If you had a week?

[onfire]

Seems to me a alert 7 days before a giant storm was to hit the East coast yet so many people were unprepared. In a case like this what would you do? I know helping your neighbor is the right thing to do, but if you were one of those dooms day preparers. If you planned for years for just this kind of incident and others didn't would you share? By the way if I built my house 3 ft from the waves would you feel sorry for me if it just floated away. Then living in a state without conceal and carry then going on T.V. and question why they are being looted.answers the question why "Be Prepared" ?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[bigscoop]

Even many of those who thought they were prepared were not truly prepared. In some cases preparations were destroyed. Others simply had no means to prepare. And, yes, some just ignored the warnings or thought them to be over exaggerated. The other issue, there is no "exactness" in per-determining these natural disasters or the level of their destruction. It is still largely a best guess scenario until it is nearly on top of things. For those of us who are unaffected it's sometimes easy to peer into what seems so obvious, yet perhaps, it isn't. And as far as the looting issue, think how much worse it might be if the looters were equally, or perhaps, even better armed? For the most part, right now it's just looting but if we toss a bunch of guns into the equation it could be a whole lot worse with many innocent people getting killed instead of just robbed. A very tough situation, to be sure, but perhaps not quite as clear cut to those of us on the outside looking in.

 

[onfire]

Even many of those who thought they were prepared were not truly prepared. In some cases preparations were destroyed. Others simply had no means to prepare. And, yes, some just ignored the warnings or thought them to be over exaggerated. The other issue, there is no "exactness" in per-determining these natural disasters or the level of their destruction. It is still largely a best guess scenario until it is nearly on top of things. For those of us who are unaffected it's sometimes easy to peer into what seems so obvious, yet perhaps, it isn't. And as far as the looting issue, think how much worse it might be if the looters were equally, or perhaps, even better armed? For the most part, right now it's just looting but if we toss a bunch of guns into the equation it could be a whole lot worse with many innocent people getting killed instead of just robbed. A very tough situation, to be sure, but perhaps not quite as clear cut to those of us on the outside looking in.

scoop No offense but your thoughts about the gun issue! A person with any brains knowing a law abiding citizen with a gun for protection should have second thoughts about looting. Almost all people who own guns for defense are somewhat trained to hit what they are aiming at. Most looters carry a weapon for intimidation.Bring a bat I'll bring a knife, bring a knife I'll bring a gun bring a gun make sure you're wearing a vest.

 

[FarmerChick]

Seems to me a alert 7 days before a giant storm was to hit the East coast yet so many people were unprepared. 7 days isn't long to prepare when ALL THE PEOPLE are hitting the stores wiping out bottled water and competition for supplies gets insane. In a case like this what would you do? I know helping your neighbor is the right thing to do, but if you were one of those dooms day preparers. If you planned for years for just this kind of incident and others didn't would you share? Depends on the help needed. Sure I would help 'a bit'. By the way if I built my house 3 ft from the waves would you feel sorry for me if it just floated away. Yes I would feel sorry for anyone that had a home destroyed. Sometimes people can't move out of an area that may have weather concerns that hit. just think of the tornado alley people.Then living in a state without conceal and carry then going on T.V. and question why they are being looted.conceal and carry, the state either has the law or not. looting is STUFF. anyone who fights for stuff and dies is crazy. It usually isn't a life and death struggle what is being looted etc. common sense is so important during disasters. answers the question why "Be Prepared" ?

I answered in the bold to the post. Big storms and other weather happens. I also liked BigS post.

 

[Chadeaux]

Ya know what's funny . . . yous same folks who feel so sorry that things are that way up in yankee land in the wake of Sandy (a category 1 storm) were hell bent on showing how terrible the PEOPLE were when it happened in New Orleans after Katrina (A category 3 or 4 storm when it hit).

Bit of a double standard.

Problem is, no matter where you live, tragedy brings out either the best or the worst in the individual. When you remove law enforcement, the worst folks will go back to being themselves.

 

[bigscoop]

onfire, your logic is flawed my friend. Looters are the aggressors, many of them obviously careless and desperate and without conscience, and many of them are all too willing to shoot someone because they have little to lose. Putting a bunch of home grown Rambo want-to-be's out there with guns is only going to get a bunch of people killed and make the situation more desperate. As they say on Monday Night Football, "Come on man!" And speaking of football, let's give every player, coach, and fan a loaded gun as they enter the stadium and see if we can make it to half-time without someone getting shot. Guns and excitable environments don't mix. Never have, never will, and arming everyone clearly isn't the answer.

 

[Frankn]

Big scoop, you are wrong on the gun issue. A person in a home with a gun is defending his home and family, something to die for. A robber would look for easier pickings after the first shot is fired. The aggressor does not have the same mental determination as the defender, Take the Spartans for example. You should have picked that up in Phys.101.
As far as location, If I chose to live there, I would build to withstand the worst case event. Those concrete towers from WWII on the DE Rout #1 are still there today, even though the Rout #1 out. Frank

 

[truckinbutch]

'Scoop , I love ya , man , but you are way off base on the home defense issue . Most criminal vs armed citizen conflicts are resolved without a shot being fired .(Google NRA/ILA>Armed Citizen) Most times just the presence of a firearm causes a criminal to withdraw or surrender .
Us armed citizens , for the most part , are not Rambo wannabes looking for an excuse to 'light up the streets'. We are reasoning humans who take the responsibility of going armed very seriously .
Those who fail to use due diligence and prudence are called "The Defendant" by the local prosecuting attorney .
Jim

 

[bigscoop]

Big scoop, you are wrong on the gun issue. A person in a home with a gun is defending his home and family, something to die for. A robber would look for easier pickings after the first shot is fired. The aggressor does not have the same mental determination as the defender, Take the Spartans for example. You should have picked that up in Phys.101.
As far as location, If I chose to live there, I would build to withstand the worst case event. Those concrete towers from WWII on the DE Rout #1 are still there today, even though the Rout #1 out. Frank

Look, I believe we should have the right to bare arms, but having been in the gun business for several years off and on throughout my life I can also tell you that 50% of the people who buy them should never be allowed to own a gun, period! Sad, but true. The problem is that gun advocates and manufacturers have taken the battle too far. The last thing this country needs is a bunch of armed Dirty Harrys on the streets because half of these owners don't have the training, skills, or judgement capabilities to be responsible with them. And, I might add, this even includes many, many officers and officials who are allowed to carry them. You know this and so does everyone else deep down inside. The difference is this, I know it also, but I'm not afraid to admit it. Do we need better gun control? "Absolutely!" Should everyone be allowed to own them? "Absolutely not!" Can you honestly tell me that you think everyone should own, and is responsible enough, to possess guns? If you are a smart observant man, and an honest man, you will say, "No. I cannot tell you that." And I have to believe that deep down inside you know this.

 

[onfire]

Scoop are you saying 50% of the guns you sold were to people you decided were to dumb to own one? profit over Seems to me States like Arizona should be in the news every nite with mass shouting headlines. Haven't seen to many headlines in Florida ?

 

[bigscoop]

Scoop are you saying 50% of the guns you sold were to people you decided were to dumb to own one? profit over Seems to me States like Arizona should be in the news every nite with mass shouting headlines. Haven't seen to many headlines in Florida ?

First, I don't think I ever used the word, "dumb". I think a better word, or phrase, would be, "too inspired". Today we live in a society that sees nothing wrong with allowing the use of assault rifles in the sporting field. The problem isn't the weapon, but rather who is going to be carrying that weapon into that sporting field. It's a scenario that has already raised its ugly head more then once in multiple tragedy. Gun advocates blame the user of the weapon, but the truth is simply this, "it was extremely irresponsible of law makers to permit that weapon into the sporting field to begin with." It was not designed as a sporting weapon, it was designed as an assault rifle. Today's word isn't that everyone should possess the right to bare arms, but rather it is that everyone should possess a firearm, and even worse, that they should not hesitate to use it if need be. If you are a law abiding citizen you can walk in and purchase a firearm without ever having any gun experience or without ever being schooled on, "if need be". Look at the recent tragedies that have taken place in our schools, gun advocates insisting it wasn't the weapon, but rather it was the person who gained possession of that weapon. "EXACTLY!"

 

[Chadeaux]

I just can't understand why Bigscoop has such a problem with someone rolling up their sleeves . . .

The BEARING of arms is a right guaranteed by some document a bunch of dead guys wrote centuries ago. For some reason, we still go by it --- and it works pretty good.

Maybe they need to just ban stupidity rather than assault rifles. Why blame an inanimate object. It cannot think, it cannot reason, it has no conscience. Only humans have those things.

