swiss cooperated with the Germans in a lot of these financial endeavors, including helping them gain access to the assets of Jews and citizens of occupied countries (not a case of willing collaboration as much as doing what needed to be done to prevent an invasion).

Here's an article about the Swiss in World War II:

http://history-switzerland.geschichte-s ... ar-ii.html

Note the lack of mention of the civilian gun toting as a reason why the Germans did not invade (they were actually more worried about negative reaction in Germany itself to an invasion than a Swiss resistance).

[BackInTex]

The Polish army had about one million soldiers at the start of World War II. They actually had a larger infantry (in terms of sheer numbers) than the German army that attacked them. What they didn't have were modern tanks, planes, or proper training. They couldn't adequately arm or train the army they had; what makes you think they could magically come up with a couple million more weapons and adequate training for the civilian population?

Never said anything about magic. Not the point of the thread.

So, more organized civilian resistance would have meant a few (or a lot) more bombs being dropped by an enemy who had absolutely no moral qualms about using such tactics.

Wasn't talking about an organized resistance, either.

So, if Poland had a militia available in 1939 the size of their regular army that was somehow better armed and trained then their regular army, it might have made a difference, although the lack of sufficient battle ready aircraft and tanks would probably have done them in anyway.

The Vietnamese and Afghans didn't let a lack of superior tools get in the way of their victories.

The point being, an armed population willing to die for freedom will likely never be defeated. Willing to die for freedom being a critical component. Not sure you understand that point.

[ten96lt]

So the fact that police don't get as much training as they should somehow makes me feel more comfortable about your carrying a gun?

That's the same argument as saying that if commercial airline pilots aren't as well trained as they should be, therefore I should feel better about getting in a plane with a private pilot.

Exactly, there are probably some private pilots that fly better than commercial pilots. Don't assume because someone is a private citizen and carrying they are just some dumb hick who doesn't know which end of the barrel is which.

[silverscreenselect]

The Vietnamese and Afghans didn't let a lack of superior tools get in the way of their victories.

The point being, an armed population willing to die for freedom will likely never be defeated. Willing to die for freedom being a critical component. Not sure you understand that point.

I think that whack you got on your head actually got you believing some of the stuff the NRA is spouting.

If you were writing me a letter in 1790 with your quill pen and espousing these theories, they had some merit. At that time, the U.S. faced a definite external threat from Spain, France, and England, along with the Indians. That's why the Second Amendment was adopted, to ensure the establishment of local militias when needed. Who's going to attack us now? Mexico, Canada, or something out of Red Dawn? Crazed liberals and teenagers wearing hoodies?

Every single time some bunch of people willing to "die for freedom" has taken on the police or military in this country since the Civil War, that's exactly what happened. They died. Or were captured. Without getting whatever they felt was their freedom. Even in the Civil War, where you had the largest single group of people rebelling against the U.S. government, they eventually were beaten.

Your example of the Poles is particularly inept and shows a singular lack of knowledge of world history. The Poles did die, by the hundreds of thousands (one out of every six people, over 5 1/2 million, in Poland at the beginning of World War 2 died as a result of the war, a higher percentage than either Germany or the Soviet Union), but pistols and rifles weren't much good against Luftwaffe dive bombers and Panzer tanks. And against a German army that was willing to engage in mass slaughter to enforce its will. If you don't believe me, look what happened to the town of Lidice in Czechoslovakia, which was believed to have housed the partisans who killed Reinhard Heydrich. The Nazis exterminated that village. Dying for freedom is one thing; being willing to sentence your entire family or village to death is another. The Poles were only able to resist effectively when the Germans moved a large number of their forces into the Soviet Union.

Obviously, the U.S. was never going to do anything like that in Vietnam. The Soviets in Afghanistan were never willing to commit the number of troops needed in mountainous terrain to subdue the local forces.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

From Candidate Lee Bright in today's email

Dear LOUIS,

It was a defining moment.

In the wake of the horrific tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, gun-grabbers were sure they had the votes to RAM gun control into law . . .

Thanks to the action of Second Amendment supporters all over the country, their schemed failed -- even despite my Republican Primary opponent, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham.

LOUIS, I don’t know about you, but that betrayal wasn’t one any Second Amendment supporter anywhere in the country will soon forget.

In fact, it’s one BIG reason I’m running for the U.S. Senate.

And today, I’m announcing that my campaign is giving away a brand new Palmetto Armory AR-15!

All you have to do is sign up to be entered to win. Won’t you do so right away?