Starbucks & Guns

[Geronimo '74]

hehe, you better duck for cover now.... (and wear your flamesuit, just to be sure...)

[island911]

'In Australia its illegal to carry guns."

Seriously?

Well, around here Starbucks are frequented by police. Coffee, pastries, and a place to do paperwork. But, since they open carry, some want them banned from Starbucks.

...of course it could be that those people just have a thing against cops, and don't want them around. thinking that it sure would be great if drug dealers had a cop-free zone for meets.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by Apollo

My post is a bit of a lament. In Australia its illegal to carry guns. Its never been part of the culture here,so I wonder(lament) why this has become the case in the US?. Its with monotonous regularity that we wake up to the news of wholesale slaughter by invariably a person with major 'issues'. I know its too late for you guys to return to the garden, but I'm fearing, that eventually, it will emerge here and then become endemic. Even now there's the once a month gunfight somewhere involving either criminals themselves or a criminal against the police. People always genuinely shudder at the often brazeness of it all-but what can be done? May I say though, with respect, that what I find disturbing is an often barely concealed bravado displayed when people hypothesise about 'blowing someone away'. I know I know I would probably want to retaliate the same way,but where will it all end? Violence begets violence. It just struck me as bizarre that(even though I can see the agument that you have to be 'prepared') we are talking about the presence of guns at a place for gathering to relax,socialize and drink coffee? What next guns at kids birthday parties? Funerals? I don't want trouble in paradise, but its coming.

I got a Shot gun for my 12th birthday, skeet shooting is popular here as well, we go a gun club, east a nice steak dinner and kill clay
The highest crime in the states are in the places with the strictest gun laws.. What is funny about the idiot protesters is, I bet they never even saw anyone wearing a gun in starbutts, they are just pissed because law abiding citizens can carry them..

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by Apollo

My post is a bit of a lament. In Australia its illegal to carry guns. Its never been part of the culture here,so I wonder(lament) why this has become the case in the US?. Its with monotonous regularity that we wake up to the news of wholesale slaughter by invariably a person with major 'issues'. I know its too late for you guys to return to the garden, but I'm fearing, that eventually, it will emerge here and then become endemic. Even now there's the once a month gunfight somewhere involving either criminals themselves or a criminal against the police. People always genuinely shudder at the often brazeness of it all-but what can be done? May I say though, with respect, that what I find disturbing is an often barely concealed bravado displayed when people hypothesise about 'blowing someone away'. I know I know I would probably want to retaliate the same way,but where will it all end? Violence begets violence. It just struck me as bizarre that(even though I can see the agument that you have to be 'prepared') we are talking about the presence of guns at a place for gathering to relax,socialize and drink coffee? What next guns at kids birthday parties? Funerals? I don't want trouble in paradise, but its coming.

Just sit back and sing kum by yah. It will all be over soon enough.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by Geronimo '74

In the mean time, I'm contemplating to get my hunting licence.
We have a very nice hunting rifle in the family that we probablywon't be able to keep if nobody has a hunting permit... My dad has one now, I'd like to get mine as well.

A while back gun laws were changed resulting in thousands of people turning in firearms to be be destroyed. This was an effort to get rid of illegal firearms. What it really did was have people, families turn in grandpa's rifle or gun. Real criminals kept their guns, well duh!
After some many people reluctantly turned in their guns, hunting rifles.... they made the laws more lenient...
Hence the hunting licence...

You should get it. If you get one of those haiti/chili quakes there and the predators descend in the vacuum, that hunting rifle might be all that's between your families food and supplies and the thugs that would come loot/take what you have.

When society collapses, even temporarily, the absolute ugliest animals on earth come out to play.

EVERY family should have at least one high quality firearm and at least 100rds of ammunition in case of natural disaster.

[slodave]

Originally Posted by Racerbvd

The highest crime in the states are in the places with the strictest gun laws..

Not quite sure that's true...

Crime in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Yes, data is from 2004

Murder Rates 1996 - 2008 | Death Penalty Information Center

EDIT:
http://www.infoplease.com/us/statistics/crime-rate-state.html - 2007

[Apollo]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

Just sit back and sing kum by yah. It will all be over soon enough.

