MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters 
Tuesday, July 22, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 74.0° F  Fair
Collapse Photo Bar

Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby pjbogart » Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:03 pm

Aren't US Marines trained to kill in hand-to-hand combat? Would some street thug beating his wife stand much of a chance against a US Marine even if the Marine hadn't been armed? As a trained soldier, wouldn't a Marine be able to get a permit to carry a firearm even without conceal carry?

Seems like he's playing this one up for the political angle.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby pjbogart » Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:10 pm

Sandi wrote:Should have known you fucking idiots would derail it into a name calling bash.

I will leave you to your circle jerk. Carry on.


Oh, the irony! It burns! No one called you any names, Sandi... they were just goofin' on your title. I didn't even do that, I just asked a few simple questions.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby ArturoBandini » Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:20 pm

pjbogart wrote:Aren't US Marines trained to kill in hand-to-hand combat?
They are also trained to use firearms. I'd wager that they are taught to use firearms first and hand-to-hand combat as a second option. A gun is simply a superior weapon compared to a fist in almost every respect (but not all).
pjbogart wrote:Would some street thug beating his wife stand much of a chance against a US Marine even if the Marine hadn't been armed?
Probably not.
pjbogart wrote:As a trained soldier, wouldn't a Marine be able to get a permit to carry a firearm even without conceal carry?
What is this "permit to carry" that you speak of, if not conceal carry?
pjbogart wrote:Seems like he's playing this one up for the political angle.
No differently than almost everyone else in almost every incident involving guns in any sense.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby kurt_w » Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:28 pm

rabble wrote:Guns no kill people. People kill people. People no stop beatings. Guns stop beatings.


Yes, this thread seems strangely at odds with the slogan that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". As best I can tell, the concept here is that when someone does something bad with a gun, it's the person's fault, but when someone does something good with a gun, it's the gun's credit.
kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4963
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby acereraser » Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:29 pm

One of my main problems with the gun lovers is their tendency to narrow limit the options for self-defense. Like pjbogart said, I would like to think the vaunted training of a U.S. Marine would have given him the edge with only his hands, feet, and wits. Anybody have a softball bat in their trunk that absolutely cannot be fired by accident? What if he had a pointed stick? Cripes, even Tom Barrett proved it can be done, not that long ago.

The title of the thread shows this limited perspective. The handgun didn't do anything, yet it got top billing here. Why not "Marine Stops...", or even Onion workhorse "Area Man Stops..."? To sum up, I believe guns are the Max Power way to self-defense.
acereraser
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 8:42 pm

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby pjbogart » Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:37 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:
pjbogart wrote:As a trained soldier, wouldn't a Marine be able to get a permit to carry a firearm even without conceal carry?
What is this "permit to carry" that you speak of, if not conceal carry?


I had a friend in the Air National Guard in the mid 90's who had a permit to carry a firearm, though he had a part time job filling ATM's so perhaps his permit was through his job. There have always been permits to carry firearms. Clearly security officers, bodyguards, armored truck drivers etc carried weapons long before the latest "conceal carry" controversy erupted. You probably just needed to show cause and adequate training to get a permit. They didn't hand them out to just anyone, which probably wasn't such a bad thing.

Although he said it sucked when he got pulled over for speeding on Hwy 151 heading to the Fox Valley. Apparently you were required to inform an officer that you're carrying a loaded firearm and that has a way of complicating your traffic stop.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby david cohen » Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:47 pm

Funny how Tom Barrett didn't need a handgun to stop a thug from beating down some citizens. I always thought his initial gubenatorial campaign made a HUGE error by not hyping the hell out of that incident- Barrett pounding a criminal while Walker pounds his pud.
david cohen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:48 pm

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby ArturoBandini » Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:49 pm

Ducatista wrote:"progressive gun grabbers," classic.

I'm a progressive gun toter, and I think the teaps and other tim'rous beasties cowering in fear of a gun grab are the depth of dumb.
How does Feinstein's proposed assault weapon legislation deal with the many guns in private hands that will become prohibited if the bill is passed? I really don't know. It might not have a mechanism for actually collecting the guns, but if it's a crime to be found in possession of said guns, then I don't see how it's much different from straight-up confiscation.

Also, in CA, gun confiscations have already been occurring for people who legally acquired guns, but who have found themselves ineligible to continue owning guns after they've visited mental hospitals, or had restraining orders filed against them, for instance.
The agents show up in heavily armed teams, wearing black jumpsuits bulked up by bulletproof vests. But they don't have warrants and, unless their subject is on probation, they need permission to enter homes to search for guns.
Let's see - government agents are using the gun registration database to find out who has guns, determining who isn't allowed to have them (even if not actually convicted of a crime), and then going to retrieve the guns using armored police forces... Doesn't that closely mimic what the "teaps" are worried about, that which you think is paranoid?

