EISPIRATEN

Posted: **Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:57 pm**

Alan, are you trying to have an evidence-based discussion? Shame on you!

Posted: **Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:17 pm**

Guns are obsolete anyways. I use a phaser. I can set it from stun... to KILL.

Posted: **Sun Feb 14, 2010 11:03 am**

Am I the only one who has been chased out of a canyon by a crazy, shovel wielding prospector in my time in the SGs? They are not only good for protection, but if something happens to where you get stuck in the mountains, you can use it to get food, signal for help, or kill yourself. Plenty of things you can do with a gun other than defending yourself.

Such a silly debate. Like others said, the people you have to worry about already carry guns...

Posted: **Sun Feb 14, 2010 11:05 am**

And here's the example someone asked for... found it right here on this same page!

https://eispiraten.com/viewtopic.php?t=2483

Posted: **Sun Feb 14, 2010 11:41 am**

TacoDelRio wrote: It is a simple fact, unhindered by retarded social studies, that someone is safer if they're armed than if they're unarmed in nearly any situation. By this, I obviously don't mean someone gets/buys a handgun and goes about their daily business. Training is needed.

Agreed. My thing is, people should be able to carry if they know what the hell they are doing. Training required to know how to operate gun and how to shoot. You know, so that missed shots don't go flying into other people.

Posted: **Sun Feb 14, 2010 3:20 pm**

Zé wrote:
TacoDelRio wrote: It is a simple fact, unhindered by retarded social studies, that someone is safer if they're armed than if they're unarmed in nearly any situation. By this, I obviously don't mean someone gets/buys a handgun and goes about their daily business. Training is needed.
Agreed. My thing is, people should be able to carry if they know what the hell they are doing. Training required to know how to operate gun and how to shoot. You know, so that missed shots don't go flying into other people.

Exactly.

Posted: **Sun Feb 14, 2010 4:09 pm**

next time I'm bringing my GF with me on those mine hunts

Rachel Shotgun from Zé Apelido on Vimeo.

Posted: **Sun Feb 14, 2010 4:32 pm**

Have her take up a modified isosceles stance. It will take the majority of the harsh recoil out of it and allow her to shoot more rounds comfortably, and more accurately.

Basically, you stand facing your target, feet shoulder width apart. You should be able to walk forward naturally in this stance.

You should go shooting with us. 8) We may go soon, maybe next weekend.

Posted: **Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:02 pm**

This is how I feel about the issue. Even if you vehemently disagree with his position, you should at least hear an opposing point of view.

Posted: **Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:44 am**

A-fuckin'-men.

I love Ted.

Posted: **Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:37 am**

Open carry deters armed robbery in Kennesaw

Two customers displaying holstered pistols deterred an armed robbery in a Kennesaw Wafflehouse recently.

There is some debate raging in Georgia about whether people should conceal their holstered handguns while in public. Some believe that wearing handguns openly will result in a loss of the element of surprise during a criminal attack, such as an armed robbery, while others believe that wearing handguns openly deters criminal attack. For Matt Brannan and J.P. Mitchell, who carry openly as a routine, the issue is no longer academic.

Matt Brannan and J.P. Mitchell were dining in the Wafflehouse on Barrett Parkway at I-575 in Kennesaw at 4:45 in the morning recently when a scout for an armed robbery crew entered the restaurant to case it. At the time, Matt and J.P. thought he looked a little suspicious, as he was wandering around the small restaurant like he was looking for someone. Unknown to Matt and J.P., two cars full of armed robbers were parked behind the restaurant waiting for the scout's report.

The scout saw that two of the customers were wearing holstered 1911 Springfield Mil-Spec .45 pistols, and he immediately turned and left the store.

Meanwhile, conscientious Cobb County Police Officer D. Lowe had noticed suspicious cars sitting behind the restaurant in the dark and decided to investigate. He caught men with masks and rifles who had been preparing to rob the Wafflehouse. The criminals informed the police that they had changed their mind upon discovering armed customers and were waiting for Matt and J.P. to leave. Ironically, the police car was pulling in to the parking lot just as Matt and J.P. were driving away. In other words, had Matt and J.P. not been armed, the robbery probably would have occurred before the police intervened.

