Loaded Gun Left In Capitol Bathroom By A Republican Staffer

Lorca said:
That may be what is 'required' for police to qualify and remain current but you cannot make a blanket statement on what training individual cops put in. They are at the range shooting all the time by me. Officially and unofficially. An that's just 2 local depts. And you certainly cant make blanket statements about private people's training.

The bold is nothing but your opinion and based on my experience, which forms my opinion....it's wrong. I know lots of cops, I used to be a park ranger and worked closely with cops all the time. Lots of cops are into guns too. And sport shooting (not including hunting).
Click to expand...


Now don't you try and tell Billy he isn't all knowing when it comes to guns.

As he's told me numerous times now...I know nothing when it comes to guns and he is much better educated than I regarding guns.
 
Lorca said:
You didnt understand my third sentence then, re: design.

And that function is very important, I dont really care that you or others dont *like* it. If someone sees my gun and runs away, it functioned perfectly...and no one died. I have a right to protect myself as I see fit. It is just one...the least of actually...many things I do to be responsible for my own safety.

You dont like guns? Dont own one. The odds of you being accidentally killed or injured by someone else driving or YOU driving are about 100 times that of being accidentally shot by a law-abiding gun owner. And yet people are exceedingly casual about driving and find it easy to put those dangers out of their minds, out of convenience.
Click to expand...
I was simply commenting a gun has 1 design - to kill. Appreciate your comment, but I was very literal, and succinct on purpose.

To make the point there is no other "design" for a gun (much as you can construe one to fit your argument -it is it's sole pupose).. as in no other function.

How you brandish it doesn't change it's design.
 
Lorca said:
I'm an idiot? Please prove it by supporting your statements. How many times did I go to the range last month? Is there data for each state for each licensed permit holder? What about the states where no permit is required? There isnt even data, so please take your insults, along with your opinion, and put your money where your mouth is.
Click to expand...
the flaw in your 'rationale' is that you're treating the 2nd Amendment like it's a granted privilege from the government, not a RIGHT that the government is not allowed to touch.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the flaw in your 'rationale' is that you're treating the 2nd Amendment like it's a granted privilege from the government, not a RIGHT that the government is not allowed to touch.
Click to expand...

Not sure what that has to do with my challenging the statement that cops train less with their guns than cc permit holders.
 
annata said:
I was simply commenting a gun has 1 design - to kill. Appreciate your comment, but I was very literal, and succinct on purpose.

To make the point there is no other "design" for a gun (much as you can construe one to fit your argument -it is it's sole pupose).. as in no other function.

How you brandish it doesn't change it's design.
Click to expand...

Sorry if I jumped to a conclusion...one does see and read the same things over and over sometimes.

The design of the gun is to shoot a projectile. Period. By no means does that projectile have to be aimed at a living thing. And for most of us who use our guns AS DESIGNED frequently, they never are aimed at a living thing. Except for humters.
 
Lorca said:
Sorry if I jumped to a conclusion...one does see and read the same things over and over sometimes.

The design of the gun is to shoot a projectile. Period. By no means does that projectile have to be aimed at a living thing. And for most of us who use our guns AS DESIGNED frequently, they never are aimed at a living thing. Except for humters.
Click to expand...
disengenuous, the projectile has but one use over the centurys ..used to kill

Stopping power/killing/ - the 'sports aspect" is to improve ones aim,,so it can be used more accuarely,,for stopping power.

I will grant there are those whom soley use guns on a target range for sport - look at the targets they use - silloettes.
Maybe there are the very few exceptions to the idea a gun isn't designed to kill - but firing the gun in use, other then on a closed range is to kill.

If one was content to soley use them on a firing range, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I accept gun "rights" as part of the Constitution, doesn't mean I have to be blind to their intent (design).

Not wishing to argumendum at nauseum with you either, but call it what it is - a weapon soley for the use thereof..
 
Lorca said:
The bold is nothing but your opinion and based on my experience, which forms my opinion....it's wrong. I know lots of cops, I used to be a park ranger and worked closely with cops all the time. Lots of cops are into guns too. And sport shooting (not including hunting).
Click to expand...

And MY opinion is based on MY experience, which includes working with hundreds, if not thousands, of cops. So I have a pretty good idea of what MOST of them do and don't do.
 
Lorca said:
There are hundreds of accounts, in writing and video, of attackers taking multiple shots from high caliber shots and continuing to shoot and kill people. Loads where they keep fighting. Loads where they run off and die later. The FBI documents these clearly.

The purpose of hollow points is to STOP as fast as possible. Bleeding out takes time, btw, so I dont think you know what you're talking about. Where did you get that from?
Click to expand...
my self imposed ignorance . lol..I don't really pay attention to things I loathe that much.
 
annata said:
disengenuous, the projectile has but one use over the centurys ..used to kill

Stopping power/killing/ - the 'sports aspect" is to improve ones aim,,so it can be used more accuarely,,for stopping power.

I will grant there are those whom soley use guns on a target range for sport - look at the targets they use - silloettes.
Maybe there are the very few exceptions to the idea a gun isn't designed to kill - but firing the gun in use, other then on a closed range is to kill.

If one was content to soley use them on a firing range, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I accept gun "rights" as part of the Constitution, doesn't mean I have to be blind to their intent (design).

Not wishing to argumendum at nauseum with you either, but call it what it is - a weapon soley for the use thereof..
Click to expand...

It is a weapon. There are have been thousands over the millenia...it's one of many, including our brains. It cant function without the corresponding physical inducement.

All weapons are not villified like guns, nor are other major killers, like cars. It's a matter of perspective more than anything, not body count. "Design and purpose" really dont factor in to the reality of numbers in damage.

I appreciate your civility and do see your point.
 
annata said:
disengenuous, the projectile has but one use over the centurys ..used to kill

Stopping power/killing/ - the 'sports aspect" is to improve ones aim,,so it can be used more accuarely,,for stopping power.

I will grant there are those whom soley use guns on a target range for sport - look at the targets they use - silloettes.
Maybe there are the very few exceptions to the idea a gun isn't designed to kill - but firing the gun in use, other then on a closed range is to kill.

If one was content to soley use them on a firing range, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I accept gun "rights" as part of the Constitution, doesn't mean I have to be blind to their intent (design).

Not wishing to argumendum at nauseum with you either, but call it what it is - a weapon soley for the use thereof..
Click to expand...

Nah, I know lots of people who sport shoot. It is their favorite sport. I used to be a sport shooter and a hunter. No gun I ever bought was intended by me to be shot at anything other than a clay pigeon, a paper target, a tin can or a duck.

I don't shoot or carry any more, but I can most assuredly insist you are incorrect.
 
Dick Puncher EXPRESS said:
And MY opinion is based on MY experience, which includes working with hundreds, if not thousands, of cops. So I have a pretty good idea of what MOST of them do and don't do.
Click to expand...

Great. You got bigger numbers. It's still your opinion and has no real foundation in fact. Do you also know hundreds, if not thousands, of cc permit holders and know their training?

Again, having participated on gun forums for years, I've never heard anyone make your claim. We know that LE training standards are not always that high, but to claim that average cc'ers have more training than the professionals? Not ever. And I will continue to doubt it. Not to mention that plinking at cans and paper is a very very narrow type of training.
 
Lorca said:
It is a weapon. There are have been thousands over the millenia...it's one of many, including our brains. It cant function without the corresponding physical inducement.

All weapons are not villified like guns, nor are other major killers, like cars. It's a matter of perspective more than anything, not body count. "Design and purpose" really dont factor in to the reality of numbers in damage.

I appreciate your civility and do see your point.
Click to expand...
not wishing to debate to the point of just arguing, with an issue you care about, and I am not interested in but in the abstract - also appreciate your civility.
 
Last edited:
Lorca said:
Loathe all you wish but that is a poor poor excuse for ignorance when challenging the *rights* of others.
Click to expand...
recognizing the 2nd Amendentment for what it is. Been recognizing the right all thru my life with assasisnations, murders, senseless gun deaths, and will continue to recognize this aspect of American 'exceptionalism'
 
Rune said:
Nah, I know lots of people who sport shoot. It is their favorite sport. I used to be a sport shooter and a hunter. No gun I ever bought was intended by me to be shot at anything other than a clay pigeon, a paper target, a tin can or a duck.

I don't shoot or carry any more, but I can most assuredly insist you are incorrect.
Click to expand...
I'd have to find some data, but simple sports shooting has to be a minority of uses for guns, especially handguns.

Handguns are made for nothing more but killing , now you can tell me all the exceptions to the rule you "know", but i'm going to just rely on my common sense that
what you know is but a small minority of handgun owners.
 
annata said:
Id have to find some data, but simple sports shootinghas to be a minoirty of uses for guns, especuially handguns.
Handguns are made for nothing more but killing , now you can tell me all the exceptions to the rule you "know", but i'm going to just rely on my common sense that
what you know is but a small minority of handgun owners.
Click to expand...

What other *uses* for handguns are there?

Millions own them. Hundreds of thousands carry them. Apparently, they are not using them except in those capacities.
 
annata said:
not wishing to debate to the point of just arguing, with an issue you care about, and I am not interested in but in the abstract - also appreciate your civility.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Yes, this is an important 2A issue for me.

But by no means am I 'into' guns. They hold little interest for me. I see them as one tool, out of many. I do use them for sport. (Out of many recreational pursuits) But I own very few. And each for a specific purpose. I am here framing an argument for discussion. But guns dont really factor into my life any more...and definitely less...than my cars. And I'm not into cars a bit! They each have their specific purposes as well.
 
Lorca said:
What other *uses* for handguns are there?

Millions own them. Hundreds of thousands carry them. Apparently, they are not using them except in those capacities.
Click to expand...
It is the gross availability of handguns in the US that causes the huge discrepencey between the US and other 'civilized' countrys that do not have such millions or *users*.

They are used as a primary weapon for robbery/murder - criminals carry them for easy use, the law abiding citizens are not so much of a problem,'except for the accidental shootings. Why I simply will never own one.

Handguns are pernicious death weapons, look at the recent slaying in Chicago. I lived in Baltimore, and DC; it was not uncommon to see scores of ppl shot dead over a weekend. By handguns.
 
annata said:
It is the gross availability of handguns in the US that causes the huge discrepencey between the US and other 'civilized' countrys that do not have such millions or *users*.

They are used as a primary weapon for robbery/murder - criminals carry them for easy use, the law abiding citizens are not so much of a problem,'except for the accidental shootings. Why I simply will never own one.

Handguns are pernicious death weapons, look at the recent slaying in Chicago. I lived in Baltimore, and DC; it was not uncommon to see scores of ppl shot dead over a weekend. By handguns.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I really appreciate that you recognize that. It's very important!

As for Chicago...guns are almost completely illegal there. It's almost impossible for a regular person to legally own one. As they were until last yr in DC. And those are the major cities with the most crime and gun crime.

So how people can think that making guns more difficult for regular people to own can be *more* detrimental, I do not understand. The facts do not support that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top