David13
-
Posts
793 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by David13
-
-
I am not pleased with the church's policy of "inappropriate" to carry a firearm to the church.
I like the idea that there are good people with guns at the church. And I think it is quite appropriate in this day and age to think of the church's statement of inappropriateness as precatory. Not mandatory.
And that therefore when I go to Sacrament meeting and classes that, if a BAD GUY shows up with a gun, he being the type to have an illegal gun, under illegal ownership, and without regard to any law, background check, probation or parole or other admonition against him bringing that gun, that somebody can do something about it (LIKE MAYBE SAVE MY LIFE!!) if that bad guy gets out of line (STARTS SHOOTING).
Thank you very much.
dc
-
I think if you are raising any kind of chaplains, that is probably a good thing.
I suppose pride is a good answer and probably the real core of the matter.
But I suppose there could also be emotional reasons, or financial reasons.
dc
-
I would doubt your records were lost. I think you just haven't found where they are. And had them transferred, and all that. Your ward clerk may be able to help, or you may have to go to or call Salt Lake City.
Or write.
dc
-
I would suggest some serious marital counseling for both of you.
dc
-
-
I was never trained in this manner. I was taught to fire until the threat is neutralized. If that took one shot or an entire magazine. What you don't want to do is empty your magazine if at all possible. That's a good way to get killed, which is something I'm allergic to. However, you are correct that you shoot only to stop a threat. You also never shoot to simply wound. That is something a sniper is trained to do depending on the circumstances. I've seen snipers shoot the gun out of a perp's hand and then I've seen them shoot center mass. Again, it all depends on the circumstances.
Jojo
Maybe we only disagree on semantics. Sometimes you have no opportunity to stop to determine if you have neutralized the threat. So you keep going til you can safely find out. It could cost a lot to stop and find out the perp is still shooting.
I can give you a link to two videos which you probaby/may have seen. In both the mag (16 or 17) is emptied. In one, twice, as the threat is still firing, even with a second leo shooter shooting. Here was a guy who took maybe 30 rounds before going down still shooting. All in what, 10 seconds?
The other, his 16 or 17 fly as fast as possible, and he still can't tell a thing about the threat. He then approaches to see WITHOUT reloading. One of those heat of the moment mistakes that could have hurt him but didn't.
I'm talking about Middlefield Ohio, and Akron Ohio, bb gun.
dc
-
"I was nervous because its so rare, I'm 47 so as you can guess guns ... "
The US, though, is the only country in the world where, following a mass shooting, the nation has responded with loosening, not tightening, gun laws. After 23 people were killed in a mass shooting in Texas in 1991, the state pushed through a law permitting the carrying of concealed weapons. Even the murder of 26
First, as I have said, education can help you. I go to gun ranges where there are dozens of people with dozens of guns, all with live ammo, all in use. I am amongst my brothers. We all follow safety rules stricktly and trust each other. I feel much safer there than in some areas in the USA.
Second, some states respond with more anti gun laws, which don't reduce crime and don't even address what the shooting was.
You need to find out about a lady in Texas who brought about the carry law there, who had to hide under a table while her parents were shot to death because the law told her to leave her gun in her car. She could have saved her parents life but for a stupid and cocamamie law that ENABLEd AND HELPED the criminal shooter to, in cold blood, total stranger, murder her parents before her eyes, and DID NOT reduce crime. Listen to her story and you might see why they changed that law.
Further, in many cases the "statistics" are loaded for the agenda. Suicides are included. Most of the murders continue to be inner city, thug, drug, and alcohol people who iike to kill with an ILLEGAL (owned against the law) gun.
They have this funny thing where they don't follow the laws, can you imagine that.
As Anatess has pointed out you have a great many other misconceptions in your post.
dc
-
Another way to put it - Vort, if you ever actually use violence to defend your life, you'll most likely go to court. A good prosecuting attorney will search for stuff you've said online, and all this stuff you've been saying here about shooting to kill being the sole motivation, will be read to a jury. And they'll go off and think about whether you were just defending yourself, or trying to kill someone using a situation as an excuse.
I wouldn't say you are likely to go to court.
First, there are DAs and there are DAs. But they all have to go by the evidence. So at their review and based on the police investigation they may or may not find a basis for criminal charges being brought against Vort. It all depends on how the thing has played out.
In wacky land, here in Los Angeles, you are far more likely; perhaps rural areas in Texas and Florida, less likely. But they will look at what the evidence shows before the file any court charges.
dc
-
I'd heard that had changed. It's kind of a tactically stupid move. Sure if you know for sure that there's only one threat, you're good. If there's another you're sitting there with an empty gun and an active threat.
You have to carry additional mags. If you have no additional mags, no, you wouldn't do that if you had perceived any possibility of a second shooter.
As to revolvers, I just saw a post about an old cop in Arizona what carries an old revolver.
Speed loaders. Using a speed loader, these revolvers can be reloaded as fast as an auto (which means SEMI auto).
Usually a lot less than 2 to 3 seconds.
A lot of cops today carry Glocks with a double stack which will give you 16 or 17 rounds.
But in many cases they have indeed emptied the mag.
I can post two videos of actual shootings where one, he emptied the mag, then approached the car apparently without reloading.
And a second where he empties the first mag, then reloads, and empties the second mag, which is the only thing stopping the shooter.
dc
kapikui
There is cop training and there is cop training. It's all different. Some is basically non existent, and some is rather extensive and varied. It all depends on the agency.
-
I think I've seen a gun in the UK maybe 4 or 5 times, made me feel very nervous at the sight. That our police and public don't carry firearms around all the time makes me feel a lot safer than if they did.
You are nervous of a thing you don't know, of a thing you have not yet learned about. Your fear is a fear of the unknown. Education is the cure.
Because you and your police are unarmed, you are all sitting ducks for the armed. You are not safer, you just don't have to feel your fear of the unknown.
If you want to feel 100 times more fear, wait until some armed bad guy comes around you. And then you will also feel helpless, naked, and undefended.
dc
-
No, I'm saying what you said. But I think your distinction, while valid, is not very meaningful. Those who carry guns do so BECAUSE guns are deadly. That is why they are useful for self-defense. Maybe there is a legal reason to make the distinction.
Basically the legal reason is that you were in fear of your life, and you shot to stop the threat, with no intention to kill. Just to defend yourself.
(This is a simplified version.)
Now, police are trained to empty their magazine to stop a threat. You keep shooting til the threat is stopped. If they are still holding on to their weapon, even tho' they are down, they are still a threat.
But at no time to you intend to kill. Only to defend yourself.
dc
It has to do with your intent. Most crimes have to do with intent. Intent can show that you had no criminal intent.
However, if the dead one was one you hated, and threatened to kill many times, and you saw this as an opportunity to accomplish the deed, you may be up a creek.
Depending on what you say. It depends on how you tell the story. But also what story the evidence tells.
-
-
jojoBag
I have to agree with you on that. Police are seldom first responders, but that's the litany we hear preached daily. We are the first responders. We are the ones there. And we have the right, no, the duty to respond as do these alleged 'first responders" who are just coming along later to clean up the scene, or do an "investigation".
dc
-
Well I was there so I felt it a whole lot. I did miss the calling of the apostles and also the Sunday a.m. with the Music and the Spoken Word, as those were the two sessions I didn't have tickets for.
It was all so wonderful. The Temple, all the people visiting from everywhere, people gathering outside before and after the sessions, or duing a session when they didn't have tickets, just sitting on the lawn and listening to the loudspeakers outside.
There were a few of the nutty protesters but they were few and far between and easy to ignore.
The many missionary sisters, and they all love to talk. The elder missionaries, stationed around the grounds, they like to talk also, and so do it.
I thought all the talks were inspired and inspiring and worth hearing.
Of course, the easiest to remember was ponderize.