I recognize the caveats in this case are important to note - the people having their guns taken away had been admitted to a mental hospital, or had been accused of domestic violence (that mere accusation is sufficient is worrisome). But I'd argue that these ineligibility conditions are bureaucratic rules that could be broadened in a time of political crisis to include all sorts of other "conditions" - antidepressant prescriptions, marijuana prescriptions (where legal), minor drug offenses, online forum posts that display open contempt for government authority, etc.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby ArturoBandini » Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:55 pm

pjbogart wrote:I had a friend in the Air National Guard in the mid 90's who had a permit to carry a firearm, though he had a part time job filling ATM's so perhaps his permit was through his job. There have always been permits to carry firearms. Clearly security officers, bodyguards, armored truck drivers etc carried weapons long before the latest "conceal carry" controversy erupted. You probably just needed to show cause and adequate training to get a permit. They didn't hand them out to just anyone, which probably wasn't such a bad thing.

Although he said it sucked when he got pulled over for speeding on Hwy 151 heading to the Fox Valley. Apparently you were required to inform an officer that you're carrying a loaded firearm and that has a way of complicating your traffic stop.
I think these rules and permits (which seem different now p.44) only applied to carrying loaded guns in vehicles. As far as I know, openly carrying a gun on the street has been perfectly legal without a government permission slip.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby DCB » Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:24 pm

Stebben84 wrote:Question, would he have stopped if he didn't have a gun? Is the gun the reason he stopped?


I think the more relevant question, vis-a-vis gun grabbing is:
if Senator Feinstein's bill had been passed last year, would Charlie Blackmore still be carrying a gun today? would his gun have been in the ban list? would he have passed a background check?

I suspect that Mr. Blackmore would still be carrying. But Adam Lanza might not have had access to an AR-15.
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2569
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby bdog » Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:29 pm

Mongo only pawn in game of life
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3212
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby ArturoBandini » Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:32 pm

DCB wrote:I suspect that Mr. Blackmore would still be carrying. But Adam Lanza might not have had access to an AR-15.
But he might have had access to one or more of the 2,000+ gun models explicitly exempted from the proposed legislation.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby ArturoBandini » Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:36 pm

DCB wrote:I think the more relevant question, vis-a-vis gun grabbing is:
if Senator Feinstein's bill had been passed last year...
An additional question related to the Lanza case in the context of this hypothetical - if Lanza's mother already owned the AR-15 before the Feinstein legislation were passed, would Adam Lanza still have had access to that gun after the bill went into effect? If not, does that mean that "gun grabbing" would have taken place in the meantime?
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby pjbogart » Fri Mar 15, 2013 12:43 am

ArturoBandini wrote:
DCB wrote:I think the more relevant question, vis-a-vis gun grabbing is:
if Senator Feinstein's bill had been passed last year...
An additional question related to the Lanza case in the context of this hypothetical - if Lanza's mother already owned the AR-15 before the Feinstein legislation were passed, would Adam Lanza still have had access to that gun after the bill went into effect? If not, does that mean that "gun grabbing" would have taken place in the meantime?


That's a great point, Arturo, and it nicely segues into an important point about politics overall: If you can't guarantee that a law will solve a problem or if it may take time to solve the problem, it's better to simply do nothing. I mean, what if you passed an assault weapons ban and next week someone blew away a bunch of third graders with an AR-15? Not only would you look silly, you might lose your seat in Congress.

A better solution is to simply treat all problems as unsolvable, and a good way to do this is my declaring yourself a libertarian. Essentially, all problems are the results of random occurence, and there's nothing we can do about any of them without illegally infringing upon people's God-given rights.

So, life is shit, that's the way it's supposed to be and go fuck yourself if you try to make a difference.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: Handgun Stop a Woman From Being Beaten

Postby ArturoBandini » Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:33 am

pjbogart wrote:That's a great point, Arturo, and it nicely segues into an important point about politics overall: If you can't guarantee that a law will solve a problem or if it may take time to solve the problem, it's better to simply do nothing.
It's not an issue of "guaranteed to work" or not - there is good evidence that gun control laws will not be even remotely as effective at accomplishing their goals as their backers claim. Additionally, such laws may backfire in unpredicted ways and cause more harm than good. It's not a matter of a few cases slipping through the cracks, but the creation of a law that is practically unenforceable, or worse, selectively enforceable at the whim of whoever holds power at the moment.

And I'm not saying that gun violence is insolvable. But it's probably not solvable with laws alone. I think it's probably better to spend political capital on something else.
pjbogart wrote:Essentially, all problems are the results of random occurence, and there's nothing we can do about any of them without illegally infringing upon people's God-given rights.
Total mischaracterization of my positions.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

PreviousNext

Return to Local Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar