Like Tree156Likes

Thread: The Gun Control Debate.......Anybody else seeing this trend?

  1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,961

    Default The Gun Control Debate.......Anybody else seeing this trend?

    The recent tragedy in CT has kind of brought the gun control debate off the back burner. I'm not really looking to debate the issue here, but was curious if anyone else was seeing the same trends I'm seeing among my friends and co-workers who are "pro-gun"?

    In the brief time since that incident I've seen a significant increase in comments and Facebook activity on the gun issue and a lot of it kind of seems like paranoid rantings out of touch with reality and is somewhat disturbing.

    From what I've seen, nobody (government wise) is talking about taking away everybody's 2nd Amendment Rights. The only discussion that I'm seeing is about restricting the ability of private citizens to purchase and possess "military grade" weapons like the civilian versions of the M-16 rifle.

    I'm seeing stuff like.......

    ** defiant postings about not giving up their weapons and subtle hints at revolution as if somebody was coming around collecting them.
    ** lots of people are killed with baseball bats, but we didn't ban them so we shouldn't ban guns which to me ignores the obvious fact that it's a lot harder to murder/injure multiple people with a Louisville Slugger than an AR-15. So it's not exactly a fair comparison.
    ** the 2nd Amendment says I have the right to own an AR-15, however the 2nd Amendment doesn't actually say that. It says that citizens have the right to "keep and bear arms", but it doesn't say anything about having the right to own any specific type of weapon nor does it say that the government can't ban ownership of any specific type of weapon.
    ** the reaction to Dick's Sporting Goods decision to halt the sale of firearms is to boycott their stores.
    ** negative personal comments towards "famous" people known to be "pro-gun" who have recently stated that the issue of private ownership of "assault weapons" should be revisited.

    The frequency and volume of these types of postings and the number of "likes" a lot of them are getting just seems like they're fighting a battle without actually having an opponent.

    I was just wondering if anybody else was having a similar experience or is just with the people I know?
    Last edited by FireMedic049; 12-19-2012 at 10:01 PM.

  2. #2
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,681

    Default

    Same experiences here. I personally have no guns and see no need to have a gun. I do have family that have multiple guns, and that is their choice which I have no problem with. I have seen a few posts/comments such as what you stated.

    I have yet to hear, what I believe to be, a reasonable argument for why someone should be allowed to own a semi-automatic assault type gun.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    I posted on the Sandy Hook thread that it may be time to look at some type of controls that have seen great success in Austrailia. Their reforms in the mid-90's have seen dramatic reductions in mass shootings.

    Or at the very least consider some of the ideas proposed by Mayor Bloomberg in a recent Op-Ed.

    I own guns and support the 2nd Amendment.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Same experiences here. I personally have no guns and see no need to have a gun. I do have family that have multiple guns, and that is their choice which I have no problem with. I have seen a few posts/comments such as what you stated.

    I have yet to hear, what I believe to be, a reasonable argument for why someone should be allowed to own a semi-automatic assault type gun.
    Here is a reasonable argument for you.

    First of all they are NOT "Assault Rifles." An assault rifle is capable of selective fire (semi-auto or fully automatic), the civilian versions like the one used by the murderer in Newtown Connecticut are semi-automatic only. So let's try to use accurate terms describing the type of guns used.

    Secondly, the vast, overwhelming majority that own those types of rifles are law abiding citizens that have not ever broken a gun law. So why shouldn't they be able to own a gun that is legal to own?

    Thirdly, life isn't all about NEED sometimes it is about WANT. I enjoy shooting sports and I WANT a variety of guns to shoot. I have a hard time coming up with a reasonable argument for why people need 350 to 500 horsepower cars, or gas guzzling SUVs, or massive 100+ inch TVs, or Camping trailers bigger than some houses, or massive motor homes, or snow mobiles, or Harley Davidson Motorcycles...but the difference is as long as those activities are legal I will not make any moves to try and prevent you from enjoying your hobbies or the WANTS in your life.
    Chenzo, bcjack and Greg30-06 like this.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  5. #5
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    What is gun control?
    Are you advocating heaping more laws, rules, and or regulations? If so, how do you explain the number of laws, rules and regulations that are already broken any time there is a crime such as this?
    Are you advocating more restrictive controls on ownership? What proof do you have criminals won't have the ability to obtain these gun illegally. How is the war on drugs working for us? That has failed so miserably, some states are now legalizing some.
    Are you advocating an outright ban? Show me evidence that has had success in other areas; prohibition, drugs, prostitution, and etc.
    If that is't enough, explain to me why the cities with the most restrictive gun laws continue to lead in gun crime? (ie Chicago, Washington DC) Yet it has been proven over and over again that states with conceal/carry laws have seen a drop in violent crime?
    http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
    So for the gun control crowd, its acceptable to strip the rights of millions of law abiding citizens a right because of the actions of a minuscule group of evil, sick people. Beware of what you wish for, the automobile murders thousands more a year, that may be next....
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Here is a reasonable argument for you.

    First of all they are NOT "Assault Rifles." An assault rifle is capable of selective fire (semi-auto or fully automatic), the civilian versions like the one used by the murderer in Newtown Connecticut are semi-automatic only. So let's try to use accurate terms describing the type of guns used.

    Secondly, the vast, overwhelming majority that own those types of rifles are law abiding citizens that have not ever broken a gun law. So why shouldn't they be able to own a gun that is legal to own?
    I have no problem with any of those. Can you enjoy shooting those weapons with 10 round magazines? Can you enjoy shooting those weapons with background checks being done before a weapons is sold between two parties?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I have no problem with any of those. Can you enjoy shooting those weapons with 10 round magazines? Can you enjoy shooting those weapons with background checks being done before a weapons is sold between two parties?
    It only takes me a few seconds to swap magazines. Limiting mags to 10 rounds isn't going to make a difference unless someone is already inside with their own firearm and they have the wits about them to return accurate fire as he swaps mags.

    Inside a school where nobody is armed, the same kind of carnage could be accomplished by a person with a couple of revolvers and a bag full of speed loaders. An unarmed person charging the shooter during a mag swap/reload is most likely on a suicide mission because the shooter almost always carries a backup weapon.

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tbzep View Post
    It only takes me a few seconds to swap magazines. Limiting mags to 10 rounds isn't going to make a difference unless someone is already inside with their own firearm and they have the wits about them to return accurate fire as he swaps mags.
    Or gives the attacked the opportunity to rush the attacker, or set up obstacles, or find egress opportunities.

    Quote Originally Posted by tbzep View Post
    Inside a school where nobody is armed, the same kind of carnage could be accomplished by a person with a couple of revolvers and a bag full of speed loaders. An unarmed person charging the shooter during a mag swap/reload is most likely on a suicide mission because the shooter almost always carries a backup weapon.
    The opportunity exists with a smaller magazine capacity.

    Since it makes no difference, there should be no opposition to limiting magazine capacity.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  9. #9
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Or gives the attacked the opportunity to rush the attacker, or set up obstacles, or find egress opportunities.
    I addressed that in the lower part of my last post. Most shooters carry a second weapon. The moment someone decides to charge the shooter, they get hit by the gun that is still loaded. However, reduced capacity could possibly make a difference if some people inside were armed.

    We have to remember how the population is laid out in a school. There are just a few adults in the front office and they are going to be the only people that would have a chance to stop a shooter. Unfortunately, they are also going to be the first ones targeted and the shooter will be focused on his task at that time. All other adults are spread out through the school and are tasked with locking themselves in the classroom with their students, so they won't be in a position to stop a shooter even if he is distracted by reloading one of his weapons.

    I'm not trying to argue here. I'm just trying to show that gun legislation won't help when a shooter goes into a building where nobody else has firearms. The the only real ways I see to prevent a tragedy such as this is to diagnose and treat the person at any level needed before he decides to carry out his plot, and to have every school in the nation to shell out the money to pay for an active SRO, not a 75 year old retiree.

  10. #10
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tbzep View Post
    I addressed that in the lower part of my last post. Most shooters carry a second weapon. The moment someone decides to charge the shooter, they get hit by the gun that is still loaded. However, reduced capacity could possibly make a difference if some people inside were armed.
    Reduced capacity could make a difference even if those being attacked are not armed. Even with a second weapon there is still a time lag to acquire that weapon and target more potential victims. Time that does not exist with a large capacity magazine.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  11. #11
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Reduced capacity could make a difference even if those being attacked are not armed. Even with a second weapon there is still a time lag to acquire that weapon and target more potential victims. Time that does not exist with a large capacity magazine.
    Let's agree to disagree here, at least partially. My reasoning is because the shooter has likely already done two things before emptying his first magazine. He's either disabled people by shooting them, or directed people to get into a position that keeps them from easily responding. I'm still referring to a school situation, but most buildings would be the same. If there are large masses of people close to the shooter, someone could get to him if multiple people charged at the same time preferrably from different directions. (If the shooter is a total dumbass and hasn't planned or practiced anything, there's a decent chance he could be taken out even if he has a bag full of high cap magazines.)

    At any rate, it's good to discuss and play out possible situations, actions, and outcomes regardless of any legislation that may or may not be enacted. The more we analyze the possibilities, the better chance we have if we are ever caught in a situation like that.

  12. #12
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    I know, as a gun owner, I can not prevent these incidents, nor have I stumped to do such. Call me cynical, but I don't live in a Utopian mind set that those that use guns in the commission of a crime will follow societies rules, no matter what level it falls. Especially concerning gun control.
    But to those that are advocating gun control, can you promise this; can you guarantee that if such a ban where to be put into place, and to appease the extremists I forfeit my guns, will the criminals do the same?
    Lets go a less extreme route; if I am to register every gun I own, can you guarantee the criminals will do the same?
    If such a guarantee is not achievable, why is it acceptable for me not to have the means to defend myself?
    Why is it wolves prey on sheep?
    Why does the smart Shepard own a sheep dog?
    Last edited by SPFDRum; 12-21-2012 at 10:39 PM.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  13. #13
    Savage / Hyneman 08'

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    450

    Default

    I think we are missing a bigger picture here.

    I suppose blaming the gun is easy. And the public who listens to little more than sound bites and talking points will also find it easy. And those people vote. Gotta get the votes!

    Since these incidents are happening at an increasing rate then maybe we should be asking tougher questions about the motivations of the perpetrators, the lack of respect for human life, and the environment that spawns such things.

    Sure you can blame the weapon. It's the easy way to feel good about yourself and think you have accomplished something. Makes you feel smart because you figured something out. And that is what many want you to do. Blame the object. An inanimate object that only does what the one controlling it makes it do.

    Lets start analizing the evil bastards that do these kind of things, and not the tools they use. It will be a much more productive study. It just won't be as easy.
    Chenzo likes this.
    We do not rise to the occasion. We fall back to our level of training.

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DFDMAXX View Post
    ...Lets start analizing the evil bastards that do these kind of things, and not the tools they use...
    Why not both?
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  15. #15
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Why not both?
    "Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun."

    Any plan on analyzing the other 92% of the weapons used and banning any of them?
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  16. #16
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DFDMAXX View Post
    I think we are missing a bigger picture here.

    I suppose blaming the gun is easy. And the public who listens to little more than sound bites and talking points will also find it easy. And those people vote. Gotta get the votes!

    Since these incidents are happening at an increasing rate then maybe we should be asking tougher questions about the motivations of the perpetrators, the lack of respect for human life, and the environment that spawns such things.

    Sure you can blame the weapon. It's the easy way to feel good about yourself and think you have accomplished something. Makes you feel smart because you figured something out. And that is what many want you to do. Blame the object. An inanimate object that only does what the one controlling it makes it do.

    Lets start analizing the evil bastards that do these kind of things, and not the tools they use. It will be a much more productive study. It just won't be as easy.
    I disagree that many people are blaming the weapon instead of the shooters in these incidents. To think that is what's going on is absurd. I think people are 100% clear that ultimately the shooters are responsible for these incidents. However, it's the weapons that allow them to create mass death and destruction in such a short time. While the 2nd Amendment affords the "right to bear arms", it neither enumerates the right to own any specific type of weapon nor does it limit the government from restricting ownership of any specific type of weapon. It's very reasonable to think that if access to some of these weapons is limited, then we should see a decrease in mass shootings involving these weapons.

    I agree that we need to analyze these people in hopes of finding something that can help stop these events and I'm sure that somebody is already doing so.

    Unfortunately, there really isn't any solution to these situations. A full out ban on weapons isn't realistic and I don't think the government will attempt this. There's really no way to guarantee that we could identify all of the "crazies" or the people that will "snap" someday and go on a rampage. Even then, there's no guarantee that they could be "fixed" or at least "quarantined" from the public.

    The best we can hope for is reducing their frequency and severity and I think there's stuff that can be done to try to achieve that. I'm sure neither side will be happy with any compromise reached.

  17. #17
    Savage / Hyneman 08'

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    "Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun."

    Any plan on analyzing the other 92% of the weapons used and banning any of them?
    That pretty well sums it up. Because evil people use a variety of tools to carry out their twisted version of a solution. If you want to spend time analyzing every one of them, go ahead.

    Figuring out who and why is more effective, and the only solution that offers long term results.
    We do not rise to the occasion. We fall back to our level of training.

  18. #18
    Savage / Hyneman 08'

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    I disagree that many people are blaming the weapon instead of the shooters in these incidents. To think that is what's going on is absurd. I think people are 100% clear that ultimately the shooters are responsible for these incidents. However, it's the weapons that allow them to create mass death and destruction in such a short time. While the 2nd Amendment affords the "right to bear arms", it neither enumerates the right to own any specific type of weapon nor does it limit the government from restricting ownership of any specific type of weapon. It's very reasonable to think that if access to some of these weapons is limited, then we should see a decrease in mass shootings involving these weapons.

    I agree that we need to analyze these people in hopes of finding something that can help stop these events and I'm sure that somebody is already doing so.

    Unfortunately, there really isn't any solution to these situations. A full out ban on weapons isn't realistic and I don't think the government will attempt this. There's really no way to guarantee that we could identify all of the "crazies" or the people that will "snap" someday and go on a rampage. Even then, there's no guarantee that they could be "fixed" or at least "quarantined" from the public.

    The best we can hope for is reducing their frequency and severity and I think there's stuff that can be done to try to achieve that. I'm sure neither side will be happy with any compromise reached.
    Absurd? No. Because that is all anyone is talking about for a solution.

    They may comment on the killer, but the solutions they offer are focused on the weapon, not the killer.

    I agree that we will never eliminate the killer element. To think otherwise is unrealistic. I would hope a grand reduction would be possible.
    Last edited by DFDMAXX; 12-22-2012 at 12:32 AM.
    We do not rise to the occasion. We fall back to our level of training.

  19. #19
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    "Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun."

    Any plan on analyzing the other 92% of the weapons used and banning any of them?
    From a Devil's Advocate position............

    How many of those other weapons were specifically used to kill and injure multiple people in a single incident?

  20. #20
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DFDMAXX View Post
    Absurd? No. Because that is all anyone is talking about for a solution.

    They may comment on the killer, but the solutions they offer are focused on the weapon, not the killer.
    You must be missing it, because I've seen discussion regarding the "mental health" aspect of these shooters and how our healthcare system is not very effective for many people with mental health issues.

    Regardless, discussing gun control as a solution doesn't mean that they are assigning blame for what happened on the weapon. That is what your statement was, blaming the object and not the person.

    If you look at parental discipline, it's very common to take the "object" associated with a bad behavior away from the child. A child shoots at the neighbor's dog with his BB gun, so the parent takes it away from them. They aren't blaming the BB gun. They know the child is responsible for their actions, however removing the object that enabled the inappropriate behavior typically stops the action from being repeated. The thought process behind the gun control argument is similar, but in a preemptive sense. Removing the object removes the result from misuse of the object.

  21. #21
    Savage / Hyneman 08'

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post

    If you look at parental discipline, it's very common to take the "object" associated with a bad behavior away from the child. A child shoots at the neighbor's dog with his BB gun, so the parent takes it away from them. They aren't blaming the BB gun. They know the child is responsible for their actions, however removing the object that enabled the inappropriate behavior typically stops the action from being repeated. The thought process behind the gun control argument is similar, but in a preemptive sense. Removing the object removes the result from misuse of the object.
    When you take that bb gun from the child, you should also council them on right vs wrong so they grow up to be responsible people. Which is where we are now. Adults that should know the difference.

    The government is a horrible excuse for a parental figure, and has very little to teach us. Politics has grown to be a derogatory term because of the shenanigans our governing bodies have displayed over a long term. Predominantly those elected would never be hired for that type of job because of their lack of experience or success in that field, but once installed in office they are suddenly the "expert" to solve all our problems.
    We do not rise to the occasion. We fall back to our level of training.

  22. #22
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    From a Devil's Advocate position............

    How many of those other weapons were specifically used to kill and injure multiple people in a single incident?

    How about the seemingly harmless box cutter?
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  23. #23
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    If you look at parental discipline, it's very common to take the "object" associated with a bad behavior away from the child. A child shoots at the neighbor's dog with his BB gun, so the parent takes it away from them. They aren't blaming the BB gun. They know the child is responsible for their actions, however removing the object that enabled the inappropriate behavior typically stops the action from being repeated. The thought process behind the gun control argument is similar, but in a preemptive sense. Removing the object removes the result from misuse of the object.
    That's great to take the BB gun from the mean little dog shooter. However, it isn't right to take my child's BB gun from him because somebody else's son did something wrong. My son only shoots targets and starlings. (Ok, he's grown now but that's all he used to shoot.)

  24. #24
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    From a Devil's Advocate position............

    How many of those other weapons were specifically used to kill and injure multiple people in a single incident?
    The AR-15 used was a semi-auto, one trigger pull...one bullet down range. It wasn't designed to kill and injure multiple people in a single incident any more than a deer rifle or semi-auto shotgun, though it is designed to look the same. It's parent rifle, the M-16 is select fire with full auto or 3 round burst according to the model. It is designed for armed conflict with multiple targets.

  25. #25
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DFDMAXX View Post
    When you take that bb gun from the child, you should also council them on right vs wrong so they grow up to be responsible people. Which is where we are now. Adults that should know the difference.
    I agree counseling should be an integral part of that discipline, however I was speaking specifically to the "blame the object" part of the discussion. Taking the BB gun away from the child will immediately stop the child from continuing to misuse the BB gun since they no longer have access. Changing the child's decision making process to the point where he no longer thinks shooting the dog is appropriate behavior will take longer and there's no guarantee of being successful at that.

    The government is a horrible excuse for a parental figure, and has very little to teach us. Politics has grown to be a derogatory term because of the shenanigans our governing bodies have displayed over a long term. Predominantly those elected would never be hired for that type of job because of their lack of experience or success in that field, but once installed in office they are suddenly the "expert" to solve all our problems.
    I think you read too far into the point I was making.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Anyone else see a trend.....
    By BCmdepas3280 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-16-2006, 01:12 AM
  2. Noticeable Trend?
    By ltoffd in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-02-2004, 01:30 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-24-2004, 11:11 AM
  4. Disturbing Trend - MUTT x 4
    By RspctFrmCalgary in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-21-2002, 10:42 AM
  5. Disturbing Trend
    By firedog11ku in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-01-2001, 10:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register