Captain Jerry Quan, the Commander for Precinct One, where the Wafflehouse is located, confirmed Matt Brannan's story as one in which the open display of a pistol deterred a well armed robbery crew.

Matt Brannan is making an Open Records Act request, and there will be an update to this story when more information is available. The case number is 09-133500. There will be updates and follow up articles as more information becomes available.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."

Posted: **Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:23 pm**

"Only a coward would want fewer good guys with guns on the streets in today's world. Only a fool would support -much less design- such a policy of helplessness." -Ted Nugent

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:57 am**

If Ted Nugent said it, must be so.

I have only two comments on this subject:
1. I'd rather have people carrying openly than concealed.
2. Good reason to get a couple miles up the trail with due haste.

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2010 9:20 am**

jimqpublic wrote: 1. I'd rather have people carrying openly than concealed.

That's not what the lawmakers agreed on. In national forests you are free to open carry but not in the national parks.

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:17 am**

I stopped replying to this thread on Summitpost.

"So, since you like guns, why do you hate babies and flowers and happiness and smiley faces?"

Ugh.

Can we just ban firearms so everyone can complain about forks and how forks are sentient and kill people? Fuck you, forks, you fucking evil forking devils of satanic forkdom!

Fear tools!

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:22 am**

TacoDelRio wrote:"So, since you like guns, why do you hate babies and flowers and happiness and smiley faces?"

Target practice:

8)

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:25 am**

I can't afford a new monitor.

Posted: **Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:29 am**

Posted: **Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:05 pm**

RichardK wrote:A general discussion about gun control and the meaning of the Second Amendment would accomplish nothing in this forum. There are other places to do that. But, the first post concerned the change in the law allowing weapons in National Parks. Does anyone really believe that you need to pack heat in the Yosemite Valley? And I am still waiting for a single example of where someone in a National Park actually would have benefitted from going armed.

Some of us may remember the Japanese hiker that was stabbed to death (29 times) in Havasupai Falls?... http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/local/63347.php

Posted: **Sun Mar 14, 2010 6:19 pm**

dusk wrote:
RichardK wrote:A general discussion about gun control and the meaning of the Second Amendment would accomplish nothing in this forum. There are other places to do that. But, the first post concerned the change in the law allowing weapons in National Parks. Does anyone really believe that you need to pack heat in the Yosemite Valley? And I am still waiting for a single example of where someone in a National Park actually would have benefitted from going armed.
Some of us may remember the Japanese hiker that was stabbed to death (29 times) in Havasupai Falls?... http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/local/63347.php

I did not intend to post again in this thread becaue the views of the sides in the gun control debate are like the views of the sides in the abortion debate: irreconcilable. But, since my post was quoted in full, I will say one more thing.

I fail to see how the unfortunate Japanese woman would have been saved even if she had been carrying a firearm. Her attacker gained her trust and lured her off the trail. At that point, she would have no time to respond to a sudden and unexpected assault. Think about it. She is standing next to someone who is bigger and stronger and who she believes is friendly. Then, he slugs her or grabs her. She would not be able to pull a weapon out of a holster, much less reach into a pack.

It's just that I don't want our National Parks looking like this picture of the gate to the communication complex on Pleasant Peak in the Santa Ana Mountains. Neither do I want to be around when the shooting is taking place.

Posted: **Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:57 pm**

I don't feel a weapon would've made a difference, either (from what I know). It's the mindset that makes the difference.

Posted: **Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:47 am**

RichardK wrote:
dusk wrote:
RichardK wrote:
It's just that I don't want our National Parks looking like this picture of the gate to the communication complex on Pleasant Peak in the Santa Ana Mountains. Neither do I want to be around when the shooting is taking place.

But the shot up sign has nothing to do with whether it is legal to carry in the wilderness or not. That is and will always be illegal.

