"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote

Nobody here gloated over the use of violence. Any sane person (including
soldiers) avoid it, if any other possibility exists.

LLoyd

IIRC, soldier training stresses that wounding an opponent takes several men
to take care of that wounded person. Killing them is the less tactical
move.

Steve

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...


"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 20:02:59 -0700, Bill Noble wrote:

it is really sad to see how much we have given up, how much we
willingly
throw away - there was a time when we thought gun violence was bad and
should be avoided, when murder was undesirable, and when we wanted less
crime - in this thread all there is is gloating over death, not a
single
person says "it's sad that a gun was needed", not a single person says
anything at all except to praise violence. you guys are sick.

So, you find it distasteful that a man can defend his life and property
by proper use of a firearm at the proper time? Would you rather have
seen the perpetrator cut the shopkeeper's throat?

Thanks,
Rich

no, that is not what I said - I haven't watched the movie and I don't
intend to. What I said is that we used to find this violence offensive
and bad, and every respondent except me has done nothing but gloat over
the employment of violence. That is what is sad, not that someone in
defense of their life was successful. I stand by my statement, you guys
are sick

Think what you want, but if you are ever in a Luby's, or McDonald's, or
other situation where there is a camoed up shooter, no, you cannot borrow
my gun. If that makes me sick, then I'm sick. Is being willing to defend
one's own life, and those of innocent bystanders an indication of being
sick, and if so, how so?

Steve


No problem, I won't be there. I leave places where people carry weapons,
and I take my business elsewhere.

On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 13:50:50 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:


no, that is not what I said - I haven't watched the movie and I don't intend
to. What I said is that we used to find this violence offensive and bad,
and every respondent except me has done nothing but gloat over the
employment of violence.

The violence was initiated by an assailant with a knife. You decried
as gun violence a legal response with handgun to attack with a deadly
weapon (knife), but not the originating violent criminal act that
precipitated the event. Would you like to explain that, please?

Responders here aren't gloating about violence, they're applauding
successful legal defense against criminal violent deadly attack.

Perhaps you genuinely would rather be a victim of violence than
present self-defense that is forceful enough to succeed? If so God
bless you ... but it's absurd to expect others to be so submissive.

On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 14:54:32 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:



Read my response later in the thread, My point is, and Bill's is similar,
that there seems to be no awareness or consideration for security, other
than having a gun handy. Without such awareness and forethought, you might
as well advertise "I AM A VICTIM". Everything I have learned, especially
since joining IDPA is geared to NOT being a victim. This shooting was just
waiting to happen and if the proprietor doesn't change things the same thing
will happen again and again.

Interesting viewpoint.

Being situationally aware (per your later post) is definitely a first
principle of self defense. But how would you secure a retail store
selling commodities, where free access to displayed goods by customers
is essential to business?

If you assert that operating an open retail store is a shooting
waiting to happen, I'm very glad I don't live in your neighborhood.
I definitely do understand that such neighborhoods exist, and I'm
situationally aware enough to avoid them.

On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 21:24:09 -0700, Bill Noble wrote:
"Steve B" wrote in message
"Bill Noble" wrote in message
"Rich Grise" wrote in message
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 20:02:59 -0700, Bill Noble wrote:

it is really sad to see how much we have given up, how much we
willingly
throw away - there was a time when we thought gun violence was bad and
should be avoided, when murder was undesirable, and when we wanted less
crime - in this thread all there is is gloating over death, not a
single
person says "it's sad that a gun was needed", not a single person says
anything at all except to praise violence. you guys are sick.

So, you find it distasteful that a man can defend his life and property
by proper use of a firearm at the proper time? Would you rather have
seen the perpetrator cut the shopkeeper's throat?

no, that is not what I said - I haven't watched the movie and I don't
intend to. What I said is that we used to find this violence offensive
and bad, and every respondent except me has done nothing but gloat over
the employment of violence. That is what is sad, not that someone in
defense of their life was successful. I stand by my statement, you guys
are sick

Think what you want, but if you are ever in a Luby's, or McDonald's, or
other situation where there is a camoed up shooter, no, you cannot borrow
my gun. If that makes me sick, then I'm sick. Is being willing to defend
one's own life, and those of innocent bystanders an indication of being
sick, and if so, how so?

No problem, I won't be there. I leave places where people carry weapons,
and I take my business elsewhere.

Howcome the gunophobes keep threatening to leave, but they never seem to
get around to it, they just keep whining how dangerous the country is.

