PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Rush on August 05, 2019, 11:12:44 AM
-
This is why you should NEVER be in a public place without your gun. Can you imagine cowering under a table hearing those shots and knowing he might come your way, with absolutely no defense? I will never understand people who don't carry.
-
I don't carry because the city Police Chief doesn't believe that citizens have any right to carry a gun.
:(
-
I see lots of comments on other websites where anti (legal) gun people say that a person with a handgun can not stop a person with an "assault weapon". Well, a semi auto handgun, or a revolver can be fired very quickly and effectively and has stopped people with seemingly "superior" fire power very often.
People ask "what should we do top stop these nuts?" If your state does not allow concealed carry, or makes it very difficult, lobby them to allow the law abiding to carry. If you can get a ccw permit, or can carry without one, do so and get the necessary TRAINING to do so safely and effectively. Then practice.
Sixteen States now have Constitutional Carry, which means if you are legally able to own a firearm you can carry concealed without a permit.
-
I don't carry because the city Police Chief doesn't believe that citizens have any right to carry a gun.
:(
Unlike. :(
-
I see lots of comments on other websites where anti (legal) gun people say that a person with a handgun can not stop a person with an "assault weapon".
An insane argument. Oh well his gun is bigger than mine I guess I will just give up, throw my gun away and cower in fear. Better yet don't even bother having a gun in the first place. Yeah that's the ticket, I'll just be passive blob.
Sheesh. From cover like under that table, he might not even see you and you might be able to put him down. In a situation like that you have a great chance with a handgun. Great big store, all kinds of cover and aisles. Come around behind him, get off shots before he even knows you're there. What the hell is wrong with people?
-
In the vast majority of firearm fatalities the victim is known to the assailant. The odds on coming under fire from the sort of horrors experienced over the weekend (I was washing and waxing my airplane, so I saw none of it until Sunday evening, thankfully) are so small to be considered by most mathematicians to be zero. Carriage of a firearm specifically for this contingency is ludicrous.
Take heed. The more of these massacres we're required to withstand, the closer we move toward real firearm control, whatever that might look like. The day you honestly have to worry about a massacre you'll likely be without your firearm, as they will have been outlawed long before. Frightened people have never been credited with particularly good judgment. I think the forearm community should seriously think about policing who gets a gun, because if they don't someone will. And the forearm community won't like it.
And before you start going on about the Constitution I will remind you that Constitutional amendments can and have been repealed.
I would also remind you that most people firing weapons under duress do a lot of missing. That includes highly trained folks like soldiers and cops.
-
I would also remind you that most people firing weapons under duress do a lot of missing. That includes highly trained folks like soldiers and cops.
But then again, so does the deranged killer that sprays hundreds of bullets into a crowd. Of course though, as deranged as those mass murderers are, they don't usually pick places where there may be armed defenders present.
-
But then again, so does the deranged killer that sprays hundreds of bullets into a crowd. Of course though, as deranged as those mass murderers are, they don't usually pick places where there may be armed defenders present.
Most of the locations they pick intentionally are GUN FREE ZONES where they know people are defenseless. Like schools, the CA Garlic Festival, concerts, etc. All the good guys are disarmed and the nut job enters with a gun illegally, and shoots up the place.
-
Liberals ALWAYS resort to emotional fear based arguments to suppress personal responsibility and individualism.
Gun ban assholes are no exception.
-
I find it sad that we have to have a gun lobby in a country where being able to have guns is codified in our Constitution.
-
Liberals ALWAYS resort to emotional fear based arguments to suppress personal responsibility and individualism.
Gun ban assholes are no exception.
And 22,000 existing Gun Laws which are clearly infringements on our Natural Right supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution. If anyone needs any evidence that government Effs you, that's it right there.
My State makes me buy a license to carry a firearm. Where does it say they can do that in the Constitution?
-
And before you start going on about the Constitution I will remind you that Constitutional amendments can and have been repealed.
Good luck with that. The gun grabbers don't have what it old take to repeal the second, that's why they are trying to do it through the courts.
I would also remind you that most people firing weapons under duress do a lot of missing. That includes highly trained folks like soldiers and cops.
Think so? I'd dispute that.
-
Think so? I'd dispute that.
Yep. Anyway it’s not hard to be more trained than soldiers and cops. Standard garden variety ones anyway. Not talking about special forces.
-
What's the over / under on some Liberal lawyer representing the El Paso shooter pro bono?
-
Yep. Anyway it’s not hard to be more trained than soldiers and cops. Standard garden variety ones anyway. Not talking about special forces.
