A Day In The Life Of An Ambulance Driver - Latest Comments in On The Second Amendment…

Re: On The Second Amendment…

Erica — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:00:00 -0000

Mr. Reynolds - < />< />I do have to apologize here, as I see you're a medical professional who sees the aftermath of violence and does get in physical altercations in the course of your work. < />< />Obviously you very much know what you're talking about. Please accept my prior statement as directed at those who don't have your experience.

Re: On The Second Amendment…

Erica — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 13:55:00 -0000

Hi there AD commenters. I'm a member of a rare breed - the female California gun owner who recognizes the original intent of the 2A. I think both posts by AD and Mule Breath are excellent. < />< />My bottom line is that my guns are only secondarily for self defense. Their primary purpose is to be a constant reminder to the elected officials in this country of who, exactly, they work for.< />< />On another point, I believe Mr. Reynolds is showing an example of a misunderstanding that most people have of violent events:< />< />"Personally I like the idea of not having guns around the place, partly because if someone wants to kill me I'd rather have them come up and fight me hand to hand..."< />< />Criminals are stupid like foxes. They are stupid, which is why they are criminals instead of investment bankers (or do I repeat myself?), but they are smart in that most of them, no matter how crazed, will not enter into a situation where they perceive the outcome to clearly not be in their favor. They will use whatever leverage they have. < />< />A criminal is very unlikely to come up and fight you hand to hand. They will have a knife, they will have a crowbar, they will have a gun, or some other implement that puts them at a tactical advantage over you that lowers the risk to them. They already do not care about the law, they don't care about your rights, they don't care about you you feel or what you think, there's no reason to believe they'd let anything that could tip the field in their favor pass. < />< />You're not going to have a gentlemanly duel here. I see this kind of thinking a lot with women of my age group, who simply cannot process the fact that someone would use more force or more brutal force on them than they'd be willing to imagine using on someone else. < />< />The problem is that we end up with people being simply afraid to bring a gun to a knife fight, because they think the other fighter will have the decency to forgo their knife.

Re: On The Second Amendment…

Tom Reynolds — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 08:19:00 -0000

Cheers for all the replies, definitely some food for thought there.< />< /> I think I will stick to the idea that having everyone in the UK armed wouldn't work because of the different culture here. After all, all our young criminals are immortal and invulnerable - at least that's what they tell me when I pick them up after being stabbed.< />< />And, to be honest, if I lived alone in America I'd probably own a gun myself. If I had children, probably not.< />< />(And that's only because I know how sneaky I was as a child, and some of that has got to be genetic...)

Re: On The Second Amendment…

Rogue Medic — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 22:32:00 -0000

to prohibitions.

Re: On The Second Amendment…

Mule Breath — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 21:26:00 -0000

is such a bad idea. I posted some on this over on my blog, if anyone is interested.< />< />http://muledungandash.blogs...

Re: On The Second Amendment…

Robert C. — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 21:00:00 -0000

To follow up more with Tom Reynolds remarks...< />< />< />Accidental gun deaths in the United States are extremely low, at around ~700-800 a year (789 as of 2005). You have a greater chance of dieing while crossing the street (6,047 deaths in 2005) or riding your bicycle (927 deaths). Hell, you have a greater chance of killing yourself while falling off furniture (899 deaths). < />< />http://www.nsc.org/research... />< />< />The vast majority of gun deaths in the United States involve suicides, being responsible for about 17,000 or so deaths a year. Suicides are unfortunately not at all effected by removing the tool used. For instance, in Japan, which has an overall suicide rate that is far higher than the US and bans guns fairly completely, stepping in front of a moving train is one of the more popular methods. As is taking a plunge from a tall structure.< />< />Of the other 11-12,000 or so deaths involving firearms each year, most involve the black market drug trade or the gangs that have taken advantage of the drug trade. This has led to speculation by some that legalizing drugs could significantly reduce the violent crime experienced in this country.

Re: On The Second Amendment…

Anonymous — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:14:00 -0000

If you justifiably use lethal force to defend you or your family why would you turn yourself in to a government you know will persecute you and imprison you for it?< />< />I'll say it again, Martin shouldn't have called the police. He should have cleaned up the mess and lived his life in the knowledge that he saved his family and his government sucks.< />< />Sorry if the language has offended some delicate sensibilities.

Re: On The Second Amendment…

Ambulance Driver — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:57:00 -0000

the homeowner has a weapon and knows how to use it.< />< />There's a lesson to be learned there.

