-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Horray for Fox News...
- Thread starter massnee
- Start date
blindndead
NES Member
NICE, Wake up people!!!
![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
About Time, Thanks for the post!
blindndead
NES Member
True, that's why I passed it on to myspace for all my friend's to repost. We need it to be seen and understood.
I sent this to anti-gun lib acquaintance and the response was predictable:
"What happens when an untrained citizens tries to stop the bad guy and starts shooting other innocents? That's just not a risk I'm willing to take."![[crying]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/006.gif "Crying [crying]")
"What happens when an untrained citizens tries to stop the bad guy and starts shooting other innocents? That's just not a risk I'm willing to take."
"What happens when an untrained citizens tries to stop the bad guy and starts shooting other innocents? That's just not a risk I'm willing to take."
I will take an untrained citizen with a gun over the untrained citizen without a gun any time. At least the latter would have a fighting chance...
Last edited:
"What happens when an untrained citizens tries to stop the bad guy and starts shooting other innocents? That's just not a risk I'm willing to take."
That question would be met with a swift SMACK, then grab the persons shoulders, and shake them until they either woke the hell up, or passed out from the shaking!
Seriously, I would reply to that person something like this.
Cool, if we are ever in this situation, I will use you as a human shield to get away safely!
blindndead
NES Member
I sent this to anti-gun lib acquaintance and the response was predictable:
"What happens when an untrained citizens tries to stop the bad guy and starts shooting other innocents? That's just not a risk I'm willing to take."
All I know is I needed to go thru some training to get my class A, right?
Not really, you can get a class A without ever touching a gun.
DUH!
Huh! You have an untrained criminal shooting unarmed people so you wouldn`t want an untrained armed good guy there to deter the shooter? That`s typical liberal anti-gun logic.
They would rather see innocent people slaughtered than admit an armed citizen could have stopped this POS. What an a**h***!
********I sent this to anti-gun lib acquaintance and the response was predictable:
"What happens when an untrained citizens tries to stop the bad guy and starts shooting other innocents? That's just not a risk I'm willing to take."
Huh! You have an untrained criminal shooting unarmed people so you wouldn`t want an untrained armed good guy there to deter the shooter? That`s typical liberal anti-gun logic.
They would rather see innocent people slaughtered than admit an armed citizen could have stopped this POS. What an a**h***!
Pretty sure all mass Safty courses require live fire of a handgun.
Still that can be your first time touching a gun, and the guns and ammo are almost always supplied
Nope. The list of approved courses is here:
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eopster...oved_basic_firearms_safety_courses&csid=Eeops
The NRA Home Safety Course LTC-007 does not contain any range work. I'm certified to teach it and would be glad to show you the course materials.
I suspect that the Worcester Police Department Firearms Responsibility and Safety Program doesn't include any live firing either.
NOT true. It is possible to take a Mass. certified firearms safety course and never fire a shot.
The object of the exercise to teach proper handling and storage; not marksmanship. This policy can be - and has been - questioned, but the law is clear.
Even if places like Boston, Brookline, Newton, Dedham et al refuse to acknowledge it.
Another great opinion piece by Lott but the MSM will never allow a reporter to include Lott's thoughts in a "news" story.
The anti Bill of Rights extremists (i.e. Brady et al) will never concede that Lott is right.
The anti Bill of Rights extremists (i.e. Brady et al) will never concede that Lott is right.
The course I took at the Westport police station did not involve any firing of a gun. We did have many to hold and learn how to properly handle, check, and store. I wasn't worried about this because I had shot plenty in the past just not with my own gun.
Gun Free Zones are just as effective as Drug Free Zones. It is feel good legislation that is a waste of money. At best it just adds another charge to the pile if an arrest is made for a drug related offense in the area.
MetalgodZ
NES Member
While I agree with the article posted, and the sentiment that it should be brought to the attention of others, I've got a couple of complaints.
First, it's high on details about historical shootings, both those which were stopped by someone with a CCW and those which were not, but makes broad claims about the effectiveness of CCW as a deterrant despite the fact that there are numerous studies with quantifiable data.
Second, consider the author. John Lott has been around for a LONG time, and he has had his share of controversy regarding how he promotes his work. Given that he's been around for the length of time he has, I'm not sure why he didn't include more statistics from other sources to back up his argument. They're not omitted because they're not out there...because they are!!! Laziness on his part? I'm not sure, but I'm a bit disappointed, because it makes it easier to dismiss his argument.