Most cops don't touch their guns until it comes time to qualify. Some belong to my gun club, and I typically end up coaching them at least enough so they can get rounds on the PAPER.
Soldiers often don't have touch a rifle or pistol after basic, depending on their jobs.
Steingar, have you ever shot a firearm? Ever?
-
Most cops don't touch their guns until it comes time to qualify. Some belong to my gun club, and I typically end up coaching them at least enough so they can get rounds on the PAPER.
Soldiers often don't have touch a rifle or pistol after basic, depending on their jobs.
Steingar, have you ever shot a firearm? Ever?
He saw a picture of one once, but it scared him.
-
In the vast majority of firearm fatalities the victim is known to the assailant. The odds on coming under fire from the sort of horrors experienced over the weekend (I was washing and waxing my airplane, so I saw none of it until Sunday evening, thankfully) are so small to be considered by most mathematicians to be zero. Carriage of a firearm specifically for this contingency is ludicrous.
well, I posit that in the vast majority of homicides, the victim is known to the assailant. So your inclusion of "firearm" is superfluous.
And we know that a firearm is used far more often for self-defense than for killing. I strongly doubt that anyone carrys a firearm specifically for the attempted mass-murder "contingency" only.
I would also remind you that most people firing weapons under duress do a lot of missing. That includes highly trained folks like soldiers and cops.
These are the same cops that the anti-gun nuts depend on for protection?
-
Ever notice that those who cry the loudest for gun control are protected by armed security?
-
Steingar is right about cops missing a lot in high stress situations. I speak from experience and training.
-
Steingar is right about cops missing a lot in high stress situations. I speak from experience and training.
Yes, but his argument is that cops and soldiers are always more proficient with firearms than civilians, which in my experience and training is NOT true at all.
-
Yes, but his argument is that cops and soldiers are always more proficient with firearms than civilians, which in my experience and training is NOT true at all.
Define proficient. No stress target shooting, or stress induced real world training scenarios? In my experience, they are 2 completely different things.
-
In the vast majority of firearm fatalities the victim is known to the assailant. The odds on coming under fire from the sort of horrors experienced over the weekend (I was washing and waxing my airplane, so I saw none of it until Sunday evening, thankfully) are so small to be considered by most mathematicians to be zero. Carriage of a firearm specifically for this contingency is ludicrous.
Take heed. The more of these massacres we're required to withstand, the closer we move toward real firearm control, whatever that might look like. The day you honestly have to worry about a massacre you'll likely be without your firearm, as they will have been outlawed long before. Frightened people have never been credited with particularly good judgment. I think the forearm community should seriously think about policing who gets a gun, because if they don't someone will. And the forearm community won't like it.
And before you start going on about the Constitution I will remind you that Constitutional amendments can and have been repealed.
I would also remind you that most people firing weapons under duress do a lot of missing. That includes highly trained folks like soldiers and cops.
\Steingar, have you ever shot a firearm? Ever?
*Forearm
-
And 22,000 existing Gun Laws which are clearly infringements on our Natural Right supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution. If anyone needs any evidence that government Effs you, that's it right there.
My State makes me buy a license to carry a firearm. Where does it say they can do that in the Constitution?
This is one instance where Scalia was dead wrong in writing the Heller decision.
-
Define proficient. No stress target shooting, or stress induced real world training scenarios? In my experience, they are 2 completely different things.
Totally agree, but I have seen cops not be able to even target shoot at the range, but everyone assumes they are "proficient". Not all, but they are out there. My point is that just because you are a cop, or military doesn't mean you can shoot well even when nobody is shooting back, nor shoot well when somebody IS shooting back.
-
Totally agree, but I have seen cops not be able to even target shoot at the range, but everyone assumes they are "proficient". Not all, but they are out there. My point is that just because you are a cop, or military doesn't mean you can shoot well even when nobody is shooting back, nor shoot well when somebody IS shooting back.
Yeah. We had one in my academy class that dropped the glock the first time she shot it, and shot the ceiling prone with an AR at 25 yards. She passed....which brings up a whole other argument about standards.
-
Define proficient. No stress target shooting, or stress induced real world training scenarios? In my experience, they are 2 completely different things.
Speaking for myself we had stressful real world training scenarios. Of course nothing pretend can duplicate a real situation but we had an instructor that did a good job getting us upset and stressed. He’d design the class so we would end up on a nervous adrenaline high, fatigued and wired and exhausted, before he actually drilled us on the scenarios. Used psychological technique too. It was fun.
-
I would offer the idea that most gun carriers are not proficient. But many active shooters will come back to reality when they get shot at even close by, so they may not need to be.
I have been proficient before and I know what it takes. I know I’m not there right now.
-
I would offer the idea that most gun carriers are not proficient. But many active shooters will come back to reality when they get shot at even close by, so they may not need to be.
I have been proficient before and I know what it takes. I know I’m not there right now.
Agree. But having a gun and not being proficient is still better than not having a gun if you are under that table. The worst of all would be being proficient and well trained but unarmed because you obeyed some no gun law and left your gun in the car. Just like Suzanna Hupp.
-
Agree. But having a gun and not being proficient is still better than not having a gun if you are under that table. The worst of all would be being proficient and well trained but unarmed because you obeyed some no gun law and left your gun in the car. Just like Suzanna Hupp.
I agree that the worst of all would be being capable of defending against a shooter and unable to because of gun laws. But I'm not sure that having a gun would necessarily be better than not having a gun if one was not proficient - certainly if one was untrained at all.
FWIW this issue has come up at my institution. As most here know, it's a military college and the sight of students carrying rifles in formation is commonplace. However I do not believe it is allowed for faculty to carry personal weapons on campus, despite VT's having constitutional carry. Last fall a questionnaire was circulated asking faculty whether they thought faculty should be allowed to carry weapons to protect their classrooms against an armed assailant. It also asked whether we as individuals would be willing to carry a defensive weapon after intensive training. The results of the survey were never communicated to faculty, though I suspect that given this is VT and most faculty are strongly left-leaning, the nays had it on both questions.
Also FWIW: I answered yes to both questions. Although I'm not a gun owner and haven't fired one in literally decades, I have no issue with trained faculty carrying defensive weapons. I also believe in putting my money where my mouth is.
-
Until a soldier is under fire in combat, you don't know how he will react. But isn't that why the soldier trains trains trains and trains some more? How many times have you heard one say that their training took over?
I suspect it's a little like flying in actual IMC. Train train train train to fly just on the instruments and let the muscle memory takeover.
-
The results of the survey were never communicated to faculty, though I suspect that given this is VT and most faculty are strongly left-leaning, the nays had it on both questions.
There is also the strong possibility that the reason the results were never communicated to the faculty is because the results weren't what the administration was hoping for.
-
There is also the strong possibility that the reason the results were never communicated the faculty is because the results weren't what the administration was hoping for.
Exactly. Bias by OMISSION.
-
I agree that the worst of all would be being capable of defending against a shooter and unable to because of gun laws. But I'm not sure that having a gun would necessarily be better than not having a gun if one was not proficient - certainly if one was untrained at all.
FWIW this issue has come up at my institution. As most here know, it's a military college and the sight of students carrying rifles in formation is commonplace. However I do not believe it is allowed for faculty to carry personal weapons on campus, despite VT's having constitutional carry. Last fall a questionnaire was circulated asking faculty whether they thought faculty should be allowed to carry weapons to protect their classrooms against an armed assailant. It also asked whether we as individuals would be willing to carry a defensive weapon after intensive training. The results of the survey were never communicated to faculty, though I suspect that given this is VT and most faculty are strongly left-leaning, the nays had it on both questions.
Also FWIW: I answered yes to both questions. Although I'm not a gun owner and haven't fired one in literally decades, I have no issue with trained faculty carrying defensive weapons. I also believe in putting my money where my mouth is.
Wow. It would be interesting to know who circulated that questionnaire and why the results were not made known to you.
-
Wow. It would be interesting to know who circulated that questionnaire and why the results were not made known to you.
Yeah, I just spent an hour looking for the original email linking to the survey, after failing to find it with a keyword search in Outlook. No joy. I'm pretty sure that it was in the wake of the Parkland shootings, so it could have been any time last year after Feb 14. Outlook doesn't purge anything, so it's very possible that I missed it - there were literally thousands of emails in my inbox last year.
As to who circulated it, my vague recollection is that it was not the administration but a group of students under the direction of a faculty member. It is possible that there were not enough responses, or that it was only for use in a class project and not, as I thought at the time, for the purpose of making a recommendation to the administration of perhaps the faculty senate. It could also be bias by omission, but I have a hard time imagining that the outcome was greatly different from what could be expected.
To Little Joe and Anthony: what do you think the originators of the survey expected the results to be? Even though it's a military college, the faculty and even the administration are generally fairly left-leaning. I would be astonished if the results showed widespread support for faculty carrying weapons.
-
To Little Joe and Anthony: what do you think the originators of the survey expected the results to be? Even though it's a military college, the faculty and even the administration are generally fairly left-leaning. I would be astonished if the results showed widespread support for faculty carrying weapons.
