Outrage after NY paper publishes names of gun permit holders

[two_bit_score]

I believe an armed society is a polite society. For the most part. The ones who aren't don't last long.

.

 

[MossRoad]

for things bigger than the .22 and smaller than your deer rifle? Agreed.

But you do NOT need to unload a 30 clip mag on full auto into a coyote, unless you are really ticked off at him.

Statistically speaking, there are near no fully auto .223s in the public's hands. 99.999% of them have to have the trigger pulled once for each shot fired.

From the few shows I have seen on hunting coyotes, they call them in as close as they can. Sometimes there are 4 and 5 of them at once. They shoot the farthest one out first and the remaining ones scatter fast, so yes, they sometimes do go through 3-4 or more shots at the ones on full run. Three shots on four coyotes equals 12 rounds.

As for ticked off, well, personally, I have nothing against a coyote. But a rancher with a herd of cattle or sheep being decimated may take it personally.

As for my personal opinion of an AR style .223...

For personal protection, it would not be my choice in our area. Too many houses, too many people and too much power. I'd choose a shotgun with no choke and bird shot for inside the house. I could use the same shotgun for deer or turkey with different barrels. The .223 is not legal for hunting deer here and I don't have varmints of size, so the only use for it would be recreational shooting. I get more enjoyment out of .22 rimfire and it is dirt cheap to shoot. A 50 round clip on a Ruger 10/22 is a hoot. So is long range plinking with a nice single shot .22 with peep sights or a scope. :thumbsup:

 

[MossRoad]

Two problems with that statement:
1. Very few full auto guns available and you have to jump through all kinds of hoops to get one. 99.9999% of the "assault weapons" out there are semi-auto, not full auto
2. What if you are going after a pack of 10 coyotes? 3 shots each with them running around wouldn't be out of the realm of possbility would it?

Aaron Z

Or I could have read further and quoted you. :laughing:

Well said, :thumbsup:

 

[MossRoad]

No, what I told you is how what is "wrong with others" (IMO) has made the world a worse place than it was...

Honestly I don't waste my time trying to envision something that does not exist or never will...however the benefits of an "improved" world with start with things like the end of disease, hunger/poverty etc. etc...one of the main reasons a "perfect world" will never be is because there is no way to eliminate greed (without eliminating humans altogether)...

Now..."If I were king"...there'd be some changes made...!

For starters...one of the first things would be getting rid of things like the ACLU...I would turn prisons (back) into a place (so horrible) that once a person got a taste of would never do anything again that would send them back...

If you were king you'd have to worry about your armed subjects overthrowing you. :laughing:

 

[two_bit_score]

you already know the answer to that one..sweep sweep sweep it under the rug

What is interesting is how the media blatantly tries to shape the discussion on issues involving guns. Here in the U.S. it's guns that kill and yet in Afghanistan it seems it's people in poverty that kill. Strange?

>>>In Kabul the other day, an Afghan policewoman shot dead her American police trainer and would’ve shot others, too, if her service pistol hadn’t jammed.

Here’s how Reuters characterized the incident today in a piece titled Mental illness, poverty haunted Afghan policewoman who killed American:

The Afghan policewoman suspected of killing a U.S. contractor at police headquarters in Kabul suffered from mental illness and was driven to suicidal despair by poverty, her children told Reuters on Wednesday. …

On the floor beside [her son] were his mother’s prescriptions and a thick plastic bag filled with pills she tried to swallow to end the misery about a month ago. On another occasion, she cut her wrist with a razor, Sayed said. …Afghanistan is one of the world’s poorest nations, with a third of its 30 million residents living under the poverty line.

So in Afghanistan, according to Reuters, guns don’t kill people; poor people kill people.* It’s poverty that’s deadly.

None of the article’s 800 words is devoted to the gun the woman used.

Now compare that with Reuters’ post-mortem (if you will) on the Newtown massacre titled, Connecticut gunman had hundreds of rounds; Obama to console Newtown:

The gunman who slaughtered 20 young children in Connecticut stormed Sandy Hook Elementary School armed with hundreds of bullets for a military-style assault rifle and handguns, and shot himself when police closed in, officials said on Sunday. …

He also carried two handguns and hundreds of bullets in “multiple” high-capacity magazines of about 30 rounds each, and had a fourth weapon in reserve — a shotgun in his car outside, Connecticut state police Lieutenant Paul Vance said. …

In addition to the military-style Bushmaster assault rifle, a civilian version of the weapon used by U.S. forces in Afghanistan, police said Lanza carried a Glock 10 mm and Sig Sauer 9 mm handguns into the school.

On it goes like that for nearly 1100 words, with no mention even of shooter Adam Lanza’s apparent mental issues.

In another article, Reuters actually assembled what it called a “profile” of the weapon itself.* It contains nine bullet (!) points worth of factoids, from price to usability.

Kinda makes you wonder how the media would’ve covered Newtown if Lanza had been a poor Afghan refugee.* Or if Afghanistan had a Second Amendment.<<<<

 

[k0ua]

What is interesting is how the media blatantly tries to shape the discussion on issues involving guns. Here in the U.S. it's guns that kill and yet in Afghanistan it seems it's people in poverty that kill. Strange?

>>>In Kabul the other day, an Afghan policewoman shot dead her American police trainer and would’ve shot others, too, if her service pistol hadn’t jammed.

Here’s how Reuters characterized the incident today in a piece titled Mental illness, poverty haunted Afghan policewoman who killed American:

The Afghan policewoman suspected of killing a U.S. contractor at police headquarters in Kabul suffered from mental illness and was driven to suicidal despair by poverty, her children told Reuters on Wednesday. …

On the floor beside [her son] were his mother’s prescriptions and a thick plastic bag filled with pills she tried to swallow to end the misery about a month ago. On another occasion, she cut her wrist with a razor, Sayed said. …Afghanistan is one of the world’s poorest nations, with a third of its 30 million residents living under the poverty line.

So in Afghanistan, according to Reuters, guns don’t kill people; poor people kill people.* It’s poverty that’s deadly.

None of the article’s 800 words is devoted to the gun the woman used.

Now compare that with Reuters’ post-mortem (if you will) on the Newtown massacre titled, Connecticut gunman had hundreds of rounds; Obama to console Newtown:

The gunman who slaughtered 20 young children in Connecticut stormed Sandy Hook Elementary School armed with hundreds of bullets for a military-style assault rifle and handguns, and shot himself when police closed in, officials said on Sunday. …

He also carried two handguns and hundreds of bullets in “multiple” high-capacity magazines of about 30 rounds each, and had a fourth weapon in reserve — a shotgun in his car outside, Connecticut state police Lieutenant Paul Vance said. …

In addition to the military-style Bushmaster assault rifle, a civilian version of the weapon used by U.S. forces in Afghanistan, police said Lanza carried a Glock 10 mm and Sig Sauer 9 mm handguns into the school.

On it goes like that for nearly 1100 words, with no mention even of shooter Adam Lanza’s apparent mental issues.

In another article, Reuters actually assembled what it called a “profile” of the weapon itself.* It contains nine bullet (!) points worth of factoids, from price to usability.

Kinda makes you wonder how the media would’ve covered Newtown if Lanza had been a poor Afghan refugee.* Or if Afghanistan had a Second Amendment.<<<<

amazing isn't it?:thumbsup:

 

[two_bit_score]

amazing isn't it?:thumbsup:

I guess the hypocrisy of the left is almost routine these days but I think it should be pointed out often. Here is an example involving Rham Emanuel, the current Chicago Mayor and the issue of armed guards at schools.

>>>>This is a qoute from Rham: "It’s outrageous and unsettling that the NRA would choose to address gun violence not by taking assault weapons off our streets, but by adding more guns to our schools… That is not the right answer for our society, our schools and most importantly our children.

People across this country, from small towns to big cities, are united and ready to pass common-sense gun control legislation. The time has come for the NRA to get on board or get out of the way."

Yet, a report from Second City Cop,*further investigated by Rebel Pundit, reveals that the University of Chicago Lab School, the elite private school where Mayor Emanuel sends his children, has its own armed guard. Not only that, Second City Cop reports that Mayor Emanuel’s children have an armed escort to and from school.

Let’s not forget that Chicago has the strictest gun control legislation in the country, and only recently residents were afforded the still-burdensome ability to exercise their Second-amendment rights. Yet, this prescription somehow fails to halt the bloodbath of violence on Chicago’s streets.

About one year ago, I attended a grassroots organization meeting of inner-city African American mothers who were fighting for second-amendment rights. The packed room was full of people demanding the ability to defend themselves in Rahm Emanuel’s wartorn city. Rahm Emanuel ought to go show his face at a meeting like that and tell them why he thinks they shouldn’t be able to protect themselves with the same weapons the non-law-abiding criminals have. The same weapons by which his own children are protected.

And no, Mayor Emanuel, the answer is not deploying additional uniformed anti-Semitic Nation of Islam patrol units, as you did this summer. As the privileged students at the University of Chicago Lab School remain protected by an armed guard, Emanuel withholds the same protection from those truly in the crosshairs of the disintegrating city over which Rahm rules.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Don't you think it's odd how the 'elite' feel something just fine for them is something you, I or other ordinary citizens should not be allowed to have?


.

 

[IslandTractor]

I appreciate the perceived and probably real anti gun bias in many of the Newtown reports. It isn't exactly shocking and many other articles have been more balanced with significant discussion of the mental health angle. Recall that the mental health information dribbled out over the week after the shooting while the guns were evident immediately. Also, there was a tendency in papers I read to have multiple stories some focusing on the community, some on the victims, some on guns and some on mental health. If you look just at one of the stories in a paper it might seem biased but looking at overall coverage in the past ten days I've seen articles covering the issues from many different perspectives.

The NRA contribution however was laughable. Refusing any comment for a week and then issuing a statement limited to discussing putting volunteers with guns into schools??? Far more biased and lame response than what we saw from the press IMO.

By the way, volunteers with guns in our schools??? Really? Would you want to sign off on a plan to choose maybe five volunteers for each of maybe ten thousand schools and believe you are not going to get some nut cases with guns in the mix? We don't want to trade one problem for another. Man, I couldn't even trust ten thousand priest volunteers in schools. And where is the evidence that volunteers with guns make a difference? I read somewhere that there was an armed policeman in Columbine at the time of the shooting there. Not positive about that but if it is true why didn't NRA address that fact? The NRA gave us a half baked whacko proposal meant more as a smoke screen and diversionary tactic than a serious response to the problem.

 

[Gunny]

Slightly off thread, but it's been meandering off and on anyway. How come the public wants to crucify the NRA for advocating armed guards in schools and there certainly wasn't much of an outcry in 1998 when Bill Clinton wanted "Cops in Schools?" It's all about timing. Right now the anti gun crowd is demonizing guns and gun related crime, but they are addressing the real root cause of the problem, people, especially people with mental issues. Were any of the shooters involved in mass shootings found to be sane, if I remember correctly, all had some type of mental issue and people around them knew of it, yet nothing was really done about it. Guns don't kill people, a gun is designed to propel a projectile, anything else that happens after that is the responsibility of the person behind the gun. When a senior citizen mistakes his brake pedal from the accelerator pedal and drives their car into a crowd of people, killing some and injuring others, you don't here anyone wanting to ban cars.

By the way Ken, you've got a real knack for starting controversial threads!

 

[MF1433V]

...makes you wonder how the media would’ve covered Newtown if Lanza had been a poor Afghan refugee.* Or if Afghanistan had a Second Amendment.<<<<

Excellent post I hadn't even picked up that particular bias in reporting.