[url]http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/shooting-instructor-dies-after-being-accidentally-shot-girl
[/url]
Thoughts on this utterly tragic event? Specifically how does one (either for/against gun rights and or control) rationalize this event from the perspective of the parents and 9 year old girl?
i'm not looking for anything
this whole thing seems completely senseless for me.
why you would ever put a gun into a hands of a person under the age of 18 outside of a life/death situation should be a crime.
yeah, and her parents should get a get off free slip? They are complicit in this also.
That poor girl, it's just horrible she has to live through this. Idiot instructor, and horrific parenting.
Quote:
The instructor is a fucking idiot.
i'm not looking for anything
this whole thing seems completely senseless for me.
why you would ever put a gun into a hands of a person under the age of 18 outside of a life/death situation should be a crime.
Hundreds of thousands of kids handle firearms safely under supervision every year. The fact that one instructor is an idiot does not justify far-reaching conclusions.
Quote:
She was much too small to handle it properly. He should have been teaching her with a .22 or something similar that she was capable of handling. I know plenty of kids who handle weapons way younger than 18 and go hunting with their parents. That's really not an issue as far as I'm concerned. Kids are fully capable of learning how to handle guns responsibly and need to be trained when there are guns in the home. This guy just screwed up. I'm sure he won't make the same mistake again.
yeah, and her parents should get a get off free slip? They are complicit in this also.
That poor girl, it's just horrible she has to live through this. Idiot instructor, and horrific parenting.
I assume the parents had faith in the instructor. If you send your kid to school and a teacher molests her, is that bad parenting? Nothing unusual about putting faith in trained authority figures
It's not abnormal in other parts of the country. Kids hunt at a pretty young age, in homes and particularly in areas where guns are ubiquitous it's actually arguably safer than waiting until they're older (again, certainly not true in the Northeast). I wouldn't be inclined to do it with my children, but I wouldn't judge everyone who does otherwise harshly.
At least it's better than what happened a few years back when an 8 year-old was shooting a mini-uzi at full auto and was killed when he lost control of the weapon.
but....
why the fuck should a 9 year old be firing an Uzi in any capacity? this is not an ATV ride, it's not a roller coaster, it's not a fishing excursion, it's not taking a deers life to feed the family. there is no reason to me that I can agree with that says a 9 year old person should be firing a weapon of any kind. dumb instructor, dumb parents, dumb all the way around if you ask me.
a 9 year old that grows up handing guns does not go to Vegas from New Jersey to fire at a range with an uzi. Apples and Oranges. this one stinks to high heaven, it's a tourism thing and firing guns for the fuck of it ruined several peoples lives this week.
I expect my 7 year old daughter will shoot a. 22 rifle with me for the first time this weekend. It'll be under my supervision and the supervision of a qualified instructor. We'll shoot some arrows on the archery range too. Don't get me wrong, kids shouldn't be allowed to handle any weapons without strict and competent adult supervision. But, really, wouldn't you say that about most things with young children?
but....
why the fuck should a 9 year old be firing an Uzi in any capacity? this is not an ATV ride, it's not a roller coaster, it's not a fishing excursion, it's not taking a deers life to feed the family. there is no reason to me that I can agree with that says a 9 year old person should be firing a weapon of any kind. dumb instructor, dumb parents, dumb all the way around if you ask me.
a 9 year old that grows up handing guns does not go to Vegas from New Jersey to fire at a range with an uzi. Apples and Oranges. this one stinks to high heaven, it's a tourism thing and firing guns for the fuck of it ruined several peoples lives this week.
Yeah I don't disagree with that. Safety safety safety with kids, no f-cking reason they should be shooting something like that. I was talking more generally.
Quote:
In comment 11826834 Bill in UT said:
Quote:
She was much too small to handle it properly. He should have been teaching her with a .22 or something similar that she was capable of handling. I know plenty of kids who handle weapons way younger than 18 and go hunting with their parents. That's really not an issue as far as I'm concerned. Kids are fully capable of learning how to handle guns responsibly and need to be trained when there are guns in the home. This guy just screwed up. I'm sure he won't make the same mistake again.
yeah, and her parents should get a get off free slip? They are complicit in this also.
That poor girl, it's just horrible she has to live through this. Idiot instructor, and horrific parenting.
I assume the parents had faith in the instructor. If you send your kid to school and a teacher molests her, is that bad parenting? Nothing unusual about putting faith in trained authority figures
this is a godawful analogy, but the principle of your argument is dead wrong. Sending my child to school means she is no longer under my supervision.
Letting my child shoot a gun while I video tape is directly under my supervision.
The crux of your argument is that children need to be supervised in any kind of discipline. Whehter it is athletics, learning, homework, whatever.
My issue is that this child has to live with this event with the rest of her life. Her parents are awful; horrific quite frankly.
I'm not so old that I no longer remember that I once supervised a bunch of 1st and 2nd graders during recess when I was in grade school. Not so much younger than the girl in that video. These kids have generally zero perspective and real life understanding of what happens when you pull that trigger. theres no amount of training at that age that can make them understand that-- there's no taking back what happens once you pull it.
I'd like to see anyone who argues otherwise show me evidence that they do, because I cant imagine anyone who works in the child psychology or developmental field advocating that children as young as 7 be taught to operate a gun.
the instructor did not break the law letting a 9 year old shoot an uzi
I don't think age is the issue. I think teaching correctly with the right equipment and in the right environment is the issue.
But I'm not a bad parent because I am teaching my kids to properly handle weapons.
Quote:
The instructor is a fucking idiot.
i'm not looking for anything
this whole thing seems completely senseless for me.
why you would ever put a gun into a hands of a person under the age of 18 outside of a life/death situation should be a crime.
Yes you are. You're looking to stir shit up on BBI. See, that wasn't that hard now was it??
Quote:
to simply say a 9 year old can be taught to operate a gun safely? no?
I expect my 7 year old daughter will shoot a. 22 rifle with me for the first time this weekend. It'll be under my supervision and the supervision of a qualified instructor. We'll shoot some arrows on the archery range too. Don't get me wrong, kids shouldn't be allowed to handle any weapons without strict and competent adult supervision. But, really, wouldn't you say that about most things with young children?
Exactly. I was trained to shoot by my father with a .22 when I was 7. And he progressed me through the stages until I was 21 and bought my first handgun. The instructor giving an automatic weapon to a 9 year old is ridiculous.
Sorry Steve. Hyperbole and leaps of logic rule. You've been around here long enough to know that.
Kinda like a car...you're more likely to die in a car accident if you drive a car, use a car, etc, than if you don't
That's all I take from it. It's an inherited risk.
Whatever, I believe in the second amendment. Commie!
I agree that a 9 year old has no business shooting an automatic anything, no matter how experienced in shooting he/she is. However, to say that a 9 year old shouldn't ever be taught how to handle a gun isn't right either, as a proper instruction given with proper equipment (a .22 is probably the level one wants to stay at) is valuable in instilling a sense of gun safety.
It sucks that this instructor lost his life, but that is a direct result of his complacency and carelessness. And for the parents of the child, they should have been a bit more common sensical when they took their child to a gun range. Now this little girl is going to be scarred for life and the instructor's family will no longer have their father/husband. Sucks all around.
I agree that a 9 year old has no business shooting an automatic anything, no matter how experienced in shooting he/she is. However, to say that a 9 year old shouldn't ever be taught how to handle a gun isn't right either, as a proper instruction given with proper equipment (a .22 is probably the level one wants to stay at) is valuable in instilling a sense of gun safety.
It sucks that this instructor lost his life, but that is a direct result of his complacency and carelessness. And for the parents of the child, they should have been a bit more common sensical when they took their child to a gun range. Now this little girl is going to be scarred for life and the instructor's family will no longer have their father/husband. Sucks all around.
Do you think if you could go back in time to just yesterday, and interview that instructor that he would think of himself as careless and complacent? Serious question.
Of course not, no one ever thinks that they are complacent, but that's the key factor of being complacent...that you don't think you're being careless.
Not trying to say this is an analogy, but I've been taught (and taught others) that complacency kills. Whether it's on the battlefield or even riding a motorcycle, being complacent can/will get you killed.
Quote:
Do you think if you could go back in time to just yesterday, and interview that instructor that he would think of himself as careless and complacent? Serious question.
Of course not, no one ever thinks that they are complacent, but that's the key factor of being complacent...that you don't think you're being careless.
Not trying to say this is an analogy, but I've been taught (and taught others) that complacency kills. Whether it's on the battlefield or even riding a motorcycle, being complacent can/will get you killed.
Agreed sir......how could he have been anything but complacent...letting a waif of a 9 year old girl handle a weapon like that? It's just so odd to me that in all likelihood, the guy saw absolutely nothing wrong with what he was doing, until that last fraction of a second.
One of the key factor in becoming complacent is overestimating your own experience, abilities, knowledge, etc. at the cost of underestimating the unforeseen difficulties. I'm sure he thought that he had the situation under complete control since he's probably done something like this before (maybe not with a 9 year old girl...who knows) and they turned out ok. But when you're dealing with something as lethal as a gun, you always keep your guards up and never take anything for granted.
I spoke of riding a motorcycle above, and one of the best advice I ever got when riding one was "the moment I don't feel a bit of nervous anxiety when I am about to ride my motorcycle is the moment I stop riding." That should be the same for owning and using a gun.
The instructor is a moron, there's nothing here to discuss.
An alien from another planet might also wonder why you can carry a pistol in uniform but doing the same thing in some states in this country out of uniform can get you a felony and a few mandatory years in jail.
Exactly. Safe weapons handling is the sine qua non of shooting. Smart people who know what they're doing do it by the book every time because a "whoops!" moment on the range gets people killed. I'm far from a certified instructor but I know goddamned well that a 9 year old child doesn't have the bone structure and physical strength to control an automatic weapon. I absolutely intend to teach my children marksmanship when they get older, but it will be with an easily-controlled .22, not a submachine gun.
this, however goes well beyond that and is what I'd consider negligence at a minimum.
Quote:
visiting from another planet would find it completely bizarre that in the US you need to be 21 years old to legally purchase alcohol but a 9 year old can legally practice firing a powerful deadly automatic weapon.
An alien from another planet might also wonder why you can carry a pistol in uniform but doing the same thing in some states in this country out of uniform can get you a felony and a few mandatory years in jail.
Perhaps, but the alien may also recognize that certain individuals are tasked with professionally maintaining order in society requiring them to carry pistols and when they are off duty as civilians they do not have the same privileges.
Just because you shot a .22 when you were 7 doesn't rationalize this. I slept on a mattress in the back of a station wagon on long trips as a kid. Yeah, and I didn't die because we didn't get in an accident. But I know I'm not taking that risk with my kids. Why anyone feels the need to have their 9 year old shot a gun is beyond my comprehension.
But au contraire...many jurisdiction allow them such privileges even then.
Quote:
In comment 11827131 Les in TO said:
Quote:
visiting from another planet would find it completely bizarre that in the US you need to be 21 years old to legally purchase alcohol but a 9 year old can legally practice firing a powerful deadly automatic weapon.
An alien from another planet might also wonder why you can carry a pistol in uniform but doing the same thing in some states in this country out of uniform can get you a felony and a few mandatory years in jail.
Perhaps, but the alien may also recognize that certain individuals are tasked with professionally maintaining order in society requiring them to carry pistols and when they are off duty as civilians they do not have the same privileges.
You say privilege, I say right. Black letter. In the Constitution. Yes restrictions, but there is a disconnect when you attempt to exercise your right and end up in jail for a couple years for your trouble.
Quote:
In comment 11827131 Les in TO said:
Quote:
visiting from another planet would find it completely bizarre that in the US you need to be 21 years old to legally purchase alcohol but a 9 year old can legally practice firing a powerful deadly automatic weapon.
An alien from another planet might also wonder why you can carry a pistol in uniform but doing the same thing in some states in this country out of uniform can get you a felony and a few mandatory years in jail.
Perhaps, but the alien may also recognize that certain individuals are tasked with professionally maintaining order in society requiring them to carry pistols and when they are off duty as civilians they do not have the same privileges.
Why the fuck are we speculating what an alien race would deem acceptable?
You can't prove to me 100% that my kid isn't going to guzzle the liquor in your cabinet - or the cleaning supplies under the sink - and die that way. Both of which have a much higher chance of occurring than of getting at a locked firearm and separately locked ammunition.
These places exist all over the country. I'm actually shocked accidents don't happen more often.
Just because you shot a .22 when you were 7 doesn't rationalize this. I slept on a mattress in the back of a station wagon on long trips as a kid. Yeah, and I didn't die because we didn't get in an accident. But I know I'm not taking that risk with my kids. Why anyone feels the need to have their 9 year old shot a gun is beyond my comprehension.
I think 20-30 years ago most gun enthusiasts will be phased out. There have been obvious strides in the last decade or so in both gun awareness and gun laws. It's going to take time but eventually, thankfully, I think it no longer be such a big part of our culture.
Think again, sparky. Your side is losing, in case you haven't noticed.
Just because you shot a .22 when you were 7 doesn't rationalize this. I slept on a mattress in the back of a station wagon on long trips as a kid. Yeah, and I didn't die because we didn't get in an accident. But I know I'm not taking that risk with my kids. Why anyone feels the need to have their 9 year old shot a gun is beyond my comprehension.
There are hazards all around. You can hermetically seal your child until his 18th birthday and release him and expect him to function in society or you can let him try things, even dangerous things, under close supervision. We have a tendency to misapprehend risk; some of the activities that we judge to be routine can be a lot more dangerous than the ones some of us deem unconscionable.
You say that now, but wait until there's a zombie apocalypse and see how hard it is to defense one self against zombies and assholes without guns...;)
if not 16
what about 12??
seriously would a law like this trapple your 2nd amendment rights?
if not 16
what about 12??
seriously would a law like this trapple your 2nd amendment rights?
I'll go one step further. I think it should be illegal for any civilian (no matter the age) to own or handle an automatic weapon (and I mean the proper definition of an automatic weapon). No reason for anyone outside of the military or even specialized law enforcement teams to have access to automatic weapon.
if not 16
what about 12??
seriously would a law like this trapple your 2nd amendment rights?
To the extent that I'm a gun rights person, I don't think any civilian needs access to heavy weaponry or explosives. Frankly I'm not sure an LEO needs automatic weaponry either. These are tools of waging war. A rifle, even a semi-automatic one ("assault weapon" though it may be), a shotgun, or a pistol can do pretty much everything you need or want to do for sport or for defense, or for food where that is the practice. Having access to fully automatic weapons reeks more of mall ninja than of anything else.
Not true. I absolutely need an M2 mounted on my roof so I'll be prepared when the looters come someday.
Quote:
There's no reason for a 9 year old to be anywhere near a loaded gun. Gun safety? How 'bout keeping it out of their hands? Why don't you take her out for a drive and throw back a few beers while you're at it.
Just because you shot a .22 when you were 7 doesn't rationalize this. I slept on a mattress in the back of a station wagon on long trips as a kid. Yeah, and I didn't die because we didn't get in an accident. But I know I'm not taking that risk with my kids. Why anyone feels the need to have their 9 year old shot a gun is beyond my comprehension.
I think 20-30 years ago most gun enthusiasts will be phased out. There have been obvious strides in the last decade or so in both gun awareness and gun laws. It's going to take time but eventually, thankfully, I think it no longer be such a big part of our culture.
The way things are going with the Constitution, I wouldn't be surprised if in Obama's 5th term you might be right
Where do you live? I'd wager a guess that has a lot to do with who you think is winning or losing.
Quote:
Having access to fully automatic weapons reeks more of mall ninja than of anything else.
Not true. I absolutely need an M2 mounted on my roof so I'll be prepared when the looters come someday.
Be a better shot.
Heller
McDonald
Yep...exactly Dune's point.
Agreed this tragedy is on the Darwin-award winning instructor. Oh and the absence of sensible laws, stifled ad nauseum by the aforementioned clan.
I'm on the Internet all day though. My opinion on the world isn't based on what I'm hearing on "the streets of New York."
Hey, you know the McDonald case I linked? Here's a picture of fiery rural white man Otis McDonald:
Agreed this tragedy is on the Darwin-award winning instructor. Oh and the absence of sensible laws, stifled ad nauseum by the aforementioned clan.
I hear ya. I know there are a lot of wanna-be cowboys out there. Maybe it's further away than I'm hoping. Hopefully once this older generation of gun enthusiasts are fazed out, the next one won't so closely associate owning a gun with being a man and will just like to go to the range every now and then.
Who knows.
Ask any soldier what iron sights are, and they'll give you a blank stare...;)
So why are you such a racist, Overseer?
I think 20-30 years ago most gun enthusiasts will be phased out. There have been obvious strides in the last decade or so in both gun awareness and gun laws. It's going to take time but eventually, thankfully, I think it no longer be such a big part of our culture.
Wow. You really have no clue.
Quote:
it may happen slowly in accord with a demographic reduction in the amount of fiery rural white people as a percentage of the population.
Hey, you know the McDonald case I linked? Here's a picture of fiery rural white man Otis McDonald:
But does he have a small penis and issues with his manhood? You know, those other intelligent debating points mentioned?
Who knows.
Stuff like this don't really help in a productive discussion. I don't think any one of us on this thread who own guns are wannabe cowboys or have associated being a man with owning guns...or having to compensate for penis size (well, maybe me since I'm Asian) or any of the other disparaging descriptor of gun owners.
Maybe providing sound reasoning behind your own side will help more than to go down the road of Pork and Bean and other gun-control backers.
I'm on the Internet all day though. My opinion on the world isn't based on what I'm hearing on "the streets of New York."
I'm not saying you do, but you can lead just as restricted/sheltered an existence on the internet as you can in your neighborhood. Most people basically visit sites that they already agree with and validate their existing opinions.
Hmmm...because you reference the exact quote stating that?
Quote:
There's some validity in that, absolutely.
I'm on the Internet all day though. My opinion on the world isn't based on what I'm hearing on "the streets of New York."
I'm not saying you do, but you can lead just as restricted/sheltered an existence on the internet as you can in your neighborhood. Most people basically visit sites that they already agree with and validate their existing opinions.
Haha well, I'm on BBI often, so I think it's safe to say I don't do that :)
I don't believe I was the first to mention it.....apology accepted?
We all have our own hobbies and interests and shouldn't judge others for them.
Quote:
the next one won't so closely associate owning a gun with being a man
If being a man means being able to protect yourself and your family, color me guilty
Agreed this tragedy is on the Darwin-award winning instructor. Oh and the absence of sensible laws, stifled ad nauseum by the aforementioned clan.
What an absurd post.
Surely you can recognize the difference between every day gun owners - those who own them for practical (defense) or hobby related reasons (I dig the range myself) - and gun "enthusiasts" for whom firearms are elevated to a cause.
If you want to argue that the latter faction is a desirable counterweight to a would-be over-reach by control legislators, okay. But at this point it's rather clearly undebatable that their unyielding crusade against the kinds of laws that might keep an Uzi out of a 9 y/o's hands has wreaked harm.
Quote:
There's no reason for a 9 year old to be anywhere near a loaded gun. Gun safety? How 'bout keeping it out of their hands? Why don't you take her out for a drive and throw back a few beers while you're at it.
Just because you shot a .22 when you were 7 doesn't rationalize this. I slept on a mattress in the back of a station wagon on long trips as a kid. Yeah, and I didn't die because we didn't get in an accident. But I know I'm not taking that risk with my kids. Why anyone feels the need to have their 9 year old shot a gun is beyond my comprehension.
I think 20-30 years ago most gun enthusiasts will be phased out. There have been obvious strides in the last decade or so in both gun awareness and gun laws. It's going to take time but eventually, thankfully, I think it no longer be such a big part of our culture.
gun ownership and applications for gun ownership are rising rapidly, feverishly.
Doing so wouldn't support my narrative here.
In all seriousness though, yes.. Overseer, probably best to leave out dick references when arguing against gun law, or any law (sorry Brett).
It's most certainly possible one would not need a NASA telescope to view La Pierre's junk and that he's all Patrick Ewing down there. Maybe he's a shitty father and his kids hate him. Or a Redskins fan.
Quote:
I don't think any one of us on this thread who own guns are wannabe cowboys or have associated being a man with owning guns.
Surely you can recognize the difference between every day gun owners - those who own them for practical (defense) or hobby related reasons (I dig the range myself) - and gun "enthusiasts" for whom firearms are elevated to a cause.
If you want to argue that the latter faction is a desirable counterweight to a would-be over-reach by control legislators, okay. But at this point it's rather clearly undebatable that their unyielding crusade against the kinds of laws that might keep an Uzi out of a 9 y/o's hands has wreaked harm.
My father in law is an "enthusiast" but he is very stringent about securing firearms and handling them safely. It's not incompatible. And most firearm enthusiasts I have talked to on the subject think those jackasses walking through Walmart with AR-15s or making similarly over the top public demonstrations of their ability to open carry are just that, jackasses.
And of course they are from New Jersey!
On the other side - the instructor and business are complete morons. Darwin wins again!
If you want to argue that the latter faction is a desirable counterweight to a would-be over-reach by control legislators, okay. But at this point it's rather clearly undebatable that their unyielding crusade against the kinds of laws that might keep an Uzi out of a 9 y/o's hands has wreaked harm.
I'm with you with regards to people who go overboard with their "right to bear arms" argument. I don't think there's any reason why someone should feel that they can and should be allowed to carry a rifle slung on their back to a grocery store or any public places. However, I also don't believe that those legal and responsible gun owners should be told how they shouldn't be allowed to own firearms that they legally bought and are responsible with.
Both sides have their extreme components, which I see as the problems. I think productive discussions take place somewhere in the middle (in the gray areas) rather than in either the black or white extremes.
As far as this incident goes, I've stated already, this instructor was a dumb schmuck and the parents were irresponsible. And the law allowing for anyone outside of the military (I am not agreeing with Duned that law enforcement probably shouldn't be allowed automatic weapons either) to own/operate automatic weapons should be banned.
Wow...that changed the context, huh?
Agreed this tragedy is on the Darwin-award winning instructor. Oh and the absence of sensible laws, stifled ad nauseum by the aforementioned clan.
So what do we do? We obviously need to get rid of those pesky "fiery white rural folk" to get sensible laws. God what a horrible group of folk they are.
There's a word for statements like "fiery white rural people". Can't think of it but since you are so erudite and so much more intelligent sure you can help a poor ignorant "non rural white dude" out. I'm actually rather swarthy. I'm sure you can come up with and equally correct appellation for me.
Oh and I'm curious to what you think of all of my "fiery brown urban" friends who own guns here is S Florida.
gun sales are up (of course), but gun ownership, on a per-household basis, is down, and has been on the decline for four decades.
so that means more guns are out there, but fewer people own them, leading to a concentration of guns owned by a smaller percentage of the population. people like me like to use words like "arsenal" to paint a scary picture of gun owners who have lots of weapons. it makes us feel good, but it's also accurate in some cases (albeit hyperbolic in others).
now, we can go back and forth all day on what this concentration of gun ownership means in terms of the future of guns in America. doing so would be tremendously wasteful here (as usual).
my opinion is that the reduction in gun ownership on a per-household basis will certainly lead to a change in the culture (if it hasn't already) and ultimately, legislation. that is, of course, unless the zombie apocalypse does in fact happen and those of us who don't feel the need for a gun have a change of heart.
The 9 year old girl now knows how to use an Uzi, is acclimated with it's intended effects and has some serious street cred. Also, the instructor was clearly going for the Darwin award and the human gene pool is now slightly stronger.
The psychological effects on a nine year old of having accidently killed someone can't possibly be that bad, right?
And the law allowing for anyone outside of the military (I am not agreeing with Duned that law enforcement probably shouldn't be allowed automatic weapons either) to own/operate automatic weapons should be banned. [/quote]
I've got to disagree with that and I'll go back to the Constitution. When it was written, the Founders weren't worried about hunters' rights-that was taken as a given that nobody disagreed with. They were worried about foreign interventions, and a good number of them, starting with Jefferson, were worried about a strong, oppressive Federal government. They wanted the States to have the ability to defend themselves against the Feds, a fear clearly borne out by the Civil War. There was a long thread here recently about the increased militarization of our police departments. Is a society ruled by the police and military a likelihood in our future? I sure hope not. Is it a possibility? Who can so no? I'm not in that fringe, but I accept the worries of those who are and I believe in the original intent of the Constitution.
And the law allowing for anyone outside of the military (I am not agreeing with Duned that law enforcement probably shouldn't be allowed automatic weapons either) to own/operate automatic weapons should be banned.
I've got to disagree with that and I'll go back to the Constitution. When it was written, the Founders weren't worried about hunters' rights-that was taken as a given that nobody disagreed with. They were worried about foreign interventions, and a good number of them, starting with Jefferson, were worried about a strong, oppressive Federal government. They wanted the States to have the ability to defend themselves against the Feds, a fear clearly borne out by the Civil War. There was a long thread here recently about the increased militarization of our police departments. Is a society ruled by the police and military a likelihood in our future? I sure hope not. Is it a possibility? Who can so no? I'm not in that fringe, but I accept the worries of those who are and I believe in the original intent of the Constitution. [/quote]
So, I guess what you're saying is that a nine year old shooting someone with an UZI is the necessary cost to avoid a military police state.
And the law allowing for anyone outside of the military (I am not agreeing with Duned that law enforcement probably shouldn't be allowed automatic weapons either) to own/operate automatic weapons should be banned.
I've got to disagree with that and I'll go back to the Constitution. When it was written, the Founders weren't worried about hunters' rights-that was taken as a given that nobody disagreed with. They were worried about foreign interventions, and a good number of them, starting with Jefferson, were worried about a strong, oppressive Federal government. They wanted the States to have the ability to defend themselves against the Feds, a fear clearly borne out by the Civil War. There was a long thread here recently about the increased militarization of our police departments. Is a society ruled by the police and military a likelihood in our future? I sure hope not. Is it a possibility? Who can so no? I'm not in that fringe, but I accept the worries of those who are and I believe in the original intent of the Constitution. [/quote]
And here, ladies and gents, is a prime example of someone lacking the understanding of the intent of an automatic weapon. This is why you have such a push back from the other side. Using the Constitution to advocate for a civilian to own an automatic weapon (basically a machine gun) is idiotic and lacks any understanding of putting decisions and events into the context of time.
And if you think that the US military (and police) will ever willingly oppress its own people, then you obviously don't know the kind of people who make up these groups.
and some of you wonder why there's so much vitriol from the gun control side of this debate.
Earth to Bill in UT - no amount of firepower, no weapon, is going to enable you to stand your ground against the police or even deter them from doing what they want to do. none. zilch.
remember Waco, TX? that's exactly what would happen to you or anyone like you if you thought you could stand up to the "pigs" because you have automatic rifles.
there are many ways to check the power of the police force without arming ordinary citizens with military-style weapons.
gun sales are up (of course), but gun ownership, on a per-household basis, is down, and has been on the decline for four decades.
so that means more guns are out there, but fewer people own them, leading to a concentration of guns owned by a smaller percentage of the population. people like me like to use words like "arsenal" to paint a scary picture of gun owners who have lots of weapons. it makes us feel good, but it's also accurate in some cases (albeit hyperbolic in others).
now, we can go back and forth all day on what this concentration of gun ownership means in terms of the future of guns in America. doing so would be tremendously wasteful here (as usual).
my opinion is that the reduction in gun ownership on a per-household basis will certainly lead to a change in the culture (if it hasn't already) and ultimately, legislation. that is, of course, unless the zombie apocalypse does in fact happen and those of us who don't feel the need for a gun have a change of heart.
Do you have stats for that?
In MA gun permits (which normally indicate a new household) are on the rise 6% statewide and in double digits in many communities
More than 35,000 area residents have a “license to carry,” as a Class A permit is known.
The increase varied widely by community, with 13 registering double-digit growth, led by Bedford and Dunstable at 17 percent, and a few showed a decline in the number of Class A licenses. Other communities with at least 10 percent growth included Ashland, Bellingham, Carlisle, and Stow.
I don't have nationwide stats, I was reporting anecdotally from my firearms safety course where the NRA instructor cited their national numbers.
but I have seen other states like New Mexico report a 30% increase in year over year gun permit applications - each gun you buy does not require a permit.
Also, quotes like this don't support your "fact" either:
The study by the Crime Prevention Research Center found that 11.1 million Americans now have permits to carry concealed weapons, up from 4.5 million in 2007. The 146 percent increase has come even as both murder and violent crime rates have dropped by 22 percent.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/09/murder-drops-as-concealed-carry-permits-rise-claims-study/
I'm sure there is some "misinformation on this thread (as usual)" but what is it?
Gun licenses on the rise - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 11827459 RC02XX said:
And the law allowing for anyone outside of the military (I am not agreeing with Duned that law enforcement probably shouldn't be allowed automatic weapons either) to own/operate automatic weapons should be banned.
I've got to disagree with that and I'll go back to the Constitution. When it was written, the Founders weren't worried about hunters' rights-that was taken as a given that nobody disagreed with. They were worried about foreign interventions, and a good number of them, starting with Jefferson, were worried about a strong, oppressive Federal government. They wanted the States to have the ability to defend themselves against the Feds, a fear clearly borne out by the Civil War. There was a long thread here recently about the increased militarization of our police departments. Is a society ruled by the police and military a likelihood in our future? I sure hope not. Is it a possibility? Who can so no? I'm not in that fringe, but I accept the worries of those who are and I believe in the original intent of the Constitution.
And here, ladies and gents, is a prime example of someone lacking the understanding of the intent of an automatic weapon. This is why you have such a push back from the other side. Using the Constitution to advocate for a civilian to own an automatic weapon (basically a machine gun) is idiotic and lacks any understanding of putting decisions and events into the context of time.
And if you think that the US military (and police) will ever willingly oppress its own people, then you obviously don't know the kind of people who make up these groups. [/quote]
I'm precisely using the context of time. In 1790, the militias would have had to deal with soldiers carrying muskets. Today they would have to deal a slew of modern weapons. If the intent was for the people to be able to defend themselves, they have to have access to the same weaponry. And yes, I realize this can be extrapolation to ridiculous extremes. As to the military oppressing their own people, I imagine the Germans had the same lack of concern. One never knows what kind of event could transpire or what kind of leader that could bring to power. People are still basically cattle and ruled by fear in their actions.
For myself I am not a fan of handguns so I don't own one, but I don't intend to force my personal beliefs on others and try and infringe on their right to own one. I do enjoy hunting and own a shotgun, a .22 rifle and basic deer hunting rifle. I have considered getting a .22 handgun to carry with me when I hike in the woods because we have a lot of copperheads, but so far haven't pulled the trigger on that decision (ba-dum ching).
There are many benefits of teaching children the skills of hunting and fishing and if done properly and with adult supervision they can safely handle a gun at that age.
I can multitask :)
Ugh...I guess I can't argue against stupid. Somehow because the Germans were able to be subverted by the Nazi party to make the Jews and other minorities the scapegoats for their ills, we have to fear the same today, huh?
You are exactly the people that make Pork and Beans' argument more valid. Seriously, are you even sure you know what the hell you are talking about? This isn't the 1790s United States or the 1930s Germany. This is the 2010s United States where our people are better educated and more informed with far greater sense of self, which are the ultimate panacea against an establishment of a police state.
sorry, but none of what you just wrote contradicts the point i raised. you cited evidence of increased license applications in two states (acknowledging that you don't have national data) as well as increased applications for concealed carry licenses. while that data would be considered in the grand scheme of things, it's not indicative of an overall upswing in ownership on a per household basis, so i'm not even sure why you raised it.
it's funny, do an internet search for "gun ownership by household" just as an experiment. humor me.
the first two results are from the NY Times (gun ownership by household on the decline), and Breitbart (gun ownership by household on the rise). but if you actually look into the stats, the NY Times article is, by far, much more accurate.
basically you're looking at gun ownership per household at about 50-55% of all households in the 1970s, declined to about 35% by 2012, and is now back up to about 40% in 2014.
so yeah, they're both right, but they're also both painting the picture they want to paint, according to their agendas.
overall, however, we are in the midst of a substantial decline in gun ownership on a per-household basis in the last 40 years, with a little blip of an increase in the past two years or so.
Quote:
I'm sure there is some "misinformation on this thread (as usual)" but what is it? Gun licenses on the rise - ( New Window )
sorry, but none of what you just wrote contradicts the point i raised. you cited evidence of increased license applications in two states (acknowledging that you don't have national data) as well as increased applications for concealed carry licenses. while that data would be considered in the grand scheme of things, it's not indicative of an overall upswing in ownership on a per household basis, so i'm not even sure why you raised it.
it's funny, do an internet search for "gun ownership by household" just as an experiment. humor me.
the first two results are from the NY Times (gun ownership by household on the decline), and Breitbart (gun ownership by household on the rise). but if you actually look into the stats, the NY Times article is, by far, much more accurate.
basically you're looking at gun ownership per household at about 50-55% of all households in the 1970s, declined to about 35% by 2012, and is now back up to about 40% in 2014.
so yeah, they're both right, but they're also both painting the picture they want to paint, according to their agendas.
overall, however, we are in the midst of a substantial decline in gun ownership on a per-household basis in the last 40 years, with a little blip of an increase in the past two years or so.
Basically it was the recency I was referring to not decade long trends, so I didn't mean to argue that. And possibly propaganda or real fear, but people are afraid the process and qualifications to procure guns and ammunition will be made more restrictive, so where there is a surge that's been given as a reason why. People want to be licensed before the process changes.
I believe this is probably true.
50% of households owned guns in 1972, or approximately 33.3 million households.
In 2012, that number declined to 32% of households, or approximately 39.2 million households, so there are nearly 6 million (5.8) more households claiming gun ownership than four decades ago.
The rate of household ownership has declined (though it moved back up in '13, I believe), but more households own guns now than four decades ago.
gun sales are up (of course), but gun ownership, on a per-household basis, is down, and has been on the decline for four decades.
so that means more guns are out there, but fewer people own them
Funny, if you were aware that the rate of increase in households (not population, different things), was greater than than the decline in ownership rates, you could never have written "but fewer people own them".
I was left two choices:
1. you were unaware of the underlying dynamic, which I sought to correct to enhance the debate and provide some granularity in polite fashion;
2. you were aware and deliberately misrepresented it to suit an agenda.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and thought you wouldn't lie to support a point. My mistake.
you then took a snippet of that argument as a means to attack the entire thing, which is par for the course for a guy like you.
thanks for contributing nothing, as usual.
What you did, out of ignorance, was incorrectly extrapolate a rate to absolute numbers (fewer people own them) and used that as a basis for some "arsenal" argument. Which may actually be the case, but we certainly have no way of knowing based on your post.
Are you saying your point re: arsenals isn't worth debating?
Try to stay focused, and here's a hint, it's OK to be wrong. Everyone knows it, your deflecting and insults doesn't do anything to change it.
not worth my time.
Quote:
I'm precisely using the context of time. In 1790, the militias would have had to deal with soldiers carrying muskets. Today they would have to deal a slew of modern weapons. If the intent was for the people to be able to defend themselves, they have to have access to the same weaponry. And yes, I realize this can be extrapolation to ridiculous extremes. As to the military oppressing their own people, I imagine the Germans had the same lack of concern. One never knows what kind of event could transpire or what kind of leader that could bring to power. People are still basically cattle and ruled by fear in their actions.
Ugh...I guess I can't argue against stupid. Somehow because the Germans were able to be subverted by the Nazi party to make the Jews and other minorities the scapegoats for their ills, we have to fear the same today, huh?
You are exactly the people that make Pork and Beans' argument more valid. Seriously, are you even sure you know what the hell you are talking about? This isn't the 1790s United States or the 1930s Germany. This is the 2010s United States where our people are better educated and more informed with far greater sense of self, which are the ultimate panacea against an establishment of a police state.
A perfect example of how people don't learn from history. I think it's time for me to bow out. Gotta take my Stupid Pill in 5 mintues and I never remember where I left them :)
I admitted I was wrong earlier :)
And I agree, Rob. I was actually curious to see M in CT's response. Nothing of value was added and after you respectfully made a very fair point.
Quote:
even shown to have made an incorrect statement, a poster will dodge, deflect and insult rather than admit error, taking the discussion on a tangent and seeing the thread devolve.
I admitted I was wrong earlier :)
And I agree, Rob. I was actually curious to see M in CT's response. Nothing of value was added and after you respectfully made a very fair point.
I know you did, thank you.
I tried, but I suspect all my reward will be is another insult. It's a pattern with some posters...
And that is one of the most overused cliches..."don't learn from history."
It's one thing to learn from history, it's another to analyze different aspects of past events and put it into proper context based on time and situation before you actually learn anything from it. But since your level of analysis has been regularly proven to be weak, it doesn't surprise me that you would use such a cliche as basis for your argument.
Quote:
In comment 11827549 Bill in UT said:
Quote:
In comment 11827459 RC02XX said:
And the law allowing for anyone outside of the military (I am not agreeing with Duned that law enforcement probably shouldn't be allowed automatic weapons either) to own/operate automatic weapons should be banned.
I've got to disagree with that and I'll go back to the Constitution. When it was written, the Founders weren't worried about hunters' rights-that was taken as a given that nobody disagreed with. They were worried about foreign interventions, and a good number of them, starting with Jefferson, were worried about a strong, oppressive Federal government. They wanted the States to have the ability to defend themselves against the Feds, a fear clearly borne out by the Civil War. There was a long thread here recently about the increased militarization of our police departments. Is a society ruled by the police and military a likelihood in our future? I sure hope not. Is it a possibility? Who can so no? I'm not in that fringe, but I accept the worries of those who are and I believe in the original intent of the Constitution.
And here, ladies and gents, is a prime example of someone lacking the understanding of the intent of an automatic weapon. This is why you have such a push back from the other side. Using the Constitution to advocate for a civilian to own an automatic weapon (basically a machine gun) is idiotic and lacks any understanding of putting decisions and events into the context of time.
And if you think that the US military (and police) will ever willingly oppress its own people, then you obviously don't know the kind of people who make up these groups.
I'm precisely using the context of time. In 1790, the militias would have had to deal with soldiers carrying muskets. Today they would have to deal a slew of modern weapons. If the intent was for the people to be able to defend themselves, they have to have access to the same weaponry. And yes, I realize this can be extrapolation to ridiculous extremes. As to the military oppressing their own people, I imagine the Germans had the same lack of concern. One never knows what kind of event could transpire or what kind of leader that could bring to power. People are still basically cattle and ruled by fear in their actions. [/quote]
Mixed feelings. On the one hand, this isn't Nazi Germany. On the other hand, it could certainly be argued that one of the reasons the Founding generation countenanced such a right was because they feared an overbearing government. When people tell me that part of the reason they're pro-2nd Amendment is because they "think a government should fear its people" my initial reaction is to break out the tin foil, but at a certain level you can understand the argument - even if you dismiss it. Simply voting out of office a government that has been tyrannical to you may be time-consuming (if it's even possible) and whatever harm you're trying to prevent may have already been done. Filing a complaint or pushing for civil remedies may seem equally insufficient. So while I think the argument is wrong, or at least one I can't accept, there is substance to it.
Duned...you're a better man than me when it comes to having the patience and showing more understanding to people for their ideas and views. You've shown similar patience and understanding to Sonic Youth in the other thread and now to Bill and what I believe is a tired cliched argument when it comes to the application of the 2nd Amendment in this gun debate. I'm just not so patient when it comes to such drivel...:)
Well, now that you're an officer, I expect more from you...;)
Quote:
most of those conversations have occurred when my opportunities for exit are limited.
Well, now that you're an officer, I expect more from you...;)
Yes, now I just leave. "Gotta go to regiment..."
Well, the paycheck is nice, especially when you're an O-2E (and even better when you're an O-3E).
And yeah, I would much rather be doing that as well, but I don't mind the air conditioner and the comfortable chair during my drill weekends.
Yeah, had to turn in my blue cord and everything. Still enjoy peers nearing retirement age with oak leaf clusters on their chest asking me what "that badge" (my CIB) is.
Which Mike?
I could never understand the criteria for the CIB, but the same can be said for the CAR in the Marine Corps.
I'm sure I told you about my conversation with an Army Lt back in Ramadi regarding his soldiers randomly running up to the roof of their COP to fire off their rifles at nothing during a firefight just so that they can qualify for the CIB. Maybe it was because they were in their final weeks of deployment as a national guards unit, so they didn't want to actually participate in the firefight, but why not at least shoot towards the direction of the enemy instead of into the air? I gave that stupid Lt an earful after the incident, but I'm sure he didn't give a fuck.
I have now lost all respect for you :-)
Quote:
Yeah, had to turn in my blue cord and everything. Still enjoy peers nearing retirement age with oak leaf clusters on their chest asking me what "that badge" (my CIB) is.
I could never understand the criteria for the CIB, but the same can be said for the CAR in the Marine Corps.
I'm sure I told you about my conversation with an Army Lt back in Ramadi regarding his soldiers randomly running up to the roof of their COP to fire off their rifles at nothing during a firefight just so that they can qualify for the CIB. Maybe it was because they were in their final weeks of deployment as a national guards unit, so they didn't want to actually participate in the firefight, but why not at least shoot towards the direction of the enemy instead of into the air? I gave that stupid Lt an earful after the incident, but I'm sure he didn't give a fuck.
Yeah I've seen equally shitty ones, blanketing FOBs for things with minute kill radii, imagined sniper fire buttressed by old chips and cracks. But my favorite was actually a Navy O-5 (doctor in our FOB aid station) hot on the trail of whatever their badge or ribbon is called. In the middle of a mortar barrage he runs outside with his 9MM and starts shooting at the mountain, probably 2 clicks away. After it's all over he tries to get his minions to write supporting documentation for it and they all say no.
I have now lost all respect for you :-)
I got tired of the Sunday afternoon at the armory bit, where the senior NCOs would find incredibly stupid busy work like edging the parking lot with shovels. I was hoping for a stateside mission (as opposed to just training) and I thought I could get that with JAG but thus far I really haven't. Oh well, only nine years to go.
he was apparently a veteran and commands far more respect because of that than what you guys are giving him.
As to the scope of the thread, I am shocked that most people seem to think that the narrative of this story is the failure of the instructor and not the parents.
he was apparently a veteran and commands far more respect because of that than what you guys are giving him.
As to the scope of the thread, I am shocked that most people seem to think that the narrative of this story is the failure of the instructor and not the parents.
You're right, it's sort of morbid to joke about someone, who has just died. But honestly, who gives a flying fuck if he was a veteran when he did something so stupid and irresponsible? He obviously was a stupid veteran if he thought giving a 9 year old such latitude to shoot such a weapon was a smart decision.
And yes, the parents are at fault, but the instructor could have given his honest recommendation that she shouldn't be firing that weapon full automatic just for shits and giggles. That's what he got paid for, to be the expert at weapons instructions, which should include ample understanding of weapons safety.
It's called a Combat Action Ribbon (CAR). That shit is all sorts of fucked up too when it comes to who gets awarded it. I've seen an entire ship get it because they were "under attack" when they had one rocket fly over the ship by a mile. When you have you Marines ask why a bunch of sailors have a CAR (for that incident), while they don't have one even though they were under constant mortar attacks in Iraq, you just have to shake your head and tell them that it's not important. But that's the inconsistency of the military, I guess.
And once again, maybe the instructor should have used his "expertise" to recommend that little Suzy wasn't big enough to shoot such a weapon. That's what you expect from someone, who is put in such a position to recommend and to ensure the safety of others.
he was apparently a veteran and commands far more respect because of that than what you guys are giving him.
As to the scope of the thread, I am shocked that most people seem to think that the narrative of this story is the failure of the instructor and not the parents.
The parents most likely deserve ridicule as well. I don't see how the instructor being a veteran makes him any less of a complete fucking idiot. He gave an automatic weapon with significant recoil to a 9 year old girl and then he got shot. What he did was extremely dangerous even if we assumed this 9 year old had used an uzi before and was some gun expert herself. If she physically couldn't handle the recoil or keep a grip on it, why was she handling a loaded weapon, or even a weapon with more than 1 shell in the clip?
It is absolutely up to the instructor to realize what a trainee can and cannot handle and mitigate any risk that may occur. This is a 9 year old girl, she can't make these decisions.
Being a vet doesn't mean you deserve carte blanche to be an idiot.
And in case you didn't know, many of the people criticizing this vet are vets themselves.
.........
(E) PERSONNEL WHO ARE EXPOSED TO INDIRECT FIRE ARE NOT NORMALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE CAR UNLESS THEY ACTIVELY ENGAGE THE ENEMY IN OFFENSIVE COUNTER-FIRE ACTIONS.
If exposure to IDF attacks were sufficient, virtually everyone who was in Iraq would have rated one. Even aboard good ol' Camp Cupcake, Al-Asad, with our swimming pool and Burger King and Pizza Hut, we received a fair amount of IDF rockets and mortars.
Quote:
he was apparently a veteran and commands far more respect because of that than what you guys are giving him
Being a vet doesn't mean you deserve carte blanche to be an idiot.
And in case you didn't know, many of the people criticizing this vet are vets themselves.
the fact that vets are criticizing him is completely immaterial.
He died from an accident, not some gray area event where he may have committed some crime.
he was apparently a veteran and commands far more respect because of that than what you guys are giving him.
As to the scope of the thread, I am shocked that most people seem to think that the narrative of this story is the failure of the instructor and not the parents.
Hey kepler,
Next time I ask what you are looking for, just be honest and state your agenda upfront. It'll save everyone a boatload of time and effort. K? Thanks.
I hear you. But thankfully, I have not had any experience with Marines and sailors getting the Purple Heart for anything less than gunshot/IED related wounds. Although my battalion was contemplating giving Purple Hearts to us for concussions and internal bleedings (half of our 300 men task force suffered some level of such injury) when we were hit with multiple SVBIEDs during a complex attack on our FOB in 2005. Thankfully, the company commander and the 1stSgt said no thanks.
He died from an accident, not some gray area event where he may have committed some crime.
Then why mention that he was a veteran and deserves more respect than given? Isn't that a bit contradictory to your post here?
And his actions could have killed the girl (similar to the story of the 8 year old who was killed in Massachusetts that was linked above) and her parents. So yeah, while it's sad that he died and his family will miss their father/husband, the fact remains that he was an irresponsible idiot.
As for TBIs, under certain circumstances I think giving a PH is reasonable. A diagnosed concussion because of a bomb blast is a wound. Now PTSD is different, because it's so subjective and at the whim of self-reporting.
He died from an accident, not some gray area event where he may have committed some crime.
But the fact that he is a vet garners him no more respect than any other idiot who was careless with an automatic weapon and a child.
Was it an accident? Yes.
Did he have complete control of the variables that led to the accident? Yes.
Quote:
the jokes about the instructor.
he was apparently a veteran and commands far more respect because of that than what you guys are giving him.
As to the scope of the thread, I am shocked that most people seem to think that the narrative of this story is the failure of the instructor and not the parents.
Hey kepler,
Next time I ask what you are looking for, just be honest and state your agenda upfront. It'll save everyone a boatload of time and effort. K? Thanks.
im not looking for anything
I posted this story knowing it would be everywhere the next day. I felt that it was appropriate for this area of the forum and thought i'd gain some insight by hearing others.
i think i have.
effing A right!
Quote:
the fact that vets are criticizing him is completely immaterial.
He died from an accident, not some gray area event where he may have committed some crime.
Then why mention that he was a veteran and deserves more respect than given? Isn't that a bit contradictory to your post here?
And his actions could have killed the girl (similar to the story of the 8 year old who was killed in Massachusetts that was linked above) and her parents. So yeah, while it's sad that he died and his family will miss their father/husband, the fact remains that he was an irresponsible idiot.
because its part of the story; its relevant to his qualifications as to whether or not he should have even been in a position to instruct someone at a gun range.
whats not relevant is that his detractors are vets. it's completely immaterial.
Let me draw a analogy for you:
a white person starts a sentence with " I have a lot of black friends"
Let me draw a analogy for you:
a white person starts a sentence with " I have a lot of black friends"
A bunch of vets start a sentence with, "I am a vet..."
The reality is that him being a veteran means nothing.
Good idea.
I was wondering if a guy were to say... Buy a flamethrower and say buy a kangaroo would said kangaroo be able to go through a flamethrower safety course? I would hope a range safety officer would go for that.
I posted this story knowing it would be everywhere the next day. I felt that it was appropriate for this area of the forum and thought i'd gain some insight by hearing others.
i think i have.
Could you share what it is that you learned? :)
Now, I got my CAR by being on a ship that was fired on with a US made Harpoon missile that missed by a hundred feet by a Iranian PTG. That may bet be a mortar shell or a M201 but for a ship, it ain't too much a maneuvering that it can do. it's not like it should be a distance for when a ship is under attack..
The criteria is definitely gonna be different for a ship compared to a soldier on the field..
Now, I got my CAR by being on a ship that was fired on with a US made Harpoon missile that missed by a hundred feet by a Iranian PTG. That may bet be a mortar shell or a M201 but for a ship, it ain't too much a maneuvering that it can do. it's not like it should be a distance for when a ship is under attack..
The criteria is definitely gonna be different for a ship compared to a soldier on the field..
I wasn't on the ship (USS Kearsarge) when it happened in 2005, but I was on it during 2007 on the 22nd MEU(SOC). That's when the incident happened where my Marines asked me the question, and I asked one of the LT's on board about it.
The original story stated that the ship came under attack while conducting exercise in Jordan but does not state what kind of an attack. Navy Time
The Combat Action Ribbon is awarded to a ship's crew when the safety of the ship and crew is endangered by enemy attack - such as a ship engaged by shore fire - and the ship's crew performance is considered satisfactory.
Kearsarge's robust force protection measures thwarted a terrorist attack while pierside in Aquaba with USS Ashland (LSD 48) Aug. 19 in support of Exercise Infinite Moonlight, a two-week training exercise between the Jordanian military, Kearsarge Expeditionary Strike Group and the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit. Due to Kearsarge's robust force protection measures, a direct attack was prevented.
No U.S. Sailors or Marines were injured and no U.S. equipment was damaged. Regrettably, a Jordanian sentry was killed and a second Jordanian sentry wounded at the jointly manned pier gate adjacent to the ship.
Looking deeper, there was a story in San Francisco Gate newspaper detailing the attack, which states that two Katyusha rockets were fired at the ship but missed (flew over the bow). USS Kearsarge Attack
Three Katyusha rockets were fired from an industrial zone on the outskirts of town early Friday morning, the authorities said, apparently targeting American warships that docked here last week, the amphibious assault ship Kearsarge and the landing ship Ashland.
The first rocket sailed over the bow of the Ashland and hit a warehouse near the Kearsarge, killing a Jordanian soldier, said Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Brown, a spokesman for the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet in Bahrain. The warehouse is also used by the U.S. military to store goods bound for Iraq, according to Jordanian authorities.
The vessels left port shortly after the attack, the first against American military ships since the bombing of the destroyer Cole five years ago in Yemen.
Then there was a Military Times article written by staff writer, Andrew Scutro regarding the incident as well. The Marines (from the 26th MEU) stated that they wouldn't submit themselves for the CAR following the incident. I can't find the actual article but have found it posted on a message board. Navy Gets CAR; Corps Says No
However, the subcategory appropriate to the Aqaba incident may be “when the safety of a ship and the crew were endangered by enemy attack, such as a ship hit by a mine, or ship engaged by shore, surface, air or sub-surface elements.” The Kearsarge and Ashland were in the area for Infinite Moonlight, an exercise with the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit and the Jordanian military. Some Marines were ashore at the time of the launch.
Ironically, since the 26th MEU deployed last year in “theater reserve” status, it meant that most of the MEU — including Battalion Landing Team 2nd Battalion, 8th Marines, went overseas without seeing action in Iraq.
Yet all the sailors on two of the ships that took them to the Middle East rated the CAR.
According to an Aug. 25 Marine Corps news story, the two ships, after getting underway, took up “less vulnerable positions” offshore while the Marines stayed on land and continued with their exercise.
Some 600 to 800 Marines were on the ships at the time of the attack, said MEU spokesman Capt. William Klumpp. They will not receive the award.
“In essence, the Navy submitted for it,” Klumpp said. “The Marine Corps has not submitted for it. The recommendation from this command is that it not be awarded to the Marines.”
Klumpp said the service planned to stick to the spirit of the CAR.
“In this case, we are applying the full stringency of this award criteria,” Klumpp said. “There are a lot of Marines that have been in some serious combat action.”
So I guess the LT was telling me the truth.
I slept through more than 100 rounds of mortars and rockets hitting my FOB (some actually hitting the buildings my Marines and I were in) during my two deployments to Iraq. So for me, a rocket or a mortar fire isn't really a big deal (hence my incredulity at the story), but I can understand and accept how the Navy and the Corps have different criteria and see differently when it comes to the CAR.
For my Marines and I, we earned ours during our first major engagement in Iraq when our FOB was attacked by three suicide vehicle borne IEDs (one was an actual firetruck) accompanied by a complex attack. The firefight lasted for hours and while only three Marines were medevaced out of the FOB, almost half of us suffered concussions and internal bleeding. We even found a propaganda video online a few weeks later showing the explosions (the mushroom cloud is the fire truck).
A fire truck?
Marines responded to the attack by deploying their "Rapid Reaction" force and calling in air assets; "The unit summoned F-18 fighter jets and Cobra helicopter gunships; the Cobras fired machine guns and Hellfire missiles at what an after-action report described as vehicles transporting weapons." Al Qaeda cannot maintain the initiative against such flexibility and firepower, and were forced to break contact, suffering heavy casualties while failing to achieve their objective. It is no wonder the communiqu�s issued by al Qaeda provided little details on the assault, as there is very little to tout.
According to the Washington Post, "19 insurgents were killed and 15 were wounded during 24 hours of fighting." The size of the assault force is estimated between 40 to 100 fighters (the high number likely representing the support teams), putting the casualty figures at anywhere from 34 to 85%. These are stunningly high numbers.
Al Qaeda devoted significant resources to this assault, and the massing of force at the company level requires time, training, effort and material. The fire truck used in the assault was known to have been missing for months; this vehicle was husbanded for a significant attack. These resources were sacrificed as Camp Gannon has strategic significance to the insurgency.
Camp Gannon attack video - ( New Window )
It is revisionist history to argue that the Second Amendment was designed to help facilitate armed rebellion. Its purpose was actually quite the opposite.
if you look at the other mention of "militia" in the constitution
it is referenced in congress ability to call up the "militia" in a time of insurrection.
so if you want to use your gun against a strong federal government then congress could call the militia that is armed because of second amendment
to PUT YOU DOWN.
see the whiskey rebellion for the proper use of militias and second amendment
It is revisionist history to argue that the Second Amendment was designed to help facilitate armed rebellion. Its purpose was actually quite the opposite.
If I said anything about rebellion, please point it out to me. The intention was for the States to be able to defend themselves.
was the states to arm their miliitas to prevent the federal government from getting to powerful
this is frequent idea these days by gun advocates and an incorrect reading of constitution .
since the federal government can call up state militias at anytime and they are immediately under control of the commander in chief.
there would never been a scenario in which a militia would help make the federal government less powerful . unless the militia was involved in insurrection which is treason .
And as the early history of the Republic proved the militia could not be easily federalized. We see it through the framework of the National Guard which is regularized and is an adjunct of federal much more than state power.
was the states to arm their miliitas to prevent the federal government from getting to powerful
this is frequent idea these days by gun advocates and an incorrect reading of constitution .
since the federal government can call up state militias at anytime and they are immediately under control of the commander in chief.
there would never been a scenario in which a militia would help make the federal government less powerful . unless the militia was involved in insurrection which is treason .
The issue is not entirely black and white. The President had the clear right to call up the militias in case of foreign invasion. But many of the Governors, particularly the Anti-Federalists, claimed the right to control their own militias for domestic problems. (See link) And in many of the States the militias felt greater allegiance to the State than the Feds. What some regarded as treason, others regarded as liberty back in those days. The Constitution contained lots of compromises that didn't satisfy everyone.
Link - ( New Window )
One thing I have learned (and I'm obviously not alone here) is the second amendment is one of the most ambiguously written of all the amendments.
Sometimes people give our founding fathers too much credit, but in this case I think it't due, they left this amendment open to interpretation IMO, so I think it's sometimes presumptuous for people to speak in absolutes with no room for discussion about what was meant 230 years ago in an ambiguously written paragraph.
Can you extrapolate from that history the notion that the 2nd Amendment should not apply to individuals for the purpose of individual (rather than collective) self-defense and sport? The Constitution has been interpreted in ways that strain the text to a much greater degree than that would. But I don't think the original intent is that ambiguous.