The same mentality that whines against owning guns is the one that also resists instilling personal responsibility into youth, the gun owners who eventually become unstable adults, but rather coddling and pandering to their bad behavior.

Back in the 20's, 30's, 40's and 50's almost everyone owned a gun. It was an age before the current understanding of "gun control." Back then it meant hitting your target. How many mass murders were there back then?

Today, gun control means reducing the number of guns, but we allow children to continue as idiots far past the bloom of youth. No one wants to teach them to behave responsibly.

Since we don't want to think that undisciplined kids grow up into people who shoot up crowds in movie theaters, we blame the guns.

Blame the stupid tools instead of the stupid individuals?

Only stupid people would do that.

 

[bigscoop]

I just can't understand why Bigscoop has such a problem with someone rolling up their sleeves . . .

The BEARING of arms is a right guaranteed by some document a bunch of dead guys wrote centuries ago. For some reason, we still go by it --- and it works pretty good.

Maybe they need to just ban stupidity rather than assault rifles. Why blame an inanimate object. It cannot think, it cannot reason, it has no conscience. Only humans have those things.

The same mentality that whines against owning guns is the one that also resists instilling personal responsibility into youth, the gun owners who eventually become unstable adults, but rather coddling and pandering to their bad behavior.

Back in the 20's, 30's, 40's and 50's almost everyone owned a gun. It was an age before the current understanding of "gun control." Back then it meant hitting your target. How many mass murders were there back then?

Today, gun control means reducing the number of guns, but we allow children to continue as idiots far past the bloom of youth. No one wants to teach them to behave responsibly.

Since we don't want to think that undisciplined kids grow up into people who shoot up crowds in movie theaters, we blame the guns.

Blame the stupid tools instead of the stupid individuals?

Only stupid people would do that.

Chadeaux, once again you have shown your ability to completely miss an obvious point, and then so precisely point that same missed objective in totally agreeable, yet blind and deniable fashion. Society has changed a great deal, just as you pointed out, and yet you still fail to make the obvious connection with the issue at hand. By your own explanation you conclude that people are no longer responsible, and yet in complete denial of the very fact you pointed out you still want to arm this growing irresponsible society. Now you can call others dumb, stupid, or an entire host of other names but this will not, and does not, camouflage your own absence of ability to comprehend what you read. Basically you just said, "Our society is growing more and more irresponsible and uneducated so lets give them all guns." Thanks for your complete support on the issue!

 

[Chadeaux]

Chadeaux, once again you have shown your ability to completely miss an obvious point, and then so precisely point that same missed objective in totally agreeable, yet blind and deniable fashion. Society has changed a great deal, just as you pointed out, and yet you still fail to make the obvious connection with the issue at hand. By your own explanation you conclude that people are no longer responsible, and yet in complete denial of the very fact you pointed out you still want to arm this growing irresponsible society. Now you can call others dumb, stupid, or an entire host of other names but this will not, and does not, camouflage your own absence of ability to comprehend what you read. Basically you just said, "Our society is growing more and more irresponsible and uneducated so lets give them all guns." Thanks for your complete support on the issue!

Unfortunately you miss the point.

Teach the children to BE RESPONSIBLE ADULTS, and the problem goes away.

The problem is, not with the weapons, but with the lack of discipline (discipline does not always or even mostly consist of corporal punishment) being given to our children today.

We turn it over to the teachers in the schools, and parental involvement becomes nil.

You blame the guns.

I blame PEOPLE, I blame society.

We have a government with Nuclear Weapons. Do they run around blowing up entire nations, just because they can? No, restraint must be shown . . . and I'll NOT get into the politics . . . only what force is needed.

So we are NOT in agreement. Also, I do not appreciate the blatant personal disrespect shown me in your statement above.

The problem for some folks is that I am able to understand and make a rational and sound point. Scares the hell out of some people.

 

[packerbacker]

Scoop, my friend, you wrote: "Today we live in a society that sees nothing wrong with allowing the use of assault rifles in the sporting field."
What are you calling a "Assault rifle"? If you are like the libbys here in California, it's rifles like the AR-15, AK-47 and SKS's etc. Yes, I DO approve of the use of these weapons in the sporting field. Thing is, the legal ones are not capable of fully automatic firing or even delivering a burst. They are all semi-autos that are legally used in the sporting field. I'm an outdoor enthusiast myself and I would not approve, and NONE of the others I have hunted with would approve, the use of a fully automatic weapon in the field. Thing is, AK-47 is very scary to the general, uneducated public. My son told the lady at Walmart he was looking for some ammo for his SKS's. He told her it was the same round as used in the AK-47, 7.62 X 39. Her astonished reply was, "Oh, those are illegal, we can't sell those here". Then he said, "Oh, there they are", as he pointed them out in the cabinet. They are a smaller round with less killing distance capability than say a 30-06, 300 Win Mag or .338 Win Mag and yet there isn't a problem using any of these rounds in a semi-automatic rifle for hunting. The problem?................uneducated, scared-to-death citizens falling prey to anti-gunners beliefs and desired control over everyone else's life. Wake up America!

 

[bigscoop]

Scoop, my friend, you wrote: "Today we live in a society that sees nothing wrong with allowing the use of assault rifles in the sporting field."
What are you calling a "Assault rifle"? If you are like the libbys here in California, it's rifles like the AR-15, AK-47 and SKS's etc. Yes, I DO approve of the use of these weapons in the sporting field. Thing is, the legal ones are not capable of fully automatic firing or even delivering a burst. They are all semi-autos that are legally used in the sporting field. I'm an outdoor enthusiast myself and I would not approve, and NONE of the others I have hunted with would approve, the use of a fully automatic weapon in the field. Thing is, AK-47 is very scary to the general, uneducated public. My son told the lady at Walmart he was looking for some ammo for his SKS's. He told her it was the same round as used in the AK-47, 7.62 X 39. Her astonished reply was, "Oh, those are illegal, we can't sell those here". Then he said, "Oh, there they are", as he pointed them out in the cabinet. They are a smaller round with less killing distance capability than say a 30-06, 300 Win Mag or .338 Win Mag and yet there isn't a problem using any of these rounds in a semi-automatic rifle for hunting. The problem?................uneducated, scared-to-death citizens falling prey to anti-gunners beliefs and desired control over everyone else's life. Wake up America!

Packerbacker,

Here's the real world situation, "It's not guns that kill people, people kill people." It is the argument gun enthusiast and advocates have preached and utilized since day one of the gun control issue/debate. It is a terrible argument to carry. Why? Because it also screams the need for some means of gun control. If you don't, or can't blame the weapon, then the blame falls squarely on the people, so obviously some people should not have access to guns, so therefore some means of gun control is required. AK's, AR's, SKS's. these "weapons" were designed for the battlefield, not the sporting field, and as such they should remain there. The sporting field is not, and should not be open to the possibility of being viewed as a battlefield under any light. To do otherwise is extremely irresponsible. You may not have that potential mindset, but there are many who do and they just want to kill something with their really cool military style weapon they just purchased. I've witnessed this mentality so many times it is very scary, indeed. You and your hunting buddies may not harbor this mentality but I am 100% certain that if you have spent much time in gun shops or the sporting field you have run across those that do. If not, then yours is truly a very rare case, indeed. And it's not the anti-gunners scaring citizens, it things like the increase in recent school house and work place shootings where completely innocent people are being killed. Blaming it on the anti-gunners is pure denial. Like I said, I have guns and enjoy them, but at some point gun advocates are the ones who have to wake up to the reality of the situation. You can't place the blame on the people behind the weapon and then in the same breath deny the need for some means of gun control to prevent these people from accessing weapons. Somewhere the line has to be drawn but gun advocates continue to live in denial of their own claim that, "Guns don't kill, people do."

 

[packerbacker]

So you are saying that, because a SKS "looks" like a military weapon, it causes the mentally imbalanced person to go off?? We won't even go into ballistics because, ballistically the 338 is far more deadly than a SKS but, these are an SKS and a .338 Lapur. The .338 Lapur will soon make the same rifle in a .300 Win Mag caliber. I think the "style" of the Lapur looks more militaristic than the SKS so a person is more likely to go off carrying one of these than carrying a SKS? I know this gun control stuff, and all of the politics that go with it, can turn into a big peeing match but I like to use facts or realistic stats when discussing such matters. I know folks can be animate one way or another in all conversations but, if one calmly looks at the facts, matters can be settled much more agreeably.