Third, consider the source. Let's not get into a discussion of whether the majority of the media is "liberal" versus "conservative," but let's consider the normal reaction of someone whose opinion you want to change. They're probably (stereotypically) going to be a liberal, right? And that theoretical liberal is most likely going to think of Fox News as a biased "conservative" source, right? Again, this is another thing that makes it easier to dismiss the argument.
It comes down to the same thing as every other argument. If you can logically, factually explain something, and back it up with credible, unbiased studies, you're much more likely to affect someone's feelings on a subject.
First, it's high on details about historical shootings, both those which were stopped by someone with a CCW and those which were not, but makes broad claims about the effectiveness of CCW as a deterrant despite the fact that there are numerous studies with quantifiable data.
Second, consider the author. John Lott has been around for a LONG time, and he has had his share of controversy regarding how he promotes his work. Given that he's been around for the length of time he has, I'm not sure why he didn't include more statistics from other sources to back up his argument. They're not omitted because they're not out there...because they are!!! Laziness on his part? I'm not sure, but I'm a bit disappointed, because it makes it easier to dismiss his argument.
Third, consider the source. Let's not get into a discussion of whether the majority of the media is "liberal" versus "conservative," but let's consider the normal reaction of someone whose opinion you want to change. They're probably (stereotypically) going to be a liberal, right? And that theoretical liberal is most likely going to think of Fox News as a biased "conservative" source, right? Again, this is another thing that makes it easier to dismiss the argument.
It comes down to the same thing as every other argument. If you can logically, factually explain something, and back it up with credible, unbiased studies, you're much more likely to affect someone's feelings on a subject.
im trying to find a way to send fox news an email to "praise" them for this hahahaha its about f'in time the news open their eyes and sees the REAL problem.
*edit* found it [email protected] <[email protected]>
*edit* found it [email protected] <[email protected]>
Last edited:
Contrast the Fox article with the piece of trash broadcast by Pete Williams on MSNBC. I think you'll have to copy and paste it in your browser:
http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&bra...s:ns:MSNVideo_Top_Cat:ps:10:sd:-1:ind:1:ff:8A
I'd tell this person that I shoot over 12,000 rounds a year, and train pretty hard shooting and a variety of other self defense and fitness. So what's her concept of self defense? Hiding under a bench in the dressing room with the rest of the sheep.
http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&bra...s:ns:MSNVideo_Top_Cat:ps:10:sd:-1:ind:1:ff:8A
I'd tell this person that I shoot over 12,000 rounds a year, and train pretty hard shooting and a variety of other self defense and fitness. So what's her concept of self defense? Hiding under a bench in the dressing room with the rest of the sheep.
John doesn't so much "promote" his work as he does stand up to people who like to make baseless allegations regarding his statistical work. The reason so many people hate him is that nobody has managed to make a criticism of any of his studies that will stand the light of day. The Bradys' usual stable of hacks make their attacks on his analyses, and if they're published in any reputable journal John immediately replies, ripping them apart point by point. As a result, they're forced to resort to ad hominem attacks and vague statements that his work has been discredited.
As to citing other studies, the problem is that he's done the best, most robust studies on most of these topics. There are a lot of other studies, but few of them are as well designed or use as much good data as his. I know that John would like to get these articles distributed through more media, but that's the problem with media bias. He's had some in the WSJ, and even a few in the NY Times, but I wouldn't expect the Times or Globe to publish something critical of their biased reporting.
Ken
I sent this to anti-gun lib acquaintance and the response was predictable:
"What happens when an untrained citizens tries to stop the bad guy and starts shooting other innocents? That's just not a risk I'm willing to take."
What you need to tell your acquaintance is that there are 2 outcomes:
1) Bad guy shooting people, no one around who can stop them = masacre.
2) Bad guy shooting people, CCW holder confronts bad guy and stops a masacre.
"Accidental shooting of innocents" could happen - but that's just the same as outcome 1 - you will still have a masacre. It is also unlikely since very few people have CCW permits, and most CCW permit holders aren't stupid or cowboys.
/I know, I'm preaching to the choir.
I sent this to anti-gun lib acquaintance and the response was predictable:
"What happens when an untrained citizens tries to stop the bad guy and starts shooting other innocents? That's just not a risk I'm willing to take."
The irony in that statement is the same anti-gun lib is probably
more than willing to imply a greater level of trust to a police
officer (or even a mall cop!) who might just happen to be just as "marginally" trained.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
(FWIW, no offense to LEOs intended... it isn't exactly a secret that a lot of
departments simply cannot afford to maintain high levels of training standards,
etc... )
-Mike
Last edited:
