Good read....Pro-gun article ....Nugent

BrewSwag 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I admit, although he does have some very strong and valid points, he's got a very biased writing style. I'm not saying I disagree, just that when people say things like "Already spineless gun control advocates are squawking like chickens with their tiny-brained heads chopped off" tends to make people not take him seriously.
 
Though I happen to agree with Mr. Nugent, the fact of the matter is that neither side should be using these extremely rare and heinous (and thus, laden with way too much emotional baggage to be an unbiased basis upon which to craft policy) instances of mass murder to further their particular political position. I find it unconscionable that everyone from gun control advocates to second amendment advocates to anti-atheist idiots (see Dinesh D'Souza) seized upon our school's tragedy as a way to make "political hay", as Nugent says. And while I think Ted is more "right" than the gun controllers on this particular issue, it doesn't make him any better for using the tragedy as a "told you so" springboard. The fact is, bad stuff happens. And when bad stuff happens, people unfortunately use it to confirm their prior assertions.

For a better look at this issue, see this...

It used to be that a shocking act of gun violence would invariably elicit a chorus of demands for tighter gun control laws. How things have changed. Now an episode like that invariably elicits a chorus of demands for tighter gun control laws and a chorus of demands for looser gun control laws. What the reactions demonstrate is that no matter what happens, people are very good at finding confirmation for what they already think.
Click to expand...
 
The only thing that people need to know about the right to bear arms and carrying a concealed firearm is that it is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six!

Just ask the scumbag that grabbed my wife from behind a parked car with a broken wine bottle. We were on our way back to our car in a parking garage after dinner in the city when this guy grabbed my wife from behind and held the broken bottle to her neck.

I didn't have any time to think about it, I just pulled my gun and shot the guy in the abdomen and promptly urinated in my pants. I'll never forget that moment as long as I live! My wife and I sat on the floor holding each other and crying as the guy kept screaming "why did you shoot me?". I kept screaming back at him "because you were going to cut my wife's throat!". He then started begging me to help him, which I did. I took off my shirt and used it to apply pressure to the wound to try and stop the bleeding. Finally, after what seemed like an eternity, the cops arrived and had him taken to the hospital and arrested me, urine soaked pants and all!

I was jailed, bailed out and indicted for assault with a deadly weapon! A friend who is an attorney offered to defend me for free, but it never came to that. The district attorney decided to drop the charges. The guy who I shot recovered from his injuries, and because he had quite a lengthy criminal record, was sentenced to three years for his actions that night.

If I had it to do over again the only thing I would do differently would be to shoot him in the head so I wouldn't have to stand there and listen to him tell the cops and EMT's that I SHOT HIM FOR NO REASON!!!!
 
Evan! said:
Though I happen to agree with Mr. Nugent, the fact of the matter is that neither side should be using these extremely rare and heinous (and thus, laden with way too much emotional baggage to be an unbiased basis upon which to craft policy) instances of mass murder to further their particular political position. I find it unconscionable that everyone from gun control advocates to second amendment advocates to anti-atheist idiots (see Dinesh D'Souza) seized upon our school's tragedy as a way to make "political hay", as Nugent says. And while I think Ted is more "right" than the gun controllers on this particular issue, it doesn't make him any better for using the tragedy as a "told you so" springboard. The fact is, bad stuff happens. And when bad stuff happens, people unfortunately use it to confirm their prior assertions.

For a better look at this issue, see this...
Click to expand...

Right on...
 
johnsma22 said:
The only thing that people need to know about the right to bear arms and carrying a concealed firearm is that it is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six!

Just ask the scumbag that grabbed my wife from behind a parked car with a broken wine bottle. We were on our way back to our car in a parking garage after dinner in the city when this guy grabbed my wife from behind and held the broken bottle to her neck.

I didn't have any time to think about it, I just pulled my gun and shot the guy in the abdomen and promptly urinated in my pants. I'll never forget that moment as long as I live! My wife and I sat on the floor holding each other and crying as the guy kept screaming "why did you shoot me?". I kept screaming back at him "because you were going to cut my wife's throat!". He then started begging me to help him, which I did. I took off my shirt and used it to apply pressure to the wound to try and stop the bleeding. Finally, after what seemed like an eternity, the cops arrived and had him taken to the hospital and arrested me, urine soaked pants and all!

I was jailed, bailed out and indicted for assault with a deadly weapon! A friend who is an attorney offered to defend me for free, but it never came to that. The district attorney decided to drop the charges. The guy who I shot recovered from his injuries, and because he had quite a lengthy criminal record, was sentenced to three years for his actions that night.

If I had it to do over again the only thing I would do differently would be to shoot him in the head so I wouldn't have to stand there and listen to him tell the cops and EMT's that I SHOT HIM FOR NO REASON!!!!
Click to expand...