Why do you have to reply with your ridiculously glib,simplistic answers? Why this dog eat dog attitude? You have this entrenched scorched earth hedonistic view of life that can be best summed as 'screw yourself silly and blast away given half the chance' mission statement. This is a serious matter and you think I'm some wimp who will just sit and sing songs. I'm looking for an
alternative to violence- get it? Your rapidly painting yourself into a corner.

5,4,3,2,1....belittling pigheaded answer coming up!

[dd74]

What I find so entirely ironic about Los Angeles is the strict anti-gun sentiment among the Hollywood types. From the lowly PA up to the Cameron/Spielberg level, they are anti-firearm. But nearly every billboard advertising a non-comedic movie or television show has has a guy with a firearm in hand.

Thank gawd for the honesty of Michael Moore.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by Apollo

Why do you have to reply with your ridiculously glib,simplistic answers? Why this dog eat dog attitude? You have this entrenched scorched earth hedonistic view of life that can be best summed as 'screw yourself silly and blast away given half the chance' mission statement. This is a serious matter and you think I'm some wimp who will just sit and sing songs. I'm looking for an
alternative to violence- get it? Your rapidly painting yourself into a corner.

5,4,3,2,1....belittling pigheaded answer coming up!

An alternative to violence?

LOL....like i said, sing kum by yah. That'll keep you safe.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by dd74

But nearly every billboard advertising a non-comedic movie or television show has has a guy with a firearm in hand.

The way guns are portrayed on tv and in movies is far less realistic than Wile E. Coyote reading over Acme blueprints while planning Road Runner's demise. Seriously, talking animals are more realistic. I can't believe every movie with a shootout or gun scene doesn't have a consultant on set who knows something about the real world and how guns really work. Maybe such ignorance fuels their politics too.

[Jeff Higgins]

The problem with "an alternative to violence" is that everyone has to agree to that alternative. As has been amply demonstrated in Australia, not everyone agrees.

Civil men must, at all times, be prepared to take up arms against uncivil men. That can be at an international level or at a very personal level. Our world will never, ever be free from those who would do us harm. The prudent nation, the prudent man, understands we cannot choose the place and time at which we will be forced to defend ourselves.

It is entirely possible to be "prepared" without being "paranoid". Detractors, those opposed to their fellow man's right to self-defense, will forever paint the well-prepared as "paranoid", perhaps in an effort to feel in some way superior in the face of their own weakness and lack of preperation, or their inability to grasp and deal with the reality of our world.

No one wants to live in a violent world. Some, apparently, believe they can close their eyes and wish it away. Others are far more realistic, understanding that violence will always be with us. There is a criminal element, a predatory element, a violent element in humankind that simply will not go away. It is our right, as civil men, to be prepared to deal with such should it threaten us. We seek "an alternative to violence" while understanding very clearly that not everyone does.

Those that choose to remain unprepared can certainly make that choice - for themselves. The disagreement starts when they would deign to make that choice for others. Oh, they convince themselves it's the righteous thing to do, because they believe (or really, really wish that) their plethora of gun legislation takes guns out of the hands of criminals. The more realistic know better; they understand that gun laws only dissarm the law-abiding, leaving that violent element ever more free to ply their trade without fear of serious consequence. The anti-gun, anti-violence set are certainly free to form their own opinions, to make their own choices, but they are not free to foist them upon the rest of us.

Again, we will always seek "an alternative to violence". But when vilence finds us, it must be answered. Fervently hoping it never does (and passing endless, ineffective legislation to that end) is not an answer. Being realistically prepared is.

[Head416]

Originally Posted by slodave

Not quite sure that's true...

Crime in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Yes, data is from 2004

Murder Rates 1996 - 2008 | Death Penalty Information Center

EDIT:
Crime Rate by State: The United States — Infoplease.com - 2007

That wikipedia article has a graph that shows Chicago and DC as having two of the worst homicide rates. As far as I know, those are the two cities in the nation with the most restrictive gun laws. (Well, as of the dates of this data. The Supreme Court is fixing these problems one by one.)

No, two examples does not necessarily prove a larger trend, but I do think state-wide data masks these types of localities with extra strict gun laws.

California has one of the worst muder rates for a state, and I think we all know where California stands when it comes to firearms laws. There are places throughout the country that refuse to deal with California customers because of the hassle. Some firearms manufacturers chose not to sell in California because of the extra hoops to jump through, meaning cost.

[Head416]

Originally Posted by Apollo

My post is a bit of a lament. In Australia its illegal to carry guns. Its never been part of the culture here,so I wonder(lament) why this has become the case in the US?. Its with monotonous regularity that we wake up to the news of wholesale slaughter by invariably a person with major 'issues'. I know its too late for you guys to return to the garden, but I'm fearing, that eventually, it will emerge here and then become endemic. Even now there's the once a month gunfight somewhere involving either criminals themselves or a criminal against the police. People always genuinely shudder at the often brazeness of it all-but what can be done? May I say though, with respect, that what I find disturbing is an often barely concealed bravado displayed when people hypothesise about 'blowing someone away'. I know I know I would probably want to retaliate the same way,but where will it all end? Violence begets violence. It just struck me as bizarre that(even though I can see the agument that you have to be 'prepared') we are talking about the presence of guns at a place for gathering to relax,socialize and drink coffee? What next guns at kids birthday parties? Funerals? I don't want trouble in paradise, but its coming.

I understand your point, but you don't seem to understand what's really going on. People aren't arming themselves to go to Starbucks. Some people carry firearms on a regular basis, just like some people carry a pocket knife, or maybe a Leatherman. These people sometimes go to Starbucks. And yes, sometimes they go to birthday parties and funerals. They aren't arming themselves for these specific occaisions. They have made a choice to be prepared, and that is normally a 24/7 type of decision.

The anti-gun lobby tries to make it sound crazy by yelling "people are taking guns into Starbucks". To me this is just proof that they're trying to manipulate the public to help them disarm the American people.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

The way guns are portrayed on tv and in movies is far less realistic than Wile E. Coyote reading over Acme blueprints while planning Road Runner's demise. Seriously, talking animals are more realistic. I can't believe every movie with a shootout or gun scene doesn't have a consultant on set who knows something about the real world and how guns really work. Maybe such ignorance fuels their politics too.

Many do have consultants. You'd be surprised what actors can't do correctly when mimicking reality, so ex (fill in the blank) decrying gun wherewithal is hired for an exorbitant fee to make actor A look less inept when handling a fake weapon.

But anyway, technicalities about how to shoot a weapon isn't my point. My point is the message portrayed, which IMO is disingenuous on the part of Hollywood.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by dd74

But anyway, technicalities about how to shoot a weapon isn't my point. My point is the message portrayed, which IMO is disingenuous on the part of Hollywood.

Oh, I'd never expect actual use of a firearm to be accurately portrayed in a movie. Too many innocent bystanders would be killed and everyone would run out of ammo if it were done the right way. Dirty Harry would spend all his time on admin. leave and in court instead of taking out the garbage.

But what sticks in people's minds are the subtle, almost subliminal images they see. Walk through a Blockbuster store and I bet over 50% of the DVD cases have photos of someone holding a gun and 99.9% of those have them holding them in a way no real person would even think of doing - finger on trigger, a gun in each hand, firing while diving away from an explosion, muzzle-sweeping or aiming at a friendly, etc. It's just ridiculous, but people who aren't around real guns all day are around BS Hollywood portrayals of guns. I gotta think some of that rubs off. My mom thinks my SIG might accidentally go off if I drop it because of what she sees on tv. You can't make this stuff up.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

My mom thinks my SIG might accidentally go off if I drop it because of what she sees on tv. You can't make this stuff up.

Anyone remember the Uzi in True Lies? First, firing it pushed Jamie Lee Curtis backwards. Then she dropped it on the stairs and it bounced perfectly stair to stair, firing as it went around (but it wasn't pushed back like it did with Jaime holding it) and it must have hit 5-10 guys, killing them.

I also just noticed that James Cameron was the director for that movie...

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

The problem with "an alternative to violence" is that everyone has to agree to that alternative. As has been amply demonstrated in Australia, not everyone agrees.

Civil men must, at all times, be prepared to take up arms against uncivil men. That can be at an international level or at a very personal level. Our world will never, ever be free from those who would do us harm. The prudent nation, the prudent man, understands we cannot choose the place and time at which we will be forced to defend ourselves.

It is entirely possible to be "prepared" without being "paranoid". Detractors, those opposed to their fellow man's right to self-defense, will forever paint the well-prepared as "paranoid", perhaps in an effort to feel in some way superior in the face of their own weakness and lack of preperation, or their inability to grasp and deal with the reality of our world.

No one wants to live in a violent world. Some, apparently, believe they can close their eyes and wish it away. Others are far more realistic, understanding that violence will always be with us. There is a criminal element, a predatory element, a violent element in humankind that simply will not go away. It is our right, as civil men, to be prepared to deal with such should it threaten us. We seek "an alternative to violence" while understanding very clearly that not everyone does.

Those that choose to remain unprepared can certainly make that choice - for themselves. The disagreement starts when they would deign to make that choice for others. Oh, they convince themselves it's the righteous thing to do, because they believe (or really, really wish that) their plethora of gun legislation takes guns out of the hands of criminals. The more realistic know better; they understand that gun laws only dissarm the law-abiding, leaving that violent element ever more free to ply their trade without fear of serious consequence. The anti-gun, anti-violence set are certainly free to form their own opinions, to make their own choices, but they are not free to foist them upon the rest of us.

Again, we will always seek "an alternative to violence". But when vilence finds us, it must be answered. Fervently hoping it never does (and passing endless, ineffective legislation to that end) is not an answer. Being realistically prepared is.

I just sing Kum By Yah Jeff.

It's amazing, the robber/mugger always just sits down, holds my hand, and sings right along with me.

The power of song Jeff...the power of song.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by Head416

That wikipedia article has a graph that shows Chicago and DC as having two of the worst homicide rates. As far as I know, those are the two cities in the nation with the most restrictive gun laws. (Well, as of the dates of this data. The Supreme Court is fixing these problems one by one.)

No, two examples does not necessarily prove a larger trend, but I do think state-wide data masks these types of localities with extra strict gun laws.

California has one of the worst muder rates for a state, and I think we all know where California stands when it comes to firearms laws. There are places throughout the country that refuse to deal with California customers because of the hassle. Some firearms manufacturers chose not to sell in California because of the extra hoops to jump through, meaning cost.

Philly and Pittsuburgh are no where near as gun friendly as the rest of Pa, and both cities lead the state BY FAR in murder rates. (I'm sure chester is up there too)

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by red-beard

Anyone remember the Uzi in True Lies? First, firing it pushed Jamie Lee Curtis backwards. Then she dropped it on the stairs and it bounced perfectly stair to stair, firing as it went around (but it wasn't pushed back like it did with Jaime holding it) and it must have hit 5-10 guys, killing them.

I also just noticed that James Cameron was the director for that movie...

That was a Mac-10.

I really loved true lies, actually. The Horse chase scene was epic, and the torture they inflicted on Bill Paxton for trying to pick up Jamie Lee was doubly epic.

There are some movies with realistic weapons handling. Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down was a really, really good movie with extremely effective weapons handling and effects portrayed.

[TGTIW]

Philly and Pittsuburgh are no where near as gun friendly as the rest of Pa, and both cities lead the state BY FAR in murder rates.

I think the issue with murder rates in cities has less to do with firearm laws and more to do with the inhabitants of said location. I think if you look at the demographic of Philly and Pittsburgh instead of the tolerance of firearms and you have your answer. This also applies to other cities as well.

disingenuous on the part of Hollywood.

Now that is just funny. Are you insinuating the movies and tv are full of lies?
Thank god the porn industry shows the right way to pick up a woman.