If you're so terrified of self-defense, then you should move to someplace
like England, or North Korea, or China, where the State will keep you
safely disarmed.

Have Fun!
Rich

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 14:54:32 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:



Read my response later in the thread, My point is, and Bill's is similar,
that there seems to be no awareness or consideration for security, other
than having a gun handy. Without such awareness and forethought, you
might
as well advertise "I AM A VICTIM". Everything I have learned, especially
since joining IDPA is geared to NOT being a victim. This shooting was
just
waiting to happen and if the proprietor doesn't change things the same
thing
will happen again and again.

Interesting viewpoint.

Being situationally aware (per your later post) is definitely a first
principle of self defense. But how would you secure a retail store
selling commodities, where free access to displayed goods by customers
is essential to business?

If you assert that operating an open retail store is a shooting
waiting to happen, I'm very glad I don't live in your neighborhood.
I definitely do understand that such neighborhoods exist, and I'm
situationally aware enough to avoid them.


Some of the stores have a room with benches with a counter behind BP glass.
The customer tells the clerk his order. As soon as it's paid for, a
revolving door type opening delivers bags of goods. Other stores have a
divided floor space divided by a BP glass counter. Any high-cost items are
behind the counter ($5) and bread, milk and such are on the customer side.
These stores get a premium for their goods. I'll drive miles for a can of
soda rather than visit the local stores or get gas.

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...


"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...


"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 20:02:59 -0700, Bill Noble wrote:

it is really sad to see how much we have given up, how much we
willingly
throw away - there was a time when we thought gun violence was bad and
should be avoided, when murder was undesirable, and when we wanted
less
crime - in this thread all there is is gloating over death, not a
single
person says "it's sad that a gun was needed", not a single person says
anything at all except to praise violence. you guys are sick.

So, you find it distasteful that a man can defend his life and property
by proper use of a firearm at the proper time? Would you rather have
seen the perpetrator cut the shopkeeper's throat?

Thanks,
Rich

no, that is not what I said - I haven't watched the movie and I don't
intend to. What I said is that we used to find this violence offensive
and bad, and every respondent except me has done nothing but gloat over
the employment of violence. That is what is sad, not that someone in
defense of their life was successful. I stand by my statement, you guys
are sick

Think what you want, but if you are ever in a Luby's, or McDonald's, or
other situation where there is a camoed up shooter, no, you cannot borrow
my gun. If that makes me sick, then I'm sick. Is being willing to
defend one's own life, and those of innocent bystanders an indication of
being sick, and if so, how so?

Steve


No problem, I won't be there. I leave places where people carry weapons,
and I take my business elsewhere.

Yup, you walk out when a person enters the diner and starts shooting. Tell
him I have to leave as I take my business where guns are not allowed. Guns
were not allowed in the high school in Columbine. How did that work out?
And the cops waited 45 minutes outside the school before entering. How did
that help?

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote

Not rights...RESPONSIBILITIES! Be situationally aware, or be a victim.
Most situations can easily be avoided. Police are available after the
fact to draw chalk outlines and do paperwork.

So, is being situationally aware and knowing in advance that you are going
to die better than having a gun around just on the off chance?
Situational awareness can keep a lot of people out of a jam. But once
you're IN a jam, or the attack has begun, or the route of retreat is
blocked, does situational awareness kick in with endorphins that help you
die with less pain?

Steve


I carry all the time, I run 100 pcs./wk through that one plus 4 hours once a
week IDPA with a different one better suited to the events with another 100
pcs./wk. Even at 200 pcs./wk, I'm a novice. In a "jam", at least half of
your training, practice and accuracy goes out the window. I have learned to
avoid situations by watching for the warning signs and always have an escape
route, cover and maneuvering space to the point that it's instinctual. I
even unconsciously evaluate every threat in the local country grocery store,
restaurants and in my church. If I become a victim, it will still be my
fault at least in part.

Buerste wrote:

Some of the stores have a room with benches with a counter behind BP glass.
The customer tells the clerk his order. As soon as it's paid for, a
revolving door type opening delivers bags of goods. Other stores have a
divided floor space divided by a BP glass counter. Any high-cost items are
behind the counter ($5) and bread, milk and such are on the customer side.


How else would you do business, where your customers are mostly
liberals?


These stores get a premium for their goods. I'll drive miles for a can of
soda rather than visit the local stores or get gas.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 13:50:50 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:


no, that is not what I said - I haven't watched the movie and I don't
intend
to. What I said is that we used to find this violence offensive and bad,
and every respondent except me has done nothing but gloat over the
employment of violence.

The violence was initiated by an assailant with a knife. You decried
as gun violence a legal response with handgun to attack with a deadly
weapon (knife), but not the originating violent criminal act that
precipitated the event. Would you like to explain that, please?

Responders here aren't gloating about violence, they're applauding
successful legal defense against criminal violent deadly attack.

Perhaps you genuinely would rather be a victim of violence than
present self-defense that is forceful enough to succeed? If so God
bless you ... but it's absurd to expect others to be so submissive.


yes, you guys are gloating about violence - read it in your words. I never
said that I was unarmed, nor that I would not defend myself or my family. I
did say you guys are sick for glorifying violence - if it wasn't to glorify
it, why did you feel an urge to post it here (no, not you don F, the OP) and
why did everyone else feel the need to chime in and discuss the weapons and
tactics, and "oh, was that a soda can exploding or a second shot", instead
of saying 'what a sad state we are coming to where this kind of act is
filmed and posted, where people do these things to each other". I stand
by it - you guys are sick

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote

Nobody here gloated over the use of violence. Any sane person (including
soldiers) avoid it, if any other possibility exists.

LLoyd

IIRC, soldier training stresses that wounding an opponent takes several
men to take care of that wounded person. Killing them is the less
tactical move.

Steve


Yabut Leroy ain't gonna' help Jamal who's gutshot and squealing on the
floor. Shooting to wound is a myth, aim center-mass and expend half your
capacity...depending on the number of immediate, apparent threats. Your
body had better do it by itself because your mind won't function!

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Buerste wrote:

Some of the stores have a room with benches with a counter behind BP
glass.
The customer tells the clerk his order. As soon as it's paid for, a
revolving door type opening delivers bags of goods. Other stores have a
divided floor space divided by a BP glass counter. Any high-cost items
are
behind the counter ($5) and bread, milk and such are on the customer
side.


How else would you do business, where your customers are mostly
liberals?


These stores get a premium for their goods. I'll drive miles for a can
of
soda rather than visit the local stores or get gas.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

They breed liberals here and keep them here in squalor...so they will vote
for libtards signing the cheese-checks.

"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 21:24:09 -0700, Bill Noble wrote:
"Steve B" wrote in message
"Bill Noble" wrote in message
"Rich Grise" wrote in message
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 20:02:59 -0700, Bill Noble wrote:

it is really sad to see how much we have given up, how much we
willingly
throw away - there was a time when we thought gun violence was bad
and
should be avoided, when murder was undesirable, and when we wanted
less
crime - in this thread all there is is gloating over death, not a
single
person says "it's sad that a gun was needed", not a single person
says
anything at all except to praise violence. you guys are sick.

So, you find it distasteful that a man can defend his life and
property
by proper use of a firearm at the proper time? Would you rather have
seen the perpetrator cut the shopkeeper's throat?

no, that is not what I said - I haven't watched the movie and I don't
intend to. What I said is that we used to find this violence offensive
and bad, and every respondent except me has done nothing but gloat over
the employment of violence. That is what is sad, not that someone in
defense of their life was successful. I stand by my statement, you
guys
are sick

Think what you want, but if you are ever in a Luby's, or McDonald's, or
other situation where there is a camoed up shooter, no, you cannot
borrow
my gun. If that makes me sick, then I'm sick. Is being willing to
defend
one's own life, and those of innocent bystanders an indication of being
sick, and if so, how so?

No problem, I won't be there. I leave places where people carry weapons,
and I take my business elsewhere.

Howcome the gunophobes keep threatening to leave, but they never seem to
get around to it, they just keep whining how dangerous the country is.

If you're so terrified of self-defense, then you should move to someplace
like England, or North Korea, or China, where the State will keep you
safely disarmed.

Have Fun!
Rich

I am not afraid of guns, I am afraid of amoral people with guns, and since
one can never tell one's morals from the outside, I have found it best to
avoid places where weaponry is common lest one be caught in the cross fire.
I am sure I will never encounter you, and that is fine by me - certainly if
you frequent the places you say you do, you will be easy to avoid. If more
of us were to walk out of businesses when a person enters carrying a
gratuitous weapon, the businesses would be more prone to eject such folks
and maybe we could start being civilized.

Having to fear for your life all the time is a sign of the jungle, not of
civilization. No, I do the jungle an injustice - it is a sign that stupid
humans are around. The world I wish to live in does not impose this fear
upon its inhabitants. Of course what I wish is not always reality, but
fortunately I have the option to make it more real, and I use that option
every day.

So, take your guns, your knives, your pitiful weaponry and by all means go
among the other angry, frightened and armed people and defend yourself. I
choose to go where people are not angry, are not frightened, and do not live
in fear. And that is why we will never meet.

On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 22:59:10 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:



"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 13:50:50 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:


no, that is not what I said - I haven't watched the movie and I don't
intend
to. What I said is that we used to find this violence offensive and bad,
and every respondent except me has done nothing but gloat over the
employment of violence.

The violence was initiated by an assailant with a knife. You decried
as gun violence a legal response with handgun to attack with a deadly
weapon (knife), but not the originating violent criminal act that
precipitated the event. Would you like to explain that, please?

Responders here aren't gloating about violence, they're applauding
successful legal defense against criminal violent deadly attack.

Perhaps you genuinely would rather be a victim of violence than
present self-defense that is forceful enough to succeed? If so God
bless you ... but it's absurd to expect others to be so submissive.


yes, you guys are gloating about violence - read it in your words. I never
said that I was unarmed, nor that I would not defend myself or my family. I
did say you guys are sick for glorifying violence - if it wasn't to glorify
it, why did you feel an urge to post it here (no, not you don F, the OP) and
why did everyone else feel the need to chime in and discuss the weapons and
tactics, and "oh, was that a soda can exploding or a second shot", instead
of saying 'what a sad state we are coming to where this kind of act is
filmed and posted, where people do these things to each other". I stand
by it - you guys are sick

Pick yer pony, take yer ride, vote according to your conceience.

Buerste wrote:

They breed liberals here and keep them here in squalor...so they will vote
for libtards signing the cheese-checks.


Cut off their cheese and the problem is solved!


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

Califbill wrote:

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...


"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...


"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 20:02:59 -0700, Bill Noble wrote:

it is really sad to see how much we have given up, how much we
willingly
throw away - there was a time when we thought gun violence was bad and
should be avoided, when murder was undesirable, and when we wanted
less
crime - in this thread all there is is gloating over death, not a
single
person says "it's sad that a gun was needed", not a single person says
anything at all except to praise violence. you guys are sick.

So, you find it distasteful that a man can defend his life and property
by proper use of a firearm at the proper time? Would you rather have
seen the perpetrator cut the shopkeeper's throat?

Thanks,
Rich

no, that is not what I said - I haven't watched the movie and I don't
intend to. What I said is that we used to find this violence offensive
and bad, and every respondent except me has done nothing but gloat over
the employment of violence. That is what is sad, not that someone in
defense of their life was successful. I stand by my statement, you guys
are sick

Think what you want, but if you are ever in a Luby's, or McDonald's, or
other situation where there is a camoed up shooter, no, you cannot borrow
my gun. If that makes me sick, then I'm sick. Is being willing to
defend one's own life, and those of innocent bystanders an indication of
being sick, and if so, how so?

Steve


No problem, I won't be there. I leave places where people carry weapons,
and I take my business elsewhere.

Yup, you walk out when a person enters the diner and starts shooting. Tell
him I have to leave as I take my business where guns are not allowed. Guns
were not allowed in the high school in Columbine. How did that work out?
And the cops waited 45 minutes outside the school before entering. How did
that help?


Bill is a moron.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 22:59:10 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:

yes, you guys are gloating about violence - read it in your words. I never
said that I was unarmed, nor that I would not defend myself or my family. I
did say you guys are sick for glorifying violence - if it wasn't to glorify
it, why did you feel an urge to post it here (no, not you don F, the OP) and
why did everyone else feel the need to chime in and discuss the weapons and
tactics, and "oh, was that a soda can exploding or a second shot", instead
of saying 'what a sad state we are coming to where this kind of act is
filmed and posted, where people do these things to each other". I stand
by it - you guys are sick

I am the Original Poster. I posted it here because I am aware that gun
owning pro Second Amendment people inhabit this group. As you may or
may not be aware, many of the country's most important Constitutional
rights are under severe attack right now. Spurring a discussion in
regards to what is at stake in losing those rights was my motivation
for posting the video's link, not glorifying any of the violence
involved.

A very thin line exists between civilization and the chaotic law of
the jungle. We can see a microcosm of that thin line right in this
video. Will rational civilized man become the subjects of domination
by psychopaths, or will the self-preservation of rationality win out?

Someone famous once said: "You may have no interest it war,....but war
has an interest in you". I believe that person was Foreign Secretary
Molotov, one of Stalin's underlings.

War against the domination of psychopathology came to this person
quite unexpectedly. But at least he was prepared for that possibility.
If rational human beings ever become unprepared for the possibility
that psychopaths will gain domination over them, then all hope of
civilization is lost.

And, at this particular juncture in human history, the psychopaths are
attempting once again to gain that domination.
Dave

On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 14:40:54 -0700, "anorton"
wrote:


Here is some of the backstory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6gcFPjdwiI

This was in Turkey. The guy with the knife was the new owner of another
store down the block. The shooter was the owner of this store and knew him
but says he has NO IDEA what the other guy's problem was. Obviously
something went on between the two that the shooter is not talking about.
This is a tragedy where the shooter probably is not completely innocent. All
the knifing victims survived.


Thanks for that.
Dave

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...


"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 20:02:59 -0700, Bill Noble wrote:

it is really sad to see how much we have given up, how much we willingly
throw away - there was a time when we thought gun violence was bad and
should be avoided, when murder was undesirable, and when we wanted less
crime - in this thread all there is is gloating over death, not a single
person says "it's sad that a gun was needed", not a single person says
anything at all except to praise violence. you guys are sick.

So, you find it distasteful that a man can defend his life and property
by proper use of a firearm at the proper time? Would you rather have
seen the perpetrator cut the shopkeeper's throat?

Thanks,
Rich

no, that is not what I said - I haven't watched the movie and I don't
intend to. What I said is that we used to find this violence offensive
and bad, and every respondent except me has done nothing but gloat over
the employment of violence. That is what is sad, not that someone in
defense of their life was successful. I stand by my statement, you guys
are sick

Bill,
In all fairness, you really should view the video. If it's not faked (and I
don't think it is), you may have a change of mind. Those that were
attacked were clearly minding their own business. This dude walked in with
killing in mind. He walked up behind a total stranger and slashed his
throat. He then attacked the clerk viciously with a (large) knife. If
there was ever a case where shooting a person was justified, this certainly
would qualify.

Harold

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...


"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...


"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 20:02:59 -0700, Bill Noble wrote:

it is really sad to see how much we have given up, how much we
willingly
throw away - there was a time when we thought gun violence was bad and
should be avoided, when murder was undesirable, and when we wanted
less
crime - in this thread all there is is gloating over death, not a
single
person says "it's sad that a gun was needed", not a single person says
anything at all except to praise violence. you guys are sick.

So, you find it distasteful that a man can defend his life and property
by proper use of a firearm at the proper time? Would you rather have
seen the perpetrator cut the shopkeeper's throat?

Thanks,
Rich

no, that is not what I said - I haven't watched the movie and I don't
intend to. What I said is that we used to find this violence offensive
and bad, and every respondent except me has done nothing but gloat over
the employment of violence. That is what is sad, not that someone in
defense of their life was successful. I stand by my statement, you guys
are sick

Think what you want, but if you are ever in a Luby's, or McDonald's, or
other situation where there is a camoed up shooter, no, you cannot borrow
my gun. If that makes me sick, then I'm sick. Is being willing to
defend one's own life, and those of innocent bystanders an indication of
being sick, and if so, how so?

Steve


No problem, I won't be there. I leave places where people carry weapons,
and I take my business elsewhere.

Sorry, Bill, but you can't know that. You'd probably be surprised to
discover how many places you've been where folks carry.

Harold

On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 23:05:58 -0700, Bill Noble wrote:
"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
Have Fun!
Rich

I am not afraid of guns, I am afraid of amoral people with guns, and since
one can never tell one's morals from the outside, I have found it best to
avoid places where weaponry is common lest one be caught in the cross fire.
I am sure I will never encounter you, and that is fine by me - certainly if
you frequent the places you say you do,

Please, be so kind as to enlighten me as to which places you believe that
I've said that I frequent.

Thanks,
Rich

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Buerste wrote:

They breed liberals here and keep them here in squalor...so they will
vote
for libtards signing the cheese-checks.


Cut off their cheese and the problem is solved!


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

How about a monthly drug test for cheesers?

"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 23:05:58 -0700, Bill Noble wrote:
"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
Have Fun!
Rich

I am not afraid of guns, I am afraid of amoral people with guns, and
since
one can never tell one's morals from the outside, I have found it best to
avoid places where weaponry is common lest one be caught in the cross
fire.
I am sure I will never encounter you, and that is fine by me - certainly
if
you frequent the places you say you do,

Please, be so kind as to enlighten me as to which places you believe that
I've said that I frequent.