Today a young man witnessed about Elder Holland's talk about mothers. Another lady testified that 3 of the talks covered motherhood.
I need to review it all. So many people were taking notes. I guess I was quite excited to be there so I didn't remember any particular talk. Other than ponderize, and so many have posted about that. I need to do that.
Also, I need to watch the two sessions I missed, but I can't get them going on my computer (I tried 2, maybe the settings are wrong or something.)
But I liked it all. Including the food, Navoo Cafe and Lion House, and Garden Restaurant.
- Sunday21, classylady and Bee Sweet
-
3
-
No gun in my house and I am reducing the chance of someone I know getting shot.
I don't see how you figure that.
Many people without a gun get shot. In fact, what this whole thread is based on, a shooting at a college, all the people that got shot did not have a gun.
Conversely, I'm sure there are people who own many guns, and someone breaks in, they don't wake up, and they get shot.
I don't think the two ideas are related.
I think you are confusing coincidence with causation.
dc
-
I'm all for private property rights. I respect the rights of businessowners, homeowners, private schools and universities and whatnot, to ban guns.
But they're stupid if they do so without hardening security. Because banning guns does squat to make people safe. They may make people feel safe, but that's it.
I don't feel "safe" in a "gun free zone". I feel like a sittiing duck.
dc
-
How about food. Isn't it usually food. LIke an apple pie or something.
dc
-
I thought ponderize was a real good idea. I think I need to do that.
dc
-
He's ok for an 88 year old.
And he has a walking problem. Someone had to hold his arm and walk him in on Saturday and Sunday.
But Saturday night he gave a good speech with no problem.
However, at 88 you may have good days and bad days. Trying to get his good days on Conference days may be a problem.
I didn't see the Sunday a.m. session, only the afternoon session.
dc
-
Question for all:
How might you, if at all, change the way, words, and intents of your posts here if you knew that one of the twelve was reading it?
A bit of a sober thought, eh?
I wouldn't change my posts.
But it might well be educational.
Depending on what they post.
dc
-
So I watched it on tv.
But there is so much more to being there for the live performance.
I hope the Mormon Tabernacle Choir is back for this afternoon's session.
dc
-
You have, I think a good point there, Eowyn.
But there were times with my wife when I preferred this dress or that dress or that outfit etc.
So yes, any man will see the beauty, that was a part of his interest in the first place, but there is the question what looks better, or what looks good.
And then the issue of honesty.
What if the question is not with the wife, then. With a friend or co-worker? And you want to accomodate them, rather than try to offer an honest opinion? Is that dishonesty? What is the result?
dc
-
If it's only deodorant, ok.
But if it's a half quart of "perfume" (read smelly chemicals, to which MANY people have an allergy) which can be overwhelming from 50 feet away, then it's offensive. And inappropriate.
In fact, if you ever attend symphony, opera, etc., in certain places they will by written word tell you, no perfume, people have allergies.
dc
-
Eowyn
You know we have to consider context. Where we live and what environment, etc.
In Los Angeles there are vast armies of women who are fake and false in many regards. And it all seems to start with fake hair color, then progresses on to fake body parts, tattoos, metal piercings in overt and covert body locations, far too much makeup, glitzy gaudy jewelry, etc.
Yes, I am including all that plastic surgery, implants, and who knows what else.
Yes, I do think it is inappropriate. If it were only the hair color, ok, but what I have seen is, it never is.
I did mention "perfume". Far too many of them smell like a chemical factory from about 50 feet away.
Some makeup, yes, but not the gaudy over application that is seen in far too many places where I go. (But far less here in Utah - I think I'd like to stay here.)
dc
Praying to get problems
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
I suppose Pres Eyring was a kid once and did things kids do. Like ask for trouble.
But many people do things that are challenges. I ride a motorcycle. And always look for longer trips.
Others may sky dive, learn to be a pilot, etc.
Anything that may be a real challenge to them.
The theory is that they find life too tame otherwise.
The thrill. The challenge. The test, trial, etc.
I can see it.
dc