 

[bigscoop]

So you are saying that, because a SKS "looks" like a military weapon, it causes the mentally imbalanced person to go off?? We won't even go into ballistics because, ballistically the 338 is far more deadly than a SKS but, these are an SKS and a .338 Lapur. The .338 Lapur will soon make the same rifle in a .300 Win Mag caliber. I think the "style" of the Lapur looks more militaristic than the SKS so a person is more likely to go off carrying one of these than carrying a SKS? I know this gun control stuff, and all of the politics that go with it, can turn into a big peeing match but I like to use facts or realistic stats when discussing such matters. I know folks can be animate one way or another in all conversations but, if one calmly looks at the facts, matters can be settled much more agreeably.

Fact; School and workplace shootings are on a dramatic rise. Gun enthusiast blame the person behind the gun, "self included". Without some means of gun control how do you stop these senseless killings? "Education" is alsways the number one go-to here, but this is poured out as if everyone can be, or wants to be, educated, and then as if they would, or would want to, act responsible after these requirements. But in here lays the real issue at heart, the only way to enforce these policies is by implementing some means of gun control, which those gun advocates who "calmly" debate still refuse even though these remedies are the basis of their continued argument. The biggest problem is that "we" gun enthusiast have continued to be our own worst enemies in the issue by failing to yield to the obvious need for gun control measures.

And Packerbacker, how many rounds does a responsible hunter need to down an elk or deer? Where I come from, just one, or possibly two.

 

[Frankn]

Bigscoop, you are in over your head here! Assault is a verb, it is a form of action, not a form of gun. any gun can be branded an assault weapon if used by the aggressor. When I was in the army, only fully automatic weapons were referred to as assult weapons. I used an MI rifle and it was just that, a rifle. On the other hand the BAR was fully automatic and was refered to as an assault weapon.

When I went to HS, I was in the Sportsman's Club. We brought guns to school to teach others about there usage and safety. Today you can't take a gun within 100 yards of a school. The gun thus has become the forbidden fruit.

I was once a Federal Firearms Dealer and I had a difference experience than you. Most guns I sole were to people who wanted them for hunting, target shooting, and home defense.

I own a variety of pistols, rifles and shotguns that I shoot at home on my 100yard range. My neighbor has a 200foot range. The crime rate around here is very low.

I think more people are killed by cars than guns, do you enjoy walking?

As I said I think you went off the deep end on this one. You do better on your satire posts. Frank

 

[bigscoop]

Bigscoop, you are in over your head here! Assault is a verb, it is a form of action, not a form of gun. any gun can be branded an assault weapon if used by the aggressor. When I was in the army, only fully automatic weapons were referred to as assult weapons. I used an MI rifle and it was just that, a rifle. On the other hand the BAR was fully automatic and was refered to as an assault weapon.

When I went to HS, I was in the Sportsman's Club. We brought guns to school to teach others about there usage and safety. Today you can't take a gun within 100 yards of a school. The gun thus has become the forbidden fruit.

I was once a Federal Firearms Dealer and I had a difference experience than you. Most guns I sole were to people who wanted them for hunting, target shooting, and home defense.

I own a variety of pistols, rifles and shotguns that I shoot at home on my 100yard range. My neighbor has a 200foot range. The crime rate around here is very low.

I think more people are killed by cars than guns, do you enjoy walking?

As I said I think you went off the deep end on this one. You do better on your satire posts. Frank

No, I am not in over my head, far from it. And "no" assault isn't just a verb, it is a class/style of firearms, but you did correct yourself there a bit by explaining the difference. Like you we use to have a hunting club in school, even assembled and finished my first muzzle loader at school during our after school meetings in the wood shop. This issue isn't car deaths, it's gun control, and the debate over the need for it. And I'm going to use this example again, when there is a rise in the number innocent children and workers beign victims to mass shootings then I think it is extremely irresponsible for the gun community to continue denying the a gun control problem exist. The people who used these weapons were obviously educated as to their use and they had full and easy access to them. Many gun advocates evidently want to allow this condition and trend to continue just to satisfy their own personal wants and desires. I, for one, do not. Do I have an answer to the issue? No, I do not. But I am not so blind to the issue and the need for change that I am willing to continue to sacrifice the lives of innocent children and workers just so I can continue to own whatever firearm I wish.

PS: And I would guess where you live has more to do with the lower crime then the fact that you own guns.