Thanks,
Rich


Victoria's Secret...I see you hanging out there all the time!

"Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote in message
. ..

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...


"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...


"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 20:02:59 -0700, Bill Noble wrote:

it is really sad to see how much we have given up, how much we
willingly
throw away - there was a time when we thought gun violence was bad
and
should be avoided, when murder was undesirable, and when we wanted
less
crime - in this thread all there is is gloating over death, not a
single
person says "it's sad that a gun was needed", not a single person
says
anything at all except to praise violence. you guys are sick.

So, you find it distasteful that a man can defend his life and
property
by proper use of a firearm at the proper time? Would you rather have
seen the perpetrator cut the shopkeeper's throat?

Thanks,
Rich

no, that is not what I said - I haven't watched the movie and I don't
intend to. What I said is that we used to find this violence offensive
and bad, and every respondent except me has done nothing but gloat over
the employment of violence. That is what is sad, not that someone in
defense of their life was successful. I stand by my statement, you
guys are sick

Think what you want, but if you are ever in a Luby's, or McDonald's, or
other situation where there is a camoed up shooter, no, you cannot
borrow my gun. If that makes me sick, then I'm sick. Is being willing
to defend one's own life, and those of innocent bystanders an indication
of being sick, and if so, how so?

Steve


No problem, I won't be there. I leave places where people carry weapons,
and I take my business elsewhere.

Sorry, Bill, but you can't know that. You'd probably be surprised to
discover how many places you've been where folks carry.

Harold

My club has quarterly CCW classes. Way more than half the 25 or so students
in each class are ladies and almost all are 40. And, this is rural
America!

Buerste wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Buerste wrote:

They breed liberals here and keep them here in squalor...so they will
vote
for libtards signing the cheese-checks.

Cut off their cheese and the problem is solved!

How about a monthly drug test for cheesers?


Better test them for fungus, too. ;-)


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

Buerste wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 23:05:58 -0700, Bill Noble wrote:

I am not afraid of guns, I am afraid of amoral people with guns, and
since
one can never tell one's morals from the outside, I have found it best to
avoid places where weaponry is common lest one be caught in the cross
fire.
I am sure I will never encounter you, and that is fine by me - certainly
if
you frequent the places you say you do,

Please, be so kind as to enlighten me as to which places you believe that
I've said that I frequent.

Victoria's Secret...I see you hanging out there all the time!


What about their restraining order to keep him away?


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote

Not rights...RESPONSIBILITIES! Be situationally aware, or be a victim.
Most situations can easily be avoided. Police are available after the
fact to draw chalk outlines and do paperwork.

So, is being situationally aware and knowing in advance that you are
going to die better than having a gun around just on the off chance?
Situational awareness can keep a lot of people out of a jam. But once
you're IN a jam, or the attack has begun, or the route of retreat is
blocked, does situational awareness kick in with endorphins that help you
die with less pain?

Steve


I carry all the time, I run 100 pcs./wk through that one plus 4 hours once
a week IDPA with a different one better suited to the events with another
100 pcs./wk. Even at 200 pcs./wk, I'm a novice. In a "jam", at least
half of your training, practice and accuracy goes out the window. I have
learned to avoid situations by watching for the warning signs and always
have an escape route, cover and maneuvering space to the point that it's
instinctual. I even unconsciously evaluate every threat in the local
country grocery store, restaurants and in my church. If I become a
victim, it will still be my fault at least in part.

My reaction to this is that if you live in such a constant state of fear
that you are always looking for escape routes and cover, then you have
already become a victim.

On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 21:24:09 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:


No problem, I won't be there. I leave places where people carry weapons,
and I take my business elsewhere.

I doubt it.

Do you only frequent airports and other establishments with metal
detectors? If not, how do you know if someone near you is carrying a
concealed weapon?

Do you avoid banks with armed guards? Citizens with carry permits
pass the same background checks that openly-carrying bank guards do.

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 04:17:16 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 23:05:58 -0700, Bill Noble wrote:
"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
Have Fun!
Rich

I am not afraid of guns, I am afraid of amoral people with guns, and since
one can never tell one's morals from the outside, I have found it best to
avoid places where weaponry is common lest one be caught in the cross fire.
I am sure I will never encounter you, and that is fine by me - certainly if
you frequent the places you say you do,

Please, be so kind as to enlighten me as to which places you believe that
I've said that I frequent.

Poor Bill's in big trouble. He can never walk or drive down any
street again because cops, and people who carry concealed weapons, and
criminals with hidden weapons walk down nearly every street in
America, ESPECIALLY in and around helL.A. (IIRC, Bill lives in that
vicinity)

--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London

On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 08:14:42 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
om...

Buerste wrote:

They breed liberals here and keep them here in squalor...so they will
vote
for libtards signing the cheese-checks.


Cut off their cheese and the problem is solved!


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

How about a monthly drug test for cheesers?

A ****ing Men. Cheesers, gov't employees, and politicians, from the
city councils on up.

--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London

"Bill Noble" wrote

No problem, I won't be there. I leave places where people carry weapons,
and I take my business elsewhere.

It would amaze you at any given moment when you are in a business with a lot
of customers, just how many people are carrying concealed firearms. That is
why they call them concealed.

Any business you enter, except banks and a few others that are excluded by
law, actually give legally give consent for CCF permittees to carry in their
establishment, provided they do not post a no sign at the entry prohibiting
the carrying of legal concealed firearms.

I can see from your last statement that you know absolutely nothing about
concealed carry regulations or practices, and therefore do not wish to
continue this conversation with such an uneducated uninformed fool.

Steve

Heart surgery pending?
Read up and prepare.
Learn how to care for a friend.
http://cabgbypasssurgery.com

"Bill Noble" wrote

If more
of us were to walk out of businesses when a person enters carrying a
gratuitous weapon, the businesses would be more prone to eject such folks
and maybe we could start being civilized.

Public carry is not allowed in a lot of states. In states where it is
allowed, the training officer will tell you that you CAN do it, but that it
is not a good idea, as a couple of officers will show up very soon, and the
owner may ask you to leave and ban you for life.

Where do you live where this is a practice?

Is it in this solar system?

Steve

Heart surgery pending?
Read up and prepare.
Learn how to care for a friend.
http://cabgbypasssurgery.com

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote

Not rights...RESPONSIBILITIES! Be situationally aware, or be a victim.
Most situations can easily be avoided. Police are available after the
fact to draw chalk outlines and do paperwork.

So, is being situationally aware and knowing in advance that you are
going to die better than having a gun around just on the off chance?
Situational awareness can keep a lot of people out of a jam. But once
you're IN a jam, or the attack has begun, or the route of retreat is
blocked, does situational awareness kick in with endorphins that help you
die with less pain?

Steve


I carry all the time, I run 100 pcs./wk through that one plus 4 hours once
a week IDPA with a different one better suited to the events with another
100 pcs./wk. Even at 200 pcs./wk, I'm a novice. In a "jam", at least
half of your training, practice and accuracy goes out the window. I have
learned to avoid situations by watching for the warning signs and always
have an escape route, cover and maneuvering space to the point that it's
instinctual. I even unconsciously evaluate every threat in the local
country grocery store, restaurants and in my church. If I become a
victim, it will still be my fault at least in part.

And good on you. It has just been stated one too many times for my taste
that situational awareness is the answer to every situation.

Steve

Heart surgery pending?
Read up and prepare.
Learn how to care for a friend.
http://cabgbypasssurgery.com

"anorton" wrote in message
m...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote

Not rights...RESPONSIBILITIES! Be situationally aware, or be a
victim. Most situations can easily be avoided. Police are available
after the fact to draw chalk outlines and do paperwork.

So, is being situationally aware and knowing in advance that you are
going to die better than having a gun around just on the off chance?
Situational awareness can keep a lot of people out of a jam. But once
you're IN a jam, or the attack has begun, or the route of retreat is
blocked, does situational awareness kick in with endorphins that help
you die with less pain?

Steve


I carry all the time, I run 100 pcs./wk through that one plus 4 hours
once a week IDPA with a different one better suited to the events with
another 100 pcs./wk. Even at 200 pcs./wk, I'm a novice. In a "jam", at
least half of your training, practice and accuracy goes out the window.
I have learned to avoid situations by watching for the warning signs and
always have an escape route, cover and maneuvering space to the point
that it's instinctual. I even unconsciously evaluate every threat in the
local country grocery store, restaurants and in my church. If I become a
victim, it will still be my fault at least in part.

My reaction to this is that if you live in such a constant state of fear
that you are always looking for escape routes and cover, then you have
already become a victim.

Some of us live in such neighborhoods, or do business in such areas. There
is not a lot we can do to change that, only do things to avoid becoming
prey.

Steve

Heart surgery pending?
Read up and prepare.
Learn how to care for a friend.
http://cabgbypasssurgery.com

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 11:38:59 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Buerste wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 23:05:58 -0700, Bill Noble wrote:

I am not afraid of guns, I am afraid of amoral people with guns, and
since
one can never tell one's morals from the outside, I have found it best to
avoid places where weaponry is common lest one be caught in the cross
fire.
I am sure I will never encounter you, and that is fine by me - certainly
if
you frequent the places you say you do,

Please, be so kind as to enlighten me as to which places you believe that
I've said that I frequent.

Victoria's Secret...I see you hanging out there all the time!

What about their restraining order to keep him away?

Now I remember what killfiles are for.

"Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote in message
. ..

snip

no, that is not what I said - I haven't watched the movie and I don't
intend to. What I said is that we used to find this violence offensive
and bad, and every respondent except me has done nothing but gloat over
the employment of violence. That is what is sad, not that someone in
defense of their life was successful. I stand by my statement, you guys
are sick

Bill,
In all fairness, you really should view the video. If it's not faked (and
I don't think it is), you may have a change of mind. Those that were
attacked were clearly minding their own business. This dude walked in with
killing in mind. He walked up behind a total stranger and slashed his
throat. He then attacked the clerk viciously with a (large) knife.
If there was ever a case where shooting a person was justified, this
certainly would qualify.

Harold

I am not claiming, did not claim, and will not claim that someone is not
justified in acting in self defense, nor that you should not be armed in a
risky situation. Further, being a store owner in certain areas is
inherently risky, so I am not questioning that the owner should have been
armed.

What I am stating is that the tone of the discussion was filled with praise
for the use of weaponry, and not one person, even as an aside (except me)
noted that it was sad that the situation arose at all - what I see, and I
see it particularly among the most vocal, I'll call them "gunnies", is that
any use of a weapon is a good use, and that it is much fun to watch bad guys
get their comeuppance. That is sick. We should want, strive, and act to
eliminate situations where the use of weapons is required, rather than
glorify them and wish for more opportunities to prove who is a better shot
or who is tougher. The age of Grindle, of the great heroes, of the round
table, and of the wild west has passed, what we have now is thuggery. We
should strive to eliminate the thuggery, not videotape thugs getting shot
and then have a party over it.

"Ignoramus30461" wrote in message
...
Your hatred of our constitutional rights, and your judgmental nature,
passing judgment of people without knowing facts, is clearly showing.

i



oh, really?

On 2010-10-07, Bill Noble wrote:


"Ignoramus30461" wrote in message
...
Your hatred of our constitutional rights, and your judgmental nature,
passing judgment of people without knowing facts, is clearly showing.

oh, really?


Yep!

You are passing judgment on people commenting on a video that you,
yourself, did not even bother to watch.

I am thouroughly disgusted.

i

"Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote:

Bill,
In all fairness, you really should view the video. If it's not faked (and I
don't think it is), you may have a change of mind. Those that were
attacked were clearly minding their own business.

Bill, who I think on other things, is a nice and decent guy, is like a number of people
that have an opinion and nothing on the face of the earth can budge it.

In the hearts of anyone that believes in the RKBA is the hope that they will never have to
use their arms along with the even more fervent hope that if they ever need them for a
real world crises, they have their arms readily at hand and don't screw up.

Now if some potential rapist tries to rape a lady with a 38 and meets his maker, I'm not
going to loose my appetite for the night and I'm not going to yell out in joy but I'm
going to think, good for you lady, you took responsibility for your life and well being
and it worked out for you.

I get the impression that Bill thinks we are seething to get a chance to shoot someone.

I have car insurance, I don't want to have an accident in order to get a ROI. Same for
the House Insurance. Guns are life insurance. Like the other examples, I hope to never
be in a situation when it proves out that being prepared was a smart thing but if being
prepared works out for me, well, I'm going to feel right about it.


Wes

"anorton" wrote:

My reaction to this is that if you live in such a constant state of fear
that you are always looking for escape routes and cover, then you have
already become a victim.

Back when I could afford to take flying lessons, I was always looking for a place to land,
that is drilled into your head in training. Tip, if you are over a nice place, then
circle it. The first time my instructor cut the throttles, I didn't think of that
solution.

I doubt you will ever find a pilot that thinks looking for a place to let down while
flying along the intended route has made him or her a victim of fearing their aircraft
will fail on them.

Your argument is absurd.


Wes