Thread: gun

Originally Posted by Tamerlane

Originally Posted by Matroskin Kot

Originally Posted by Tamerlane

a real man keeps his damn mouth shut even when the going gets tough.

And he never, ever speaks in non sequiturs.

he also never makes snide remarks....

Touche'.

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream-and not make dreams your master;
If you can think-and not make thoughts your aim,
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings-nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And-which is more-you'll be a Man, my son!
(And yes, you also should possess a gun.)

Hmmm, I'm not sure Rudyard Kipling wrote that last line....

Well, I'm not a man, but I must admit my thinking on guns has changed. I've never thought I would need one, being one of the *Peace and Love * generation (although an awfully tame one). Dad, on the other hand, tells of his elementary school days, when, during hunting season, the boys would bring their rifles to school, stack them for classes, and pick them up and go hunting after school. This does NOT happen in schools nowadays!

We have a place in the Virginia mountains (my Dad's home county). A couple of years ago, my sister-in-law went out to get something out of her car. A black bear was sitting in the yard beside the car! She jumped in the car and locked it, but didn't have the keys, so she just sat until the critter yawned and ambled away down the mountain.

After that, our older boy bought a shotgun for my husband on his next birthday, our first gun. And, I must admit, I do feel safer with it in the house, since I'm often alone with my son and granddaughter. I'm actually more worried about rabid raccoons than bears, though. To tell the truth, I'd probably bash the critter with a walking stick instead of shooting it, if I couldn't scare it away.

Just for the record, I found a baby snake under my bed two summers ago. I caught it in a dustpan, put it in a jar, and let it go on a very steep slope in a nearby park (away from people). Did you know that baby black snakes look like rattlesnakes, with a diamond-back pattern? They even wiggle their (rattle-less) tails, but they have big, cute eyes. Rattlesnake babies have small eyes with a ridge of skull shading them, and are as poisonous as adults. Mine was a baby black snake, altho I didn't know it at the time. My point is, just because we have a gun, I still don't go around shooting things!

I guess I am saying - there is a time and place for everything, in moderation. Notice that I've said nothing about shooting people.


rattlesnake baby, closeup of head


baby black racer, note big eyes and whip-like tail

Someone remind me to try to translate this into Russian, after I give Olya a short vacation!

That is a photo of a Mojave rattlesnake! Of the North American pit vipers, it is the only one that has both a hemotoxic (blood poison) and neurotoxic (nerve toxic) venom. One of my close friends works on commumication systems, and they went to work on a repeater that is on a cell phone tower. When he turned a solar panel over to move the panel, there was a Mojave rattlesnake underneath.

He was carrying his little Smith & Wesson model 642 Airweight, a small .38 Special revolver, and killed the snake. It was fairly large, about 1 meter long.

For your information, Rattlesnakes, Cottonmouths, and Copperheads, all can bite from the day they hatch (snakes lay eggs). That does not mean that they will bite, but they have fangs and poison sacs as babies. Drop for drop, a baby snake has more toxic venom than an adult.

I've lived in the same house for 22 years, and I've never seen a snake on my land. Last month I was feeding the horses, and there was a Western Massasauga (a rattlesnake) in the round bale feeder. It was very small, only about .3 meters (about 1 foot long), but if there is a young snake, it decended from parents. I now walk more carefully. None of the dogs or horses have ever sufferen a snake bite, but when I go out picking blackberries next month, I will be wearing boots and I'll look before I step.

There are poisonous snakes in North America, but I've lived and traveled in many a remote place in America and have not seen more than 4 or 5 poisonous snakes in the last 45 years. If a person lived in a major city, they would never see a snake. So, don't think America has poisonous snakes are every step, we don't.

I usually carry a pistol when I am in Florida. My dog, a German Shepherd, sometimes is not very intelligent. We have had a few close encounters with alligators. I carry a Taraus 415, a short barrelled .41 Magnum. I can conceal it easily, and I HOPE it has enough power to stop a alligator. But a .41 Mag with a 2.5 inch barrel has the recoil of a cannon.

What our Russian friends do not understand about American History is about our gun laws and why we have gun ownership. It has nothing to do with dangerous animals.

When the United States first rebeled against Great Britian and formed a new country, many of the founders were worried that our new government would be a tyranny just like the one we just got our freedom from. that we would be switching from a tyrant in England to a tyrant in America. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is the untimate check and balance, it is so that if our government becomes too oppressive, we can overthrow the government.

That was the theory when the Bill of Rights came into being. Now.... I'm not so sure it would work. But still, we have our guns. I have an AR-15 and a FN-FAL, I have a Concealed Carry License, and I sometimes carry a Ruger SP 101 or the Taraus if I am in areas with animals that bite. In 20+ years of carrying a gun, I have never had to shoot it in self defense.

If you male and are American and you don't have a gun or two or three and know how to use them, then you are neither much of a man or a very good American. The Founding Fathers wrote that they expected that everyone, particularly males, be well trained in firearms and to keep them close. This was for self protection, for the country's protection and protection against their own government when and if it becomes "tyrannical". This used to be taught in US schools but is conspicuously no longer mentioned. Neither is it mentioned that the USA is NOT a democracy, but a REPUBLIC. The Founding Fathers despised democracies because they always ended up the same way Obama heading the US for Fascism!
Just today Obama has called for any CITIZEN disagreeing with Obama Policy, to be "REPORTED" TO THE WHITE HOUSE!

Originally Posted by Hangernaid

There are poisonous snakes in North America, but I've lived and traveled in many a remote place in America and have not seen more than 4 or 5 poisonous snakes in the last 45 years. If a person lived in a major city, they would never see a snake. So, don't think America has poisonous snakes are every step, we don't.

I disagree with that statement! (within limits)

I have lived all over the US, and have found that it depends on where you live.

I you live in the REAL wilderness areas particularly of the West you may see a lot more rattle Snakes than you care to.
In the summer months I or my co workers have killed, sometimes, several Rattlers a day. But on average I, myself would sometimes kill one or two a week and then cut the rattle off their tails. Now, I am talking about the areas of Southern Idaho, Northern Nevada, South-Eastern Oregon and Arizona. I've shot snakes but I usually beat them to death with a pair of hobbles and I've seen them equally killed with a rope or a rock or a stick. I've had snakes get into my house and I have woken up near them when sleeping out doors in the desert. They are a concern if you have kids and live in the remote areas. Also, Mountain Lions are a particular concern for people with kids in those areas too. There are times when families do not let their kids go more than 50 feet from their house.

These are Hobbles, the leather strap with buckle on the horses front legs, in case you don't know what they are!


All these horses are hobbled, that's why they are just standing there waiting for us. You'll also find rattle snakes in that brush somewhere.

This is a fairly old thread but still ...

Originally Posted by http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm

In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.
[...]
The research team concluded that, although successful defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the chances of success are low.
[...]
Suggestions to the contrary, especially for urban residents who may see gun possession as a defense against a dangerous environment should be discussed and thoughtfully reconsidered.

I guess there's something about the mentality about Americans that make them prefer to 'defend themselves' with their own weapon. Clearly that's how they want it in their country, despite the fact that it has lead to higher levels of gun-related crimes and killings. Well, it's their country - to each his own...

I wouldn't want to face a bunch of armed Brits, Swedes, Germans etc every time I leave my house though, so I am glad it's harder for people to carry guns in Europe.

I just wished the Americans kept their weapons (all of them, including the fighter-jets and tanks) in their own country.

Originally Posted by Johanna

I guess there's something about the mentality about Americans that make them prefer to 'defend themselves' with their own weapon. Clearly that's how they want it in their country, despite the fact that it has lead to higher levels of gun-related crimes and killings. Well, it's their country - to each his own...

I wouldn't want to face a bunch of armed Brits, Swedes, Germans etc every time I leave my house though, so I am glad it's harder for people to carry guns in Europe.

I just wished the Americans kept their weapons (all of them, including the fighter-jets and tanks) in their own country.

The main stream media does not tell you how many people successfully defend themselves with guns.

As for your last sentence I hope some day that you get your wish. I hope some day that other countries step up so my country wouldn't need to be there. What do you think would happen if the USA pulled out of all countries? In your answer please consider how many people make there living from US forces abroad. I think a lot of people would be affected.

We gave peace a chance and got 9/11 instead.

Scott

Originally Posted by Johanna

Clearly that's how they want it in their country, despite the fact that it has lead to higher levels of gun-related crimes and killings.

There is no evidence to suggest that guns have caused the crime rate in the USA. There is simply MORE crime in the USA even without adding in the gun statistics. ie USA crime rate MINUS gun related crime is 3.2 times higher than the rate of Japan. Therefore it is not the guns that make the USA dangerous. It is relatively dangerous anyway. If you want to be safe, then own a gun!..... in America! Or perhaps you would prefer to jog alone in a secluded wood somewhere and take your chances un armed. ...be my guest. But what I jog with, is not your business. The US Justice Department estimates that in 2 Million to 2.5 Million incidences every year, a gun is used in defence against criminals by honest citizens.

Originally Posted by Johanna

I just wished the Americans kept their weapons (all of them, including the fighter-jets and tanks) in their own country.

Yes i agree! Given the type of anti-free speech country Britain has become lately, I am sorry that we wasted our lives defending you. We may as well have kept our planes and soldiers home and let Hitler have Britain.

First video is what happens when you aren't smart enough to arm yourself and lean how to handle a firearm.

The last video is what happens when you defend yourself with a handgun!

http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight. ... 0-26#video

Originally Posted by DDT

Yes i agree! Given the type of anti-free speech country Britain has become lately, I am sorry that we wasted our lives defending you. We may as well have kept our planes and soldiers home and let Hitler have Britain.

WW2 was 70 years ago and America was one several forces fighting in Europe. The war was raging for 2 years or so before the US even got involved.

Besides, I am not British (just living here temporarily). In fact, my country was neutral and did not even participate the war. The Eastern front was bigger and ten times more Soviets than Americans died. I am not saying that I'm not grateful to America, but WW2 and the types of conflicts I was referring to, are not comparable.

I really don't like that the European continent is full of American bases.

How would you like it if you were out driving in ... Iowa .... and came across a German military convoy, a French military base or no-go zone that was under Russian control?

I think it was a terrible mistake by the US to get involved in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. Probably also several countries in S. America.

What do you mean about the UK being anti-free speech? What kind of speech do you think is restricted?

Originally Posted by Johanna

WW2 was 70 years ago and America was one several forces fighting in Europe. The war was raging for 2 years or so before the US even got involved.

The operation Overlord (=opening of the West front) started June 1944 and the WWII started September 1939. The difference was more than two years (or so).

However, you seem to contradict yourself. First, you're saying that the US shouldn't be involved in European politics, and then you blame the US for not taking the steps in that direction from the very beginning! There was no military pact between the US and Europe at the time, so on what grounds do you think the US should have interfered earlier?

Also, have you ever heard about the Lend Lease Act, 1941? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease) There was about $700 billion at 2007 prices given away by the US over several years. If you feel strong inside and don't like the US involvement so much, do you mind start paying it back?

I personally do not blame the Americans for anything in particular in relation to WW2. The Nazis needed to be defEATED and I am grateful that America helped out.
But many British people think the US should have joined in a lot earlier. I have no opinion.

Europe was America's biggest foreign market, and a Nazi victory would have ruined that. This is the reason behind their willingness to lend money.

I am sure Hitler would have been defeated in the end with or without the US. He was doomed the moment he attacked the USSR. But no doubt it would have taken longer to defeat him without the US. Plus, much more of Europe would have come under the influence of the USSR.

The Marshall plan came with strings attached. It was not charity, just thinly disguised as that.

1) Together with the Bretton Woods system it kicked off the world dependency on the US dollar as reserve currency for all countries (despite it not being backed up by gold or anything else.) European nations got offers they were not in a position to refuse... This has served US interests incredibly well.

2) The real reason for the Marshall plan was to prevent Socialism or any increase of Soviet influence in Europe. So we had a split continent for fifty years partly because of US paranoia about communism. If they had backed off and returned home after the war, then the USSR might not have become as paranoid and introverted as it did.

After Bretton Woods, every dollar transaction around the world and every national reserve asset held in dollar has benefitted the US economy -- for 70 years! That partly explains how so many people there have been able to live well over their means and the dominance of the American industry. Or is it because Americans are smarter than everyone else? Erm I think we know that it's not.

American culture or English language was not of much interest to anybody in Europe before the war. But after the war English language became a mandatory subject in schools across Western Europe. American popular culture started to dominate Europe. These things also served the US economical interests.

What the US has done since the war is comparable in many ways to what the British Empire did in Asia and Africa.

Because of Bretton Woods, they have already been paid back.
We owe them nothing.

Originally Posted by Johanna

The Nazis needed to be defended and I am grateful that America helped out.

That's what happens when you try to rant in a foreign language... and don't proof read.... I meant "defeated".

Originally Posted by Johanna

The Nazis needed to be defEATED and I am grateful that America helped out.

I'm confused more and more about your opinion... Earlier, you mentioned that Sweden maintained the neutrality and you seemed kind of proud of it, weren't you? So, why was your country neutral then when they should have been fighting?

Originally Posted by Johanna

But many British people think the US should have joined in a lot earlier. I have no opinion.

Of course, because the British alone might have lost the war. It's natural. And it's natural they would like to maintain the military pact with the US later on (=NATO).

Originally Posted by Johanna

Europe was America's biggest foreign market, and a Nazi victory would have ruined that. This is the reason behind their willingness to lend money.

Do you realize the "lending" in lend lease actually meant giving away for free? Also, what makes you think that a Nazi victory would have destroyed the foreign market for the US? Hitler said nothing particularly bad about the US! The US did nothing wrong to Hitler too (in the beginning)!

Originally Posted by Johanna

I am sure Hitler would have been defeated in the end with or without the US. He was doomed the moment he attacked the USSR. But no doubt it would have taken longer to defeat him without the US. Plus, much more of Europe would have come under the influence of the USSR.

Without the lend lease all that is questionable. The army could not function without the constant supply. The regular supply chains of the UK and the USSR were disturbed. The attempts to deliver the goods according to the lend lease cost the US lots of lives too.

Originally Posted by Johanna

The Marshall plan came with strings attached. It was not charity, just thinly disguised as that.

How did you jump from the lend lease to the Marshall plan all of a sudden? I missed that logical connection.

Originally Posted by Johanna

Because of Bretton Woods, they have already been paid back. We owe them nothing.

That is a pure speculation. Can you really measure that? Perhaps the US gained more money or perhaps they lost money. Can you support your claim by any serious research?

There isn't much point of debating this because different scholars have different opinions and different surveys show different results.

Ultimately Croc - you seem to think that the US is a positive force in the world and that it's treating other countries decently and fairly. If you want to hold that opinion I respect that.

I, on the other hand, believe that the US is a country that is more or less run by corporations, bankers and finance, and that it usually acts purely out of self interest - the interests of its own elites. Therefore I take a suspicious view. I don't hate the US, I just think it's too dominant, starts too many wars and that it manipulates other countries. I don't like that.

Two different ways of looking at the same country - neither way is completely true or completely false and there is research to back both sides.

Originally Posted by Johanna

Ultimately Croc - you seem to think that the US is a positive force in the world and that it's treating other countries decently and fairly. If you want to hold that opinion I respect that.

In fact, I never said that. And I don't think that either. There's no such thing, in my view, as a "country treating other countries decently/fairly or not decently/fairly." A country is a formation large enough so that there are lots of interests and lots of conflicts at each point in time. Some of the sides win, others lose. Temporarily. That's why political analysts are wrong most of the time. Perhaps a "quantum physics" approach would work better than just trying to cut a couple of slices and match the mosaic. Who knows?

In fact, all I was asking you was to support your point of view. That might have helped me to form my own opinion. And, honestly, what you said wasn't very convincing. I'm not sure how you yourself could believe in what you said. That is all to it, really. No offense.

Originally Posted by Johanna

There isn't much point of debating this because different scholars have different opinions and different surveys show different results. .

Yep! Marxist scholars rewrite history and you actually believe it!

Originally Posted by Johanna

I, on the other hand, believe that the US is a country that is more or less run by corporations, bankers and finance, and that it usually acts purely out of self interest - the interests of its own elites.
.

How convenient for you! And quite small minded too! Let me spell it out for you. The whole world is run by MONEY men, not just the USA. The USA is just one part of it!