Re: On The Second Amendment…

Rogue Medic — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:44:00 -0000

Tom Reynolds,< />< />Isn't an arrest for drunk driving after the fact? The driver has to be in the car, with the engine running, or it isn't considered drunk driving. < />< />The person who is pulled over, because of driving erratically while intoxicated, should be charged and deprived of his vehicle. It isn't only when they crash into someone. Will most unintentional crashes, by drunks, kill anyone?< />< />The person, who is using a gun erratically while intoxicated, should also be charged and deprived of his gun. It isn't only when they fire the gun. Will most unintentional shootings, by drunks, kill anyone?

Re: On The Second Amendment…

Ambulance Driver — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:25:00 -0000

is a futile exercise, if you take my point.< />< />You see media reports of drunks firing off rounds or accidental shootings involving legally owned guns, yes, but they comprise less than a single percentage point of the legal gun owners in America. < />< />In other words, a statistically insignificant amount. Yet the media reports it like it is commonplace because it serves their biased agenda - much like the biased internet agenda that neglected to report that Mr. Martin shot a fleeing criminal in the back as he was leaving the house.< />< />And yes, if that had happened in the US, Mr. Martin would also be facing prosecution.

Re: On The Second Amendment…

FeuerTeufel — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:15:00 -0000

I don't think that there's anything more then I can add that hasn't already been stated in one form or another here ...< />< />I think most of you are the smartest people that I've found on the internet.

Re: On The Second Amendment…

Tom Reynolds — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 07:39:00 -0000

- it's all to do with the culture.< />< />Of course, we don't have a constitution so we can't go defending it...< />< />And to be honest, there are much worse things happening to turn us into 'formerly Great Britain' than gun control - there are politicians trying to pass a law that makes it illegal to photograph a police officer for instance.< />< />Anyway - all the above is written with respect, as I love going to the US for visits and holidays, and I feel quite safe there.

Re: On The Second Amendment…

Anonymous — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 05:21:00 -0000

Confiscation(s) ALWAYS follows registration of weapons. Every time. It is the only practical reason for it. Serves no other purpose. Happens here in the US. Might be the reason that CA's last attempt at registration went so badly. The DOJ indicated that they only got maybe 5% or LESS of the expected regs. Hmmm, might be it had something to do with the widely reported demand that owners of a particular type rifle immediately turn them in to local police? Happened after the first registration law. New York pulled the same stunt. You know the old saying about ignoring history....< />< />Will

Re: On The Second Amendment…

Rogue Medic — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:54:00 -0000

. It was the best seller if the 18th Century, the Harry Potter of sales of its day. It is what convinced the colonists to fight.< />< />Oppressive governments have relinquished control because of peaceful opposition, maybe as much as they have over violent insurrection, maybe even more. After a while the military realizes that they do not want to follow orders to kill their countrymen.

Re: On The Second Amendment…

TOTWTYTR — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:35:00 -0000

Mule Breath, it was by force of arms, not quill of pen, that we wrested control of our country and our destiny from Britain. < />< />It was the "shot heard 'round the world", not the "pamphlet read 'round the world". < />< />Or as Al Capone is reputed to have said, "You get a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone." < />< />The Revolution started not all that far from where I sit typing this. It started over an attempt by British forces to confiscate firearms from colonials. They didn't march there to take away pens or printing presses because they knew that words might be inspirational, but firearms are power. < />< />A note to those of you who will go to Mule Breath's blog to debate. Be well prepared, because you're in for a lively debate. As I've said about my friend before, he's "Wicked Smaht".

Re: On The Second Amendment…

Mule Breath — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:47:00 -0000

AD, I'd like to thank you and your regular contributors for the fine visit we've had over at my place. Everyone was scrupulously polite. While at least a couple of your folks appeared like they would like to have started kicking ass, they didn’t, and for that I am grateful. < />< />The reason I like such debates is that it exposes folks to ideas they may not otherwise entertain. When a “pro gun nut” starts slamming an anti-gunner, calling names and verbally assaulting, the mind closes. Bless Farm Dad in particular for holding back, for I could see he wanted badly to pound at least one commenter. I understand that, and have been guilty of it in the past. He and others held fire and negotiated, and maybe… just maybe we opened an eye or two. At worst we showed that we could logically debate without being abusive. < />< />You, AD, and TOTWTYTR (both of you good friends) challenge my assertion that “the pen is mightier than the sword”, and I accept both of you for your sincere beliefs, but please consider this. In the days of the American Revolution, guns were plentiful. The law was British, and we were the King’s subjects. Subjects of the Crown were accustomed to being trod upon. It took a handful of thinkers, schooled in French revolutionary ideology, to foment revolution on these shores. Their tool was not the sword… it was the pen.< />< />In the end, the sword enforced the will of the people, but it took the pen to forge that will. If the people had resisted as individuals, they would have been destroyed and this Union would never have existed. It was the pen, incarnate in the form of a Declaration of Independence, the Federalist and Antifederalist papers, a Constitution and Bill of Rights, which has ensured and guaranteed our natural rights. It is the pen, incarnate in these blogs that help continue that tradition.< />< />For all who participated over on my blog, I would say that you shouldn’t be strangers. If you don’t like what I say, challenge me. I’ll challenge back. Maybe we’ll both have an opportunity to learn something. I’ve made a couple posts since the one we’ve been debating, related to the initial topic. One of them points to a possible controversy. If you haven’t already, you might enjoy reading them.