I hope me, nor anybody else has to be in that situation, or a similar situation. If I am, you better bet Im shooting to kill for that reason.Then there is only one side to the story, and you dont end up getting sued for his injuries.

Sorry you went through that experience, but good for you for packing and using it properly.
 
I was sued in civil court by this 'gentleman' and for awhile I thought I might actually lose the case. That is until, inexplicably, the judge threw it out the case! Fortunately, none of this cost me a penny because my attorney friend was willing to defend me for free. If that hadn't been the case it easily could have cost me in excess of $10K to defend myself for saving my wife from a slit throat! It would have been the best $10K that I ever spent if I had to.
 
I love the renewed anti-gun sentiment that occurs in the US every time some idiot does something senseless, stupid, and deadly with a firearm. Certainly it cannot be the fault of the idiot who made insane decisions. No, most certainly we should blame the inanimate object he held while committing his violent act.

The general public has become so "politically correct" as to view everyone as a victim, including the perpetrators of heinous crimes. There should be a law against that, but I'm sure that idea isn't "politically correct" enough to pass legislation. However, we ALREADY HAVE laws intended to keep guns out of the hands of unsupervised children, criminals, and the insane. Some argue those laws are too much. I don't mind them except that they set a precedent for more laws that may, one day, keep guns out of my sane and capable hands.

Cho Seung Hui bought his guns illegally, yet some Americans cry for more gun control laws. How would that have stopped this madman? The enforcement of existing laws failed us when he was allowed to buy guns in the first place. Let's examine the existing laws and properly enforce them before hastily creating more policies in the wake of a disaster.
 
Apparently I am the worlds worst Google operator.

I'm trying to find some stats on crimes. I want a total violent crime and a number involving guns. For my own curiosity I'm wondering what percent of crimes involve them.

How about this for gun control, you use a gun in a crime and the sentence is tripled..

This kid clearly wanted to kill as many people as possible. Has anyone concidered how many might have died had he not been able to get a gun? He could easily have made bombs or some other sort of device which could have killed many, many more people.
 
johnsma22 said:
I was sued in civil court by this 'gentleman' and for awhile I thought I might actually lose the case. That is until, inexplicably, the judge threw it out the case! Fortunately, none of this cost me a penny because my attorney friend was willing to defend me for free. If that hadn't been the case it easily could have cost me in excess of $10K to defend myself for saving my wife from a slit throat! It would have been the best $10K that I ever spent if I had to.
Click to expand...

Im glad things worked out for you. I cant imagine being in that situation. Sounds like you did great under pressure. It would not surprise me in the least if he would have won. In this country anymore criminals/illegals have more rights than good law abiding citizens.
 
Ryanh1801 said:
Im glad things worked out for you. I cant imagine being in that situation. Sounds like you did great under pressure. It would not surprise me in the least if he would have won. In this country anymore criminals/illegals have more rights than good law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I wish I could take credit for my reaction, but the truth is I was scared sh!tless and just reacted. In hind sight I could have just as easily shot my wife instead of him by mistake. I thank God every day that I didn't do that.
 
johnsma22 said:
Thanks. I wish I could take credit for my reaction, but the truth is I was scared sh!tless and just reacted. In hind sight I could have just as easily shot my wife instead of him by mistake. I thank God every day that I didn't do that.
Click to expand...
I admire the fact that you had the sense to shoot just once with a non-lethal shot. I could easily see how a second, lethal shot fired in anger might have found its way out of the barrel. Thank you for giving gun owners and concealed carry advocates a good name.
 
Yuri_Rage said:
I admire the fact that you had the sense to shoot just once with a non-lethal shot. I could easily see how a second, lethal shot fired in anger might have found its way out of the barrel. Thank you for giving gun owners and concealed carry advocates a good name.
Click to expand...

I'd assumed that the only reason that the shot was 'non-lethal' was luck. If he was intentionally trying to line up a 'non-lethal' shot I'm more inclined to think that was just stupid.

One employs a firearm as a lethal defence. If the bad guy's guardian angel chooses to push your aim off a little bit to save his ass, then it a good day for him. But the shooter should be playing for keeps or not playing at all.

His restraint on the 2nd shot is commendable but he probably could have pulled off a second, depending on his training, without much chance of serious charges being brought. A fifth of a second at point blank range is not a lot of time to make a decision. Firing till the lethal threat is neutralized is a defensable action.

Ryanh1801 said:
In this country anymore criminals/illegals have more rights than good law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...

Not actually proven out in the real world. Certainly the press makes a bigger deal out of the oddball situations that come up in our legal system but more often than not the system works as it should-- winnowing out the crap suits and penalizing the right people. Just because the weird stuff is high profile doesn't make it the norm--- I saw a dog ride a bicyle but that doesn't mean that they all do.
 
