The Dick Act Of 1902 - Off Topic - Page 9 - DIY Chatroom Home Improvement Forum


Go Back   DIY Chatroom Home Improvement Forum > The Break Room > Off Topic

CLICK HERE AND JOIN OUR COMMUNITY TODAY...IT'S FREE!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-20-2013, 11:05 AM   #121
Jack of all - master none
 
hyunelan2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SW Suburbs of Chicago
Posts: 1,221
Rewards Points: 528
Default

The Dick Act of 1902


Here is my wall of text. I've been reading this thread, but most of it has been too stupid to even comment. This stood out to me though, and made me decide to post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by creeper View Post
Would it not have been better to smack him in the head with a heavy object.
So, are you indicating that lethal force should have been used? Hitting someone in the head with a hammer/iron/bat/marble-statue would surely cause severe head trauma, and possibly death.

Many anti-gun people come from the stance that you could protect your home from an intruder with a baseball bat [for example]. Let's look deeper at that scenario.

You are home with your kids sleeping upstairs, and someone busts in the door/window/etc. You first have to get to your bat/club. Maybe you keep one in every room of the house [who's paranoid?]. Ok, you are now armed. What are you going to do with it? Hit the guy? Bash is brains in? How is that different than shooting him? Both have a high likelihood of severely injuring or killing the intruder, if you make contact.

But, first, you need to get close enough to use it. Hopefully he doesn't see you coming. If he does, now you have to get close enough to use it, swing, and make devastating and debilitating contact before he closes the gap and attacks you [defends himself]. Maybe he's drugged up and running on adrenaline. One swing [all you get before hand-to-hand combat], hitting someone in the torso is not going to stop them. The head is a small target that's easy to miss in an altercation. You're depending on a lot of luck to hit someone in the head with a bat when they see it coming. Now he's on top of you, and has your personal defense weapon (bat, club, etc). Oh, and now he's pissed. If he wasn't "armed" before, you just gave him something to use to beat you with while your kids watch.

What if there were two of them? I'm not sure Alex Rodriguez could swing away and stop two men coming at him before one got to him - and he gets paid millions of dollars to swing a bat everyday. Now again, you are no longer able to use your bat, and the bad guys have it.

Now change the scenario. You have a gun. Again, you have to get to it, just like the bat or club. Do you need an AR-15/AK-47 with a 30 round magazine to stop him? No. Let's say it's a standard 9mm pistol with 10 rounds. You have 10 opportunities to stop the intruder before he gets close enough to prevent you from stopping him.

Call and wait for the police? Let's say you saw him come through the window, ran upstairs and locked yourself in your kids bedroom, and dialed 911. 8 minutes, best case scenario. If he was intent on doing harm, he will get through that bedroom door and do it in under 8 minutes. Here is a California police officer who writes a blog and says - don't wait for the police, they'll never be there on time.
http://officersmith.blogspot.com/201...lp-police.html


A couple more thoughts:
If someone is breaking into your house in the middle of the night, when they know someone is likely to be home, they do not care what may happen to you (if robbery) or more likely, are there under the intent to do harm to someone in the house.

So, if a handgun can efficiently defend the home - let's ban assault weapons. Why? To stop mass shootings? Look at most of the mass shootings. What was used? Handguns. Not AR-15s or other evil semi-automatic rifles. Yes, they have been used in some mass shootings, but simply eliminating them will not prevent mass shootings. If you could snap your fingers and all semi-automatic rifles would suddenly disappear from history, it would not have stopped Virginia Tech. It would not have stopped Northern Illinois University. It would not have stopped the Amish School Massacre in Pennsylvania. Banning the so-called "assault weapons" does nothing for actually making anything better - other than making those who know little about firearms feel like the "bad guns" are gone. Don't confuse this with automatic weapons (aka machine guns). Those are already illegal, and have been for a long, long time.

BTW, my background: Liberal/Democrat, gun owner, NRA-hater, not a police officer, but do work for municipal government, have carried a gun [AR-15, .357] for work in the private-sector in the past. I don't believe in any way that the government is out to get me, or wants to disarm the population so they can enact some total authoritarian control. They are simply trying to come up with any ideas they can to stop gun violence.