As for the woman who was over powered and outmatched: the fact that the law takes away both a person's legal right and ability to defend them self is irreconcilable. There is no way to say she would be alive now but it sure as hell couldn't have turned out any worse for her. A firearm when used to it's full potential is the universal equalizer.

I read the NRA "Armed Citizen" section monthly and every time it reinforces my personal choice to defend myself to the fullest extent of the law. Enjoy. http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

Posted: **Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:42 am**

Very well put, Glamisking.

Posted: **Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:20 am**

RichardK wrote:I did not intend to post again in this thread becaue the views of the sides in the gun control debate are like the views of the sides in the abortion debate: irreconcilable.

That's not true at all. I, personally, have changed a number of minds on this subject. They have to be open minds to start with, though.

RichardK wrote:It's just that I don't want our National Parks looking like this picture of the gate to the communication complex on Pleasant Peak in the Santa Ana Mountains.

Are you suggesting that sign was shot up by law-abiding gun owners? I am pretty sure that shooting the hell out of signs like that is illegal, and the people who did that know it. How would the lifting of official prohibitions affect the actions of people who routinely ignore the laws anyway?

This is the eternal question that has never been adequately explained to me.

Posted: **Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:52 am**

Posted: **Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:29 pm**

glamisking wrote:As for the woman who was over powered and outmatched: the fact that the law takes away both a person's legal right and ability to defend them self is irreconcilable. There is no way to say she would be alive now but it sure as hell couldn't have turned out any worse for her. A firearm when used to it's full potential is the universal equalizer.

Well said!

And those that think that "gun free" zones and national and state parks are also FREE of felons, murderers, rapists and other scum of the earth -- WAKE UP! The only thing these idiotic laws accomplish -- they disarm law abiding citizens. The politicians that write these laws either carry guns for self defense and/or get state sponsored protection. To these politicians it's only us that don't need any protection it's only us that can't get CCW just because of simple desire to be able to defend our family all while political donors and friends get CCW without any questions asked.

Most states of our free nation have shall issue law but NOT here in CA. Why?

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
--Associated Press, November 18, 1993

In fact, CA has some of the most ridiculous gun laws and politicians are looking for more ways to restrict law abiding citizens. And what does it accomplish?

In Merced California, an intruder stabbed three children to death with a pitchfork.
The oldest child had been trained by her father in firearms use, but could not save her
siblings from the attacker because the gun was locked away to comply with the state's
"safe storage" law. --Sierra Times and various wire services, September, 2000

There are more than 22,000 gun laws at the city, county, state, and federal level.
If gun control worked, then we should be free of crime. But the Federal government
concluded that no criminal that attacked a police officer was "hindered by any law--
federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just
laughed at gun laws." [ii]

Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America,Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms estimate and reported via James Wright, Peter H. Rossi,
Kathleen Daly, 1983
[ii] Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law
Enforcement Officers, As presented by Ed Davis, criminal investigative
instructor FBI Behavioral Science Unit, to the International Association of
Chiefs of Police, reporting from U.S. Department of Justice, August 2006

Myth: Police are our protection - people don't need guns

Fact: Tell that to 18,209 murder victims, 497,950 robbery victims, and 96,122 rape
victims that the police could not help.

Fact: The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881
crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.

Fact: 95% of the time police arrive too late to prevent a crime or arrest the suspect. [ii]

Fact: In over 90% of U.S. cities, technology does not give police dispatchers the location
of a cellular telephone caller [iii], making police protection nearly impossible for travelers.

17th Annual National Survey of Police Chiefs & Sheriffs, National
Association of Chiefs of Police, 2005
[ii] This is 911 ... please hold, Witkin, Gordon, Guttman, Monika and Lenzy,
Tracy. U.S. News & World Report, June 17, 1998
[iii] 911 - hello? Hellooooo?, Susan Bahr, America's Network 103, April 1, 1999

Refuse to be a victim!

If you are not part of a large group (more than 3 male adults) you have to assume you are a target and act as such -- be prepared to defend you life with everything you've got.

Myth: Police are against concealed carrying by citizens

Fact: 66% of police chiefs believe that citizens carrying concealed firearms reduce rates
of violent crime. --National Association of Chiefs of Police,
17th Annual National Survey of Police Chiefs & Sheriffs, 2005

Fact: "All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen ...I think it's
worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a
convert." --Glenn White, president, Dallas Police Association, Dallas Morning News, December 23, 1997

Fact: "I ... [felt] that such legislation present[ed] a clear and present danger to lawabiding
citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our
experience in Harris County, and indeed statewide, has proven my fears absolutely
groundless". --John B. Holmes, Harris County Texas district attorney,
Dallas Morning News, December 23, 1997

Posted: **Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:40 pm**

mve wrote:In fact, CA has some of the most ridiculous gun laws and politicians are looking for more ways to restrict law abiding citizens. And what does it accomplish?

Good question. One way to try to answer it would be to compare with other states that have different laws.

Texas has a much higher rate of gun ownership than California and fewer "ridiculous" laws. Texas also has a higher rate of violent crime than California. Alaska has a one of the highest rates of gun ownership and also one of the highest rates of violent crime in the US.

On the other hand, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts have much lower gun ownership rates and plenty of "ridiculous" laws. They also have lower violent crime rates than any of the aforementioned states.

Of course, I am responding to lots of selective anecdotes, facts, and statistics with statistics of my choosing. However, as I've said before, if you drop the selective statistics and look carefully at the entire country, there is no clear correlation between violent crime and gun ownership or gun laws.

I don't want to take away your gun(s). But enough with the selective anecdotes, facts, and statistics.

Posted: **Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:49 pm**

Myth: Concealed carry laws increase crime

Fact: Thirty-nine states , comprising the majority of the American population, are
"right-to-carry" states. Statistics show that in these states the crime rate fell (or did not
rise) after the right-to-carry law became active (as of July, 2006). Nine states restrict the
right to carry and two deny it outright.

Fact: Crime rates involving gun owners with carry permits have consistently been about
0.02% of all carry permit holders since Florida’s right-to-carry law started in 1988. [ii]

Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida's homicide rate fell from 36%
above the national average to 4% below, and remains below the national average (as of
the last reporting period, 2005).[iii]

Fact: In Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after
their concealed carry law passed. Rape rates fell 93% faster in the first year after

At publication time two more states, Kansas and Nebraska, have pass
shall-issue legislation, but insufficient data was available to determine how
the change has impacted crime rates.
[ii] Florida Department of Justice, 1998
[iii] Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws, Cramer C
and Kopel D. Golden CO: Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994

Posted: **Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:09 pm**

AlanK wrote:Of course, I am responding to lots of selective anecdotes, facts, and statistics with statistics of my choosing. However, as I've said before, if you drop the selective statistics and look carefully at the entire country, there is no clear correlation between violent crime and gun ownership or gun laws.

You are right on one point -- Gun control laws do NOT reduce violent crime:

Fact: The U.S. government "found insufficient evidence to determine
the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of
laws reviewed on violent outcomes"
and also concluded in one study that none of the attackers
interviewed was "hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that
has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just
laughed at gun laws." [ii]

First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for
Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws, CDC, Task Force on Community
Preventive Services, Oct 3, 2003 – a systematic review of 51
studies that evaluated the effects of selected firearms laws on
violence

[ii] Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our
Nation's Law Enforcement Officers, U.S. Department of Justice,
August 2006

And you are wrong on the other -- guns (in the hands of law abiding citizens) DO prevent violent crime:

Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are
prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun
ever actually fired.

National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, BATF estimates on handgun supply

Posted: **Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:37 pm**

mve wrote:
Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever actually fired.

In 2008, there were 16,272 murders in the US. And you are claiming that 401,500 additional murders (1100 times 35 -- I hope it wasn't a leap year!) were prevented by showing a gun? You believe that 25 times more murders are prevented than actually happen?

Why compare statistics when confronted with data so transparently bogus? It's obvious that far less than 0.9% of those cases were real!

EISPIRATEN

Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Re: Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier