Bush / Kerry / Nader

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Veteran101, May 19, 2004.

Loading...
  1. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Shows what I know.
     
  2. VB1

    VB1 New Member

    Re: this earlier post...

    "To better understand the difference between Bush, Kerry and Nader I would pose this question to each and study their responce.

    Question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife and charges.
    Your carrying a Glock 40 and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.

    WHAT DO YOU DO?

    Kerry's answer:

    Well thats not enough information to answer the question.

    Have I ever done anything to make this man angry?

    I can't remember, am I for gun control or against gun control?

    Maybe we can just run away and hide until he's gone.

    I just need more time to think this over!


    Naders answer:

    I'm for gun control.

    Does the glock have appropriate safety built into it?

    I'd call 9-1-1


    Bush's answer:

    BANG BANG BANG.

    Next Question."



    This was a great post, but you got one thing wrong...

    Kerry would shoot the man dead (as he should), then use an ordinary sheet of paper (which I'm sure he carries on his person at all times for just such a situation) to self-inflict a "paper cut". At this point he would get his (environmentally friendly, no doubt) cell-phone from his SUV --- no, wait, I mean his wife's SUV, as Kerry does not own one of those gas-guzzlers --- and use the phone to call the DOD; make up some story about how the paper cut was actually from the knife wielded by the attacker; and ask if his actions had earned him a 4th Purple Heart! What an American!
     
  3. Pit bull attack...

    Now I'd give a week's pay to see that! Sounds like Reno911!!

    LOL
     
  4. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Re: Bush / Kerry / Nader (a slight variation)

    Little Georgie, Ralphie, and Johnnie are all 8 years old and playing outside in the neighborhood. Bored, they toss around ideas. "Let's go the park," says Ralphie. "Nah, that's boring," Georgie replies.

    "I know," says Georgie. "Let's go over to my house and play with my dad's guns."

    Ralphie says, "No, my mom and dad told me never to play with guns. They only let me go to your house because your dad keeps them locked up."

    Georgie says, "I know where the key is. I play with them all the time. My dad let's me hold them. I shot a deer once. It was neat watching it die."

    Ralphie goes home in tears because little Georgie teased him for being a coward. Reluctantly, Johnnie goes with Georgie to play with guns. While showing Johnnie what an expert he is with guns, BANG, Georgie accidently shoots Johnnie in the head, and he dies on the living room floor.

    Georgie told the police that it wasn't so neat watching him die - not like with the deer. No one in their families was ever the same after that.

    Unfortunately, the above scenario happens A LOT more often than the hypothetical about the crazed murderer who appears out of nowhere, and you just happen to be carrying your Glock in your back pocket.
     
  5. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    Re: Re: Bush / Kerry / Nader (a slight variation)

    No, it doesn't.

    During the decades the American Rifleman has published “The Armed Citizen” column, thousands of incidents of law-abiding Americans using firearms to halt or prevent crime have appeared in the magazine. Editorial space allowing, the total could have been far greater of course, as award-winning survey research shows that each year in the U.S. gun owners use firearms for protection as frequently as 2.5 million times.

    http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

    I assume that you can point out a reference that states that more than 2.5 million children per year are killed by playing with guns?
     
  6. Re: Re: Re: Bush / Kerry / Nader (a slight variation)

    One would assume that, since I am a liberal, I don't own guns. However, that would be wrong! Since I'm originally from Wisconsin, I own LOTS of guns.....

    My wife, however, doesn't approve of any of them, so they are all tucked away (unloaded of course) in boxes in dark corners of our house where they cannot offend - but I still know they are there....;)

    For protection these days, I keep a 20" WWI-era sword bayonet under the bed. My wife doesn't seem to object to knives as much. Any statistics on whether swords also are a deterrent to crime these days??? Not sure what I would do with it if I had to use it, except possibly throw it at the intruder and hope for a critical hit....
     
  7. adireynolds

    adireynolds New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Bush / Kerry / Nader (a slight variation)

    I read that column every month, and am heartened by those brave folks who successfully defend themselves.

    My husband and I are flying back to the U.S. in a couple of weeks, and we can't wait to get out to the range! In fact, my husband's "duty in Florida" whilst I'm at my Capella residency is to clean our handguns and get them ready for when I get done -- they've been in storage for over a year. :)

    If you're curious, while in the U.S. I carry a Glock 19 9mm, although if I still lived there I would seriously have to hold myself back from getting the Walther P99 military model. Sweet!!
     
  8. Charles

    Charles New Member

  9. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush / Kerry / Nader (a slight variation)

    I knew there was something I liked about you, Carl. :)
     
  10. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush / Kerry / Nader (a slight variation)

    Very nice handgun! My off-duty weapon is a Glock 26 9mm, often called the "baby Glock". It's not much bigger than the S&W Chief's Special I used to carry, but it holds 11 rounds and is a lot more accurate.
     
  11. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Re: Re: Re: Bush / Kerry / Nader (a slight variation)

    I think the scholars on that website need to rethink their "award winning research", unless they're talking about an award for data snooping.

    From the Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice):

    "During the same period an estimated annual average of 62,000 violent crime victims (approximately 1 percent of all violent crime victims) used a firearm in an effort to defend themselves. In addition, an annual average of about 20,000
    victims of theft, household burglary or motor vehicle theft attempted to defend their property with guns.”

    I'm not sure where your buddies get 2.5 million. Maybe they count sleeping with a gun under your pillow as using their firearm for protection.

    Admittedly 82,000 is more than the number of children killed accidentally with guns, although I was talking specifically about the scenario of being accosted on the street, and pulling a gun out of your back pocket and killing the criminal. That's a bunch of hogwash. I have no doubt, however, that lots of people with guns in their homes go running outside cocked and loaded every time they hear a raccoon in the garbage can.

    With about 5 million violent crimes each year (same site), your numbers would imply that about half involved citizens protecting themselves. Not likely. Unless they are counting non-violent claims, such as defending themselves against the aforementioned raccoon, in which case I believe it.
    :p
     
  12. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    Re: Bush / Kerry / Nader

    Actually, I think there's a bit more to Bush's answer:

    "Even though I'm an expert marksman and had the best weapon in the world, my three shots missed. (Maybe I was distracted by the fact that the attacker was a member of a family that includes many friends and business associates of my family.)

    In any case, this incident makes it clear that we need to go after all who would perpetrate such attacks. And those are the "dangerous-looking men."

    I would immediately start shooting everyone I suspect of being "dangerous looking." Fortunately, I have a list of dangerous-looking people that I've already prepared.

    I know this might sound harsh, but these dangerous-looking people have been asking for it for a long time. You can't expect us to allow people to go around looking dangerous. Obviously, the only thing dangerous looking-people understand is violence -- violence upon them, their families, and their children.

    Remember, it's the dangerous-looking people who started this."
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 2, 2004
  13. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    Question: "Uhhm...Mr. Bush, what about the original attacker? We're a bit concerned that he is still roaming the streets..."

    Answer: "I don't have time to deal with that right now. Colin Powell is starting to become very dangerous-looking."
     
  14. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Yep, exactly right about those dangerous looking men. The only thing they understand is violence so we need to kill them, dammit. The more they don't understand, the more we need to kill them.

    And have you noticed how those dangerous looking Middle Easterners are doing strange things like cutting off heads and desecrating bodies? Right in front of us!

    They're just not killing people fairly the way we do, and that really pisses me off. The only answer is to kill more of them, because, again, that's the only thing they understand.

    We do it the humane way with tanks and bombs. Our way is impersonal, clean, and fair. Hey, what the heck, everyone in a 1 mile radius has an equal shot at dying. Damn fair if you ask me. If you die, well the wrong place at the wrong time, I guess. Nothing personal.

    The way they do it is so personal. Kill em I say. Kill all of them.
     
  15. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member

    ut oh - it is beginning to sound like that RealPhoneyPolice.net site now!

    I thought this was about learning...

    :rolleyes:
     
  16. adireynolds

    adireynolds New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush / Kerry / Nader (a slight variation)

    I've never fired the 26, but I like the looks of it. I've found that I'm far more accurate with my Glock than anything else I've tried, and it is so dependable (I always contrast it with the issued Barettas in the Army -- I really hated them). I've had it for years -- bought it when you could still get the 15 round mags.

    I had never thought about switching to anything else, I've been so happy with it, but that Walther . . . it's just so durned sexy! :) I haven't had the opportunity to fire one, though. Do you know anyone who has?
     
  17. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush / Kerry / Nader (a slight variation)

    The 2.5 million is a cumulative number, and they count when the presence of a firearm stops a crime.

    Tom, I've been a cop for a long time, and I've learned that more restrictive gun-control laws do nothing except punish law-abiding citizens. Politicians would do a lot more for public safety if they passed more mandatory sentencing laws and take away the "discretion" of the liberal judiciary who keep letting violent criminals off with a slap on the wrist.
     
  18. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush / Kerry / Nader (a slight variation)

    I agree...the Glock is the most dependable gun I've ever seen. I never saw a Beretta in the Army (I think they call it the M9), I had a 1911A1 .45 the whole time.


    I think a guy I work with has one, I'll have to ask him.
     
  19. adireynolds

    adireynolds New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush / Kerry / Nader (a slight variation)

    Right, the M9. I didn't use it much -- our standard issue was the M16, of course, but for some duties we carried it.



    Thanks, I'd love to hear what he has to say about it.
     
  20. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush / Kerry / Nader (a slight variation)

    They cite it as annual data ("each year"), and it's not anywhere close to correct: "...award-winning survey research shows that each year in the U.S. gun owners use firearms for protection as frequently(sic) as 2.5 million times."

    That said, I agree with you that gun control laws don't get at the real issue. Until they can figure out a way to keep criminals from buying guns on the street, we're going nowhere. But as a police officer, would you honestly recommend that law abiding citizens start carrying guns around in their back pocket in case they run into dangerous criminals on the street?. Law abiding or not, that doesn't make me feel any safer. Keep the guns in the hands of the police and those who know how to use them in emergencies, I say.
     

Share This Page