If you live in an area close enough to get metropolitan news stations - you already know how rampant gun violence is. Chicago is more dangerous than Afghanistan, by the numbers. Unfortunately, no type of weapons ban is going to make the street thugs come running to turn in their illegally obtained weapons. The vast majority of their crimes are using handguns - which nobody is proposing banning. Hanguns are easy to carry and conceal, which is what street criminals want/need - not military-grade firepower. IMO, the types of law changes that might make a difference is figuring out where those guns are coming from, and making changes to prevent that. Whether it be more background checks, prohibiting some transfers, some form of registry, better reporting of stolen guns, etc.

Advertisement

hyunelan2 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to hyunelan2 For This Useful Post:
47_47 (02-20-2013), gma2rjc (02-20-2013), jbfan (02-20-2013), sam floor (02-20-2013), tinner666 (02-21-2013)
Old 02-20-2013, 11:13 AM   #122
Plumber/Contractor
 
TheEplumber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 7,248
Rewards Points: 2,614
Default

The Dick Act of 1902


Two shots in the air as a warning- now he has an unloaded weapon. Might as well be a baseball bat At least Obama has a semi auto....
__________________
When posting in forums, letting us know your location will help others give better feedback/advice/solutions to your questions
TheEplumber is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to TheEplumber For This Useful Post:
jbfan (02-20-2013)
Old 02-20-2013, 12:07 PM   #123
Electrical Contractor
 
jbfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Newnan GA
Posts: 5,955
Rewards Points: 2,306
Default

The Dick Act of 1902


Quote:
Originally Posted by creeper View Post
time for some more music

Love the Cranberries as well as my guns!
__________________
Yes I am a Pirate, 200 years too late. "Jimmy Buffett"
jbfan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 04:15 PM   #124
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: As always..beside myself.
Posts: 4,226
Rewards Points: 2,000
Default

The Dick Act of 1902


Hyunelan2
While you do make some valid points about intruders into the home, there are so many deaths by gun that were largely preventable. It is not just about break and enters. There are kids being killed everyday outside of the home, caught in the crossfire or gunned down over the slightest provocation

We probably have more break and enters per capita here in Canada, yet we have less death by gun

I kept asking in the other thread where does it end? How does end. Something has to change. Gun ownership by the average householder is not the answer. It just escalates the problem.

For about the tenth time now in about 5 weeks I will say again it is about education. Poverty equals desperation equals crime.

Our two countries in culture and common law are very similar. Yet despite some misinformed attempts to prove me otherwise our death by gun rate is much much lower. I'm not preaching or bragging, just stating facts. So why the difference? Great Britian. Same thing.
Its in the attitude. The acceptance of guns and violence as a normal part of city living. Living in fear to the point of needing a gun in the house is indeed a sad situation
creeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 04:19 PM   #125
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: As always..beside myself.
Posts: 4,226
Rewards Points: 2,000
Default

The Dick Act of 1902


Quote:
Originally Posted by jbfan View Post
Love the Cranberries as well as my guns!
See what I mean.. he loves his guns.
You don't find that up here as much. Your kids will likely grow up with the same attitude.
My kids have never seen one.
At the age of 51, I can say I have only ever seen 1 revolver in my life. And it was in a cops holster

I'm not saying we are better people, just a different attitude toward guns and it seems to work for us
creeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 04:26 PM   #126
Jack of all - master none
 
hyunelan2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SW Suburbs of Chicago
Posts: 1,221
Rewards Points: 528
Default

The Dick Act of 1902


There are a lot of socioeconomic differences between the U.S. and Canada, which affect a lot of what you mention. As Canadians (and the Brits you mention), you have more taxation (through various methods) and receive more social programs (like healthcare and unemployment, for example) than in the U.S. This likely leads to better youth education and less inner-city type crime. Lower unemployment and better welfare programs remove some of that desperation that turns some to gangs. The prevalence of violent crime is not simply the presence of guns in society. Remove guns and you do not remove the underlying causes of the violence. The bigger problem is more than the fact that some can legally buy a gun in the U.S.
hyunelan2 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to hyunelan2 For This Useful Post:
creeper (02-20-2013)
Old 02-20-2013, 06:25 PM   #127
Floor Installer
 
sam floor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Buckner, Mo.
Posts: 167
Rewards Points: 154
Default

The Dick Act of 1902


Quote:
Originally Posted by creeper View Post
Hyunelan2
While you do make some valid points about intruders into the home, there are so many deaths by gun that were largely preventable. It is not just about break and enters. There are kids being killed everyday outside of the home, caught in the crossfire or gunned down over the slightest provocation

We probably have more break and enters per capita here in Canada, yet we have less death by gun

I kept asking in the other thread where does it end? How does end. Something has to change. Gun ownership by the average householder is not the answer. It just escalates the problem.