Re: On The Second Amendment…

Rogue Medic — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:14:00 -0000

, is there to serve the People.

Re: On The Second Amendment…

Rogue Medic — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:08:00 -0000

. I do not believe it is a coincidence. His observations on the British method of government are not less relevant today.< />< />On the other hand, Paine is not very politically correct. :-)

Re: On The Second Amendment…

Crucis — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:03:00 -0000

Mark, when you come here, you won't be among strangers long. There are many here among the bloggers who will welcome you. You will find many like minded folks who will guard your back as you were guard theirs.

Re: On The Second Amendment…

TOTWTYTR — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:37:00 -0000

crime. < />< />Look at the crime statistics in any Commonwealth nation that has banned guns. < />< />Enhancing penalties for the unlawful use of firearms is the only thing that might work.

Re: On The Second Amendment…

Anonymous — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:35:00 -0000

< /> < />The last thing a politician wants to see is an ARMED, pissed-off constituent. Emails, letters, angry phone calls, and talk radio they can ignore. They also hope those of us that took the oath in the military have forgotten the part about "...all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC".< />< />Bob in VA

Re: On The Second Amendment…

Farm.Dad — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 18:05:00 -0000

Hey folk i will opinionate a bit more on the comments here , or on one of my boards than i might elsewhere . However come on .. get real .. the solution of the " gun problem " lies between the bradys and the 3%ers . " . We all have both a president and a congress who seem to lean towards the control end ( guns or otherwise ). Yall who did not like what " W " did well stand back and watch what happens now . folks ill tell ya this , i keep a shotgun just to shoot my unicorn before he/she leaves my yard . Other than the pointed pony i dont beleve a bit ( nor do i see how anyone could ) of what is being sold to me . All i can say is watch Ebay because i will be putting a genuine unicorn horn on there any day ( and i hear they taste a lot like spotted owl which is a plus for the hamburger ) .

Re: On The Second Amendment…

Mark — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:55:00 -0000

To respond to Crucis's very accurate comment: "Brits are nor free men."< />< />Most British men worry me. This is one major reason I'm leaving the country (albeit by fits and starts).< />< />I've lived here (the UK, where Great Britain used to be) for 32 years of my 34. And I realised last year that the vast majority of my friends would rather watch me die than get in trouble with the law. That just flipped the switch for me. Seems like I'd be better amongst strangers in the US than "friends" like that.

Re: On The Second Amendment…

Vinnie — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:33:00 -0000

Well I said this:< />Peter said:"So, what makes the Second Amendment so different? Nothing in the text of the amendments would suggest the second is more absolute than the first that I'm aware of.< />"< />< />"a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.< />"< />The fact that the constitution was written for mostly self educated people and now has to be interpreted by by people with masters degrees should be a warning call.< />As for keeping guns away from criminals, the people have been sold a bill of goods. Why are dangerous criminal on the street? These laws mollify people into thinking that it is ok to release dangerous criminal because they can't get weapons. I want judges, juries and parole boards to be certain that the person in front of them can get a gun and act accordingly.

Re: On The Second Amendment…

LL — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:12:00 -0000

Oh, oh, and another thing!< />< />The most telling interview I ever saw in my life was about 10, 12 years ago. Bill Richardson. You know, the NM guy. The one who was originally pegged for Commerce. Matt Lauer on the Today show asks him why he has always fought for gun rights while he was Governor of NM but when he was serving under Clinton, he supported gun control.< />< />Richardson's response was along the lines of "I should never have listened to my constituents and I should have done what I thought was right and that's why I'm supporting Clinton's gun control initiatives."< />< />Something along those lines. The whole "constituents are wrong" thing enraged me.< />< />I will NEVER forget that interview because it is that exact hubris that gets us in the spot where we are now...always checking over our shoulders to make sure more rights haven't been taken away, especially gun rights.< />< />Amazingly, I never heard a peep out of any news organization after that interview about the fundamental problem with thinking his constituents, WHO ELECTED HIM, were wrong.