From my experience, I take it with a grain of salt when I hear about a group that is "generally left-leaning". I have just seen too many instances where a crowd of people will appear to be all far left, but in reality, while the leftists are spouting their personal views and disparaging others (racist, homophobic, etc . . . ), the conservatives are just sort of being quiet and listening. If they speak up they know they will be mobbed and ridiculed to no good end.
Case in point: I have always been an environmentalist, even though I am one of those hated conservatives. In the '70s, I participated in one of the first seat turtle observation projects. We spent innumerable nights on the beach searching for sea turtles coming ashore to lay their eggs. We observed and counted the egg laying process. Then we measured and tagged the turtle and recorded pertinent data. Governor Jimmy Carter gave us a personal award and hand shake for our work. So years later, when I moved to Florida I heard there was an active sea turtle project in the area looking for members. I paid them a visit. I was astounded at how outspoken they were against "Republicans". They used the word as a pejorative. I mentioned that I was an environmentally aware Republican. Boy, did that shut them up. For a while, although most of them never spoke, or even looked at me again. After the meeting a couple of the members came up to me and thanked me and said they agreed with me, but it just wasn't worth speaking up because they would not listen to anything they didn't want to hear. They advised me that if I wanted to participate in the turtle project, it would be far better to not comment on my conservative leanings. I never went back.
I had very similar experiences at a couple of different Rotary meetings as well as some volunteer activities I participated in, like school garden projects and school science fairs. In all of those activities, those of us with conservative leanings would sit back and listen to the libs rant about how bad we were.
Some could call us cowards for not calling them out, but to what purpose? They were not going to change their minds. So we listened and processed the information. And then voted for Trump.
-
The purpose would have been to avoid what we are seeing today - Leftists believing that everyone around them agrees with them and so any Right Wing person is a deviant that must be silenced. Worse, that any conservative would start to believe the same thing.
When you hear stuff like, that ask them if they're aware that you're a conservative? Agree that nobody likes evil people, but do they think you're one?
-
The purpose would have been to avoid what we are seeing today - Leftists believing that everyone around them agrees with them and so any Right Wing person is a deviant that must be silenced. Worse, that any conservative would start to believe the same thing.
When you hear stuff like, that ask them if they're aware that you're a conservative? Agree that nobody likes evil people, but do they think you're one?
You are right of course. And I did bring it up, but I received no support from others, until after the event. Without that support one person just makes it sound like you are the radical fringe.
I'm not defending myself, or saying the way I handled it was correct. My point is that it happens over and over again and could help explain why Azure believes the way she does.
-
Interesting story, Joe, thanks for sharing that. I have to admit that no one to my knowledge has published any survey on faculty political leanings here, this is just my sense from what I hear from colleagues and overhear in places where faculty congregate. Even though I'm not a true conservative, I definitely feel very much right of center here, and avoid expressing political views for fear of being ostracized or worse. Given that I'm lesbian, and have come out to enough people here that it is likely common knowledge, I wouldn't be surprised if my colleagues assumed that I was a progressive, as most LGBT people tend to be. Of course it's possible that I'm wrongly assuming the same about some of my colleagues.
-
Yesterday I broke silence with my book group that is mostly libs.
The tacit understanding is that politics will not be discussed, but in reality, only CONSERVATIVE politics cannot be discussed. The four conservatives sit there silently while this happens.
In an email yesterday I suggested that NYT or other bestseller lists didn’t constitute a criterion for book selection; that volume of sales didn’t necessarily correlate to quality of read.
In the second paragraph of the email I said:
“I do have several books in mind for my October selection, but alas, while wonderfully mind expanding, they don’t meet our group requirement for tacitly ignoring one particular part of a complete world view. Hence I’m offering my October slot to other members.”
Responses to the first paragraph were immediate and relatively benign. So far, my second paragraph has been ignored completely.
-
Yesterday I broke silence with my book group that is mostly libs.
The tacit understanding is that politics will not be discussed, but in reality, only CONSERVATIVE politics cannot be discussed. The four conservatives sit there silently while this happens.
In an email yesterday I suggested that NYT or other bestseller lists didn’t constitute a criterion for book selection; that volume of sales didn’t necessarily correlate to quality of read.
In the second paragraph of the email I said:
“I do have several books in mind for my October selection, but alas, while wonderfully mind expanding, they don’t meet our group requirement for tacitly ignoring one particular part of a complete world view. Hence I’m offering my October slot to other members.”
Responses to the first paragraph were immediate and relatively benign. So far, my second paragraph has been ignored completely.
I would extricate myself post haste, and tell them why. It sounds like you suffer a lot of heart burn to be in that group. Maybe the four conservatives should start their own group.