For about the tenth time now in about 5 weeks I will say again it is about education. Poverty equals desperation equals crime.

Our two countries in culture and common law are very similar. Yet despite some misinformed attempts to prove me otherwise our death by gun rate is much much lower. I'm not preaching or bragging, just stating facts. So why the difference? Great Britian. Same thing.
Its in the attitude. The acceptance of guns and violence as a normal part of city living. Living in fear to the point of needing a gun in the house is indeed a sad situation
I have friends who live in the UK. They tell me that street gangs with guns rule the streets. The honest citizens have no recourse because they cannot buy one to protect themselves. Most of them are afraid to venture out after dark.
sam floor is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sam floor For This Useful Post:
Bondo (02-21-2013), gma2rjc (02-20-2013)
Old 02-20-2013, 06:33 PM   #128
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 4,402
Rewards Points: 2,340
Default

The Dick Act of 1902


Quote:
Originally Posted by sam floor View Post
I have friends who live in the UK. They tell me that street gangs with guns rule the streets. The honest citizens have no recourse because they cannot buy one to protect themselves. Most of them are afraid to venture out after dark.
That surprises me. Because usually, when guns are outlawed, aren't criminals the first ones to stop using them?
__________________

gma2rjc is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to gma2rjc For This Useful Post:
Bondo (02-21-2013), TheEplumber (02-21-2013)
Old 02-20-2013, 07:42 PM   #129
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: As always..beside myself.
Posts: 4,226
Rewards Points: 2,000
Default

The Dick Act of 1902


Quote:
Originally Posted by hyunelan2 View Post
There are a lot of socioeconomic differences between the U.S. and Canada, which affect a lot of what you mention. As Canadians (and the Brits you mention), you have more taxation (through various methods) and receive more social programs (like healthcare and unemployment, for example) than in the U.S. This likely leads to better youth education and less inner-city type crime. Lower unemployment and better welfare programs remove some of that desperation that turns some to gangs. The prevalence of violent crime is not simply the presence of guns in society. Remove guns and you do not remove the underlying causes of the violence. The bigger problem is more than the fact that some can legally buy a gun in the U.S.
Finally !!

Thank-you its nice to finally be heard !
creeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 08:24 PM   #130
An old Tradesmen
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 26,414
Rewards Points: 4,480
Default

The Dick Act of 1902


Crime rates in the USA were actually higher, when we had our highest fed tax rates. We have always had guns, including long before anyone ever heard of social break down. Trying to say that US citizens want and will keep their guns due to a "social" break down, is like standing in left field without a glove.
beenthere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 11:37 PM   #131
Jack of all - master none
 
hyunelan2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SW Suburbs of Chicago
Posts: 1,221
Rewards Points: 528
Default

The Dick Act of 1902


Right. What I was saying is you can't blame guns for gun violence, not that people want guns because of social decay.
hyunelan2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 12:28 AM   #132
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 4,402
Rewards Points: 2,340
Default

The Dick Act of 1902


An open letter to the President of the United States from Evan Todd, a young man who survived the Columbine School massacre...
Mr. President,

As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives:

Universal Background Checks

First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens.

Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it.

Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time.

It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now — but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted.

Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons

The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.

Gun ownership is at an all time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all time low.

The people have spoken. Gun store shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and back ordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed.

10-Round Limit for Magazines

Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-Hui Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all.

Second, this is just another law that endangers law-abiding citizens. I’ve heard you ask, “why does someone need 30 bullets to kill a deer?”

Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on?

Lastly, when did the government get into the business of regulating “needs”? This is yet another example of government overreaching and straying from its intended purpose.

Selling to Criminals

Mr. President, these are your words: “And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.”

Why don’t we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program?

Furthermore, the vast majority of these mass murderers bought their weapons legally and jumped through all the hoops — because they were determined to murder. Adding more hoops and red tape will not stop these types of people. It doesn’t now — so what makes you think it will in the future?