I agree the media makes a big deal out of oddball situations, But im a CJ major and see alot of stuff I consider B.S. as far as laws and protection for criminals.
 
kornkob said:
I'd assumed that the only reason that the shot was 'non-lethal' was luck. If he was intentionally trying to line up a 'non-lethal' shot I'm more inclined to think that was just stupid.
Click to expand...
While it may be true that the lethality of the shot was up to luck, let's let him speak for himself on this matter.

My point wasn't necessarily about his aim, so much as his restraint.

kornkob said:
One employs a firearm as a lethal defence. If the bad guy's guardian angel chooses to push your aim off a little bit to save his ass, then it a good day for him. But the shooter should be playing for keeps or not playing at all.
Click to expand...
I disagree a bit. One employs a firearm as a possibly lethal defense. Firearms can be aimed to achieve non-lethal results - ask any law enforcement officer about that. The thing to remember: you can attempt a non-lethal shot, but you have to be able to accept the consequences should the results be fatal.

Now, in a self-defense scenario, I do agree that intentionally aiming at extremities with the intent to wound might not be the most prudent thing to do. A couple of center of mass shots with the intent to stop the attacker are probably more advisable. The lethality of those shots is inconsequential if the defense is effective. "Playing for keeps" seems like a bit of an extreme statement to me.
 
Just for clarification, I did not shoot to wound. I did not have any intent whatsoever. I saw broken glass against my wife's throat and reacted, shooting at the only part of his body that I had a clear shot at, as he was standing behind and to the side of my wife. Then I pissed myself and my wife and I fell to the ground holding each other and crying.

The single shot was all that was necessary. He fell to the ground screaming and crying also and was no longer a threat. A second shot would have certainly landed me in prison, or at the very least, the poor house.

The thought did occur to me to put him out of his misery, but only for a split second. That would have gone against everything that I stand for. In fact, I showed him mercy and provided him aid until the authorities arrived. I'm glad I didn't kill him, but I would not have lost a seconds sleep if I had.
 
I find it funny how everyone here is complementing each other on your own ideas. People disagree about everything. If you look at the death rates in Canada and England (where guns are either totally illegal or hard to get) then you'd find that death by guns is very low. Obviously if someone wants to kill they will.

However, I am not here to debate whether guns are illegal or not. I do find it sad that both sides of the debate have to bring this up since this tradegy has occured. Obviously the OP is Pro Guns and is excited that guns are legal and posted the thread just to show his support. This is very weak, to wait for the oppurtunity of this massacre to fly your flag of support for guns. Same for anti-gun activist who are doing the same. This massacre isn't about whether guns are legal or not, people should think more about the victim's and their families. Quit throwing politics in any damn subject.

Please, for the love of humanity (literally), let's try to drop the whole gun debate thing, at least until the dust settles on the VA shooting. No one really gives a flying crap where you stand on gun control, and to be honest it doesn't help anybody arguing in the time of a tragedy.
 
Nexus555 said:
No one really gives a flying crap where you stand on gun control, and to be honest it doesn't help anybody arguing in the time of a tragedy.
Click to expand...
Actually, our US government does. That's why we have protected speech and the right to vote.

I agree that it's sad that important issues are sometimes only brought to light in the wake of tragedy. However, it can and will happen. It is only appropriate that pro-gun advocates respond to the anti-gun sentiment sparked by recent events. Hopefully we can find a middle ground that will satisfy the general public.

Might I remind everyone, though, that we (myself included) are treading on very thin ice here. This forum is not for political rants, and, moreover, some strong feelings are bound to come up because of the horrific events a few days ago.
 
Nexus555 said:
I find it funny how everyone here is complementing each other on your own ideas. People disagree about everything. If you look at the death rates in Canada and England (where guns are either totally illegal or hard to get) then you'd find that death by guns is very low.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, the firearms-per-capita rate in Canada is much higher than in the States. FYI.
 
Where I come from "Gun Control is hitting what you're aiming at..." :D

The real problem is NOT gun control, but PEOPLE CONTROL.

If you let the Government take away your guns then you have surrendered.

Where's gun control in DC? Almost every year they are up there in the top 5 of murder capitols in the world...guess what? Guns are illegal in DC. PERIOD.

Almost every country that was ever taken over was first stripped of their rights to own firearms. Think about that.
 
Yuri_Rage said:
I agree that it's sad that important issues are sometimes only brought to light in the wake of tragedy. However, it can and will happen.
Click to expand...

How about Jack Thompson whoring himself on Faux News Channel, blaming the tragedy on video games, before they even knew the identity of the shooter! Real class act, that idiot.
 
Evan! said:
How about Jack Thompson whoring himself on Faux News Channel, blaming the tragedy on video games, before they even knew the identity of the shooter! Real class act, that idiot.
Click to expand...
There will always be stupidity, both in the tragic actions that take place and the reactions of the masses.

Let's keep this civil, folks...this thread was quite positive for a while, and I think it's in severe danger of being closed and/or deleted now.
 
Yuri_Rage said:
There will always be stupidity, both in the tragic actions that take place and the reactions of the masses.

Let's keep this civil, folks...this thread was quite positive for a while, and I think it's in severe danger of being closed and/or deleted now.
Click to expand...

Really? Still seems pretty civil to me. Believe me, "idiot" is about as civil a description as can be said about Jack Thompson.
 
Evan! said:
Really? Still seems pretty civil to me. Believe me, "idiot" is about as civil a description as can be said about Jack Thompson.
Click to expand...
I understand, and I happen to agree in this case. However, I think we're starting to get a little personal and heated here...which is usually the precursor to closure/deletion.
 
Nexus555 said:
If you look at the death rates in Canada and England (where guns are either totally illegal or hard to get)
Click to expand...

In Canada you attend a three hour hunter safety course and then fill out a form. Not so hard to get.

In any case, I agree with you. This issue isn't about guns at all. It's a mental health thing. We banned the firearm Marc Lupine used to kill people at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal. That was nothing but a political response so that those in power have the appearance of doing something concrete to address what is quite clearly an isolated incident. A more rational respone, IMHO, would be to increase funding for mental health workers and pyschiatric counselling for troubled people. A man killed those people, not the gun.
 
All I am going to say on this is "Guns don't kill people, people kill people!" Its been happening since the beginning of time. IMHO most of the gun control only makes life harder on the law abbiding citizens like myself who like to hunt and shoot skeet. If someone wants a gun bad enough, they will get it, just like drugs or anything else.
 
beeraggie said:
...IMHO most of the gun control only makes life harder on the law abbiding citizens like myself who like to hunt and shoot skeet...
Click to expand...
Question: Just how do you prefer to cook them "skeet"? Any special recipes you have there? Not a lot of meat on 'em as far as I'm concerned. A bit tough too. :D
 
You know, them kids nowadays have a different meaning for 'skeet shooting' and it doesn't involve firearms.
 
Funny stuff...

"This method has been widely used for at least 2,000 years and was used by an estimated 38 million couples worldwide in 1991."

I wonder why it doesn't say how many kids came from those unions...

Reminds me of the joke...what do you call people who use the rhythm method? Parents...:eek:

PUUUUULLLLLLLL!!!!
 
Todd said:
I'm trying to find some stats on crimes. I want a total violent crime and a number involving guns. For my own curiosity I'm wondering what percent of crimes involve them.
Click to expand...

Todd, Try reading "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott Jr.. it is a good read.. While I can't verify the numbers he uses he does quote his sources. he is a statician (sp? .. whatever.. he is a number geek) and shows some stats from foregn countries.
Also FWIW.. the PD I used to work at was on the NH/Mass border.. NH with fairly lax restricions on guns (my town had about 65% of our eligible citizens having permits.. how many carried i can only guess) and mass that had/has very strict gun laws (no idea how many permits but not many i would think).. the diffrence in crime rate between our town and surrounding NH towns versus the 2 mass towns we bordered was very noticable.. with similar populations mass departments did almost 3 times the amount of calls we did and like 5 times the "Report Causing Calls" (as opposed to "i need directions"/public service calls) I know someone will call me out for numbers and I don't have them.. however it was figured from "Town Annual Reports" in either 03 or 04 i can't remember..
Now I live in Northern VT.. the city has almost twice the population of my NH town and we get about half to 3/4 the amount of RC Calls that I used to in NH.

but hey YMMV

SpamDog

PS Since someone will notice that RC Calls aren't always violent or gun related and only reflect the general crime rate.. in my 5 years in my NH Dept we never had a shooting of any type.. while our neighboring mass towns had atleast 4 or 5 a year..
 

Similar threads

F
i dont brew to style
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
Danny Wallace
Danny Wallace
CallMeKiupid
Kiupid's Mead Guide for Beginners (like me)
Replies
3
Views
1K
Barzahl
B
Murrayatuptown
Recognizing Good/bad aging in Stout/Porter?
Replies
13
Views
2K
Teufelhunde
T
seatazzz
Advice for first-time competitors
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
camonick
camonick
AwesomeHobby
Newbie, concerned too much bittering hops
Replies
39
Views
3K
AwesomeHobby
AwesomeHobby
Yakima 300

Latest posts

Back
Top