Criminals who cannot buy guns legally just resort to the black market.

Criminals and murderers will always find a way.

Critical Examination

Mr. President, in theory, your initiatives and proposals sound warm and fuzzy — but in reality they are far from what we need. Your initiatives seem to punish law-abiding American citizens and enable the murderers, thugs, and other lowlifes who wish to do harm to others.

Let me be clear: These ideas are the worst possible initiatives if you seriously care about saving lives and also upholding your oath of office. There is no dictate, law, or regulation that will stop bad things from happening — and you know that. Yet you continue to push the rhetoric. Why?

You said, “If we can save just one person it is worth it.” Well here are a few ideas that will save more that one individual:

First, forget all of your current initiatives and 23 purposed executive orders. They will do nothing more than impede law-abiding citizens and breach the intent of the Constitution. Each initiative steals freedom, grants more power to an already-overreaching government, and empowers and enables criminals to run amok.

Second, press Congress to repeal the “Gun Free Zone Act.” Don’t allow America’s teachers and students to be endangered one-day more. These parents and teachers have the natural right to defend themselves and not be looked at as criminals.

There is no reason teachers must disarm themselves to perform their jobs. There is also no reason a parent or volunteer should be disarmed when they cross the school line.

This is your chance to correct history and restore liberty. This simple act of restoring freedom will deter would-be murderers and for those who try, they will be met with resistance.

Mr. President, do the right thing, restore freedom, and save lives. Show the American people that you stand with them and not with thugs and criminals.

Respectfully,

Severely Concerned Citizen, Evan M. Todd
__________________


Last edited by gma2rjc; 02-21-2013 at 12:31 AM.
gma2rjc is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to gma2rjc For This Useful Post:
12penny (02-21-2013), 47_47 (02-21-2013), beenthere (02-21-2013), Bondo (02-21-2013), tinner666 (02-21-2013)
Old 02-21-2013, 08:04 AM   #133
Pro Slate Roofer
 
tinner666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Richmond, Va.
Posts: 1,611
Rewards Points: 1,038
Default

The Dick Act of 1902


"I have friends who live in the UK. They tell me that street gangs with guns rule the streets. The honest citizens have no recourse because they cannot buy one to protect themselves. Most of them are afraid to venture out after dark."
A friend in Canada said the same thing. Burglaries etc are way up because the people are defenseless to resist. My firend's daughter was at the mall/store/ or school, (I can't remember which) in which some idiot went nuts nd shot several people. She escaped, but was within feet of the shooter. I think it was 3-5 years ago, but honestly can't remember.
There was a break-in near our farm last week by three intruders. Two will never do it again, and we'll see how the third one fares.
tinner666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 08:23 AM   #134
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: As always..beside myself.
Posts: 4,226
Rewards Points: 2,000
Default

The Dick Act of 1902


Quote:
Originally Posted by tinner666 View Post
"I have friends who live in the UK. They tell me that street gangs with guns rule the streets. The honest citizens have no recourse because they cannot buy one to protect themselves. Most of them are afraid to venture out after dark."
A friend in Canada said the same thing. Burglaries etc are way up because the people are defenseless to resist. My firend's daughter was at the mall/store/ or school, (I can't remember which) in which some idiot went nuts nd shot several people. She escaped, but was within feet of the shooter. I think it was 3-5 years ago, but honestly can't remember.
There was a break-in near our farm last week by three intruders. Two will never do it again, and we'll see how the third one fares.

I had a different response..something about my 83 year old mother not afraid to shuffle along in her walker at night but clearly some misinformation is preferable to believe. Never said we don't have crime but to say that most people are afraid to venture out at night is just outrageously false. Almost as funny as the standard joke of some southerners arriving here in July looking for ski hills

Last edited by creeper; 02-21-2013 at 09:01 AM.
creeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 08:33 AM   #135
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: As always..beside myself.
Posts: 4,226
Rewards Points: 2,000
Default

The Dick Act of 1902


//////

Advertisement


Last edited by creeper; 02-21-2013 at 08:42 AM.
creeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How do I "grade" paving sand? Pertyrita Landscaping & Lawn Care 6 03-28-2012 06:43 AM




Top of Page | View New Posts