This sentence alone probably has hundreds of interpretations and many depend on your agenda which is the problem.
So simple, yet potentially so complex if you want it to be based on word, phrase, punctuation, etc.
My problem is I feel like the authors wanted it "adjustable" for currency.
There is a lot about the Constitution that is more ambiguous than that, eg the status of corporations.
Period, end of story, clear as day.
this:
allows interpretation and I for one think it was intentional.
I think it's applicability to the present day is exactly the opening the opponents of the 2nd amendment use. There is no obligation. anyway, like i said I'm no expert, I just think if the intent were simple it could have worded simpler and avoided this, but I'm not sure the founding fathers wanted that, I try not to give them too much credit for terms of vision, but I think they anticipated a time when they expected this to be a debate.
But why then did men still largely of the Founding Generation draft and pass a law that seemed to do precisely that? If, as many have argued, the free speech protections were about prior restraint rather than the very expansive understanding now employed, the apparent contradiction makes sense. Our present understanding is quite different and most of us agree that's a very good thing.
Trying to understand why the Founders wrote what they did is important and instructive, but it does not limit the inquiry. And at the end of the day there is always amendment.
And now we have nine year olds shooting gun instructors with uzi's at a place called Bullets and Burgers fer chrissakes. Founders, schmounders. If they foresaw this then they are incredibly overrated.
And now we have nine year olds shooting gun instructors with uzi's at a place called Bullets and Burgers fer chrissakes. Founders, schmounders. If they foresaw this then they are incredibly overrated.
One thing has nothing to do with the other. that 9 year old didn't own the uzi and it had zero to do with the 2nd amendment.
My point wasn't "this debate" it was debate in general based on the wording .
if your speculation is right then why not just word the amendment simply:
And considering the Revolution was sparked in large part by a British attempt to confiscate arms the very narrow interpretation was almost certainly unintended.
and they put the militia in because there was active debate about whether a centralized military should replace local militias. And there was a lot of skepticism that handing that power over to a central agency was a good idea.
It was his first time shooting a fully automatic gun, and the recoil of the weapon was too much for him. He lost control and fatally shot himself in the head.
continued - ( New Window )
and they put the militia in because there was active debate about whether a centralized military should replace local militias. And there was a lot of skepticism that handing that power over to a central agency was a good idea.
Explain to me what role the second amendment has with the right for someone to go to a gun range or some place called bullets and burgers and fire a weapon owned by the range.
it's about individual gun ownership.
Anyone can do what they did or something like it at almost any range/gun club - maybe not with an uzi, but with other weapons and that's not the 2nd amendment that allows that it's free enterprise/capitalism.
It was his first time shooting a fully automatic gun, and the recoil of the weapon was too much for him. He lost control and fatally shot himself in the head. continued - ( New Window )
The real fucked up thing is that the 15 year old (really...a damn 15 year old?) supervising this station told the father twice that his son was too young to shoot the gun, but the father insisted that his son be allowed to shoot the gun, leading to this tragedy.
So many people fucked up in that incident. The stupid police contracting out for automatic weapons to be brought to this fair, the contractor having his 15 year old son be a supervisor, and the father insisting that his small child shoot a gun he shouldn't have been shooting, especially with a teenager watching him.
I stand by my opinion that an automatic weapon should not be allowed to the public, no matter if it's for their own use or at the range. Just no need for it.
I honestly do enjoy firing it once in a while but I wouldn't be outraged or anything if they were banned.
Quote:
that the girl was shooting an uzi? Ok.
and they put the militia in because there was active debate about whether a centralized military should replace local militias. And there was a lot of skepticism that handing that power over to a central agency was a good idea.
Explain to me what role the second amendment has with the right for someone to go to a gun range or some place called bullets and burgers and fire a weapon owned by the range.
it's about individual gun ownership.
Anyone can do what they did or something like it at almost any range/gun club - maybe not with an uzi, but with other weapons and that's not the 2nd amendment that allows that it's free enterprise/capitalism.
Of course it is. Because other activities can be stopped but the second amendment stands as a barrier from doing away with these activities. The reason "anyone can do it at almost any range/gun club" is precisely because of the second amendment.
I honestly do enjoy firing it once in a while but I wouldn't be outraged or anything if they were banned.
I think firing anything in full-auto is fun for the kids (hence you get incidents like this), but unless it's a mounted weapons system, I don't really care for automatic weapons.
I don't think that's the case, I just think individual ownership would.
I still think you'd find gun clubs and other places where business can own firearms and people could go and shoot them,. totally outside of the 2nd amendment since the business isn't technically forbidden from bearing arms.
Quote:
doesn't mean what you think it does. It means well-trained or well-drilled. Quibble with the why and its applicability to the present day, but when every man is expected to keep and maintain arms as both a right and an obligation I don't see the ambiguity.
I think it's applicability to the present day is exactly the opening the opponents of the 2nd amendment use. There is no obligation. anyway, like i said I'm no expert, I just think if the intent were simple it could have worded simpler and avoided this, but I'm not sure the founding fathers wanted that, I try not to give them too much credit for terms of vision, but I think they anticipated a time when they expected this to be a debate.
As Dune said, terms like 'well regulated' meant something different in that time than it may be interpreted in today's common language. And the FF tended to write in more flowery language than is in use today.
If you understand the times and the men, and they philosophy that they followed, there is no way you could infer that they wanted to control ordinary citizens having arms. And it's #2 on the list, right after the right of free speech. The Constitution was more about limiting the power of the federal government, not imposing rules on the populace. Whether it is still applicable to today is debatable. What was meant at the time really isn't.
Off topic here...did you read how the crew of USS Kearsarge got their CAR? Ain't that some shit? At least the Marines said hell no.
I don't think that's the case, I just think individual ownership would.
I still think you'd find gun clubs and other places where business can own firearms and people could go and shoot them,. totally outside of the 2nd amendment since the business isn't technically forbidden from bearing arms.
That's probably true. Other countries have gotten rid of guns and restricted access to them. We can't because of the second amendment. Buford is probably right that the intent was to not limit them at all, but unless you think the founding fathers were prophets they were considering land owners with muzzle loading muskets, not nine year olds with uzis.
Quote:
I see what your saying and it sounds like your assumption is that if the 2nd amendment is abolished that guns (legal guns) disappear.
I don't think that's the case, I just think individual ownership would.
I still think you'd find gun clubs and other places where business can own firearms and people could go and shoot them,. totally outside of the 2nd amendment since the business isn't technically forbidden from bearing arms.
That's probably true. Other countries have gotten rid of guns and restricted access to them. We can't because of the second amendment. Buford is probably right that the intent was to not limit them at all, but unless you think the founding fathers were prophets they were considering land owners with muzzle loading muskets, not nine year olds with uzis.
I never said the amendment was crafted to limit anything, but I do believe it was crafted in a way that intentionally left it somewhat ambiguous - for whatever reason. I'm not going to speculate on the intent from 230 years ago.
Otherwise, flowery writers or not, they could have simplified it and removed any room for doubt.
I do see GMANinDC's point regarding the different standards. However, then maybe there should be a separate kind of CARs within the Naval Service. And this is more than just a difference in the interpretation of when the ribbon is awarded, it's actually written differently in the actual standards.
He should be toddling around a playground with his friends. But instead, he wears a black balaclava, crouched down in a desolate street with his tiny hands clenched around an AK-47.
He pulls the trigger and the recoil of the shot knocks him back, his limbs unable to control the rifle. An adult takes the weapon from the boy's hands as he stands up and steps away, casting a blank glance into the camera.
Really, this group needs some killing.
Link - ( New Window )
is it is always argued in a vacuum
if you look at the other references of the word Militia in the constitution
it is obvious what the framers meant with second amendment
2nd Amendment
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.
Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power *** To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power *** To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
seems pretty clear cut that federal government has ultimate control of militias
what ambiguity was removed in the National Defense Act of 1916 which created the National Guard and the idea of dual enlistment - that those in the national guard can be used in the US army .
so once again there is never been any interpretation where a State militia is in existence to keep the Federal Government "In check" is a modern fantasy
is it is always argued in a vacuum
if you look at the other references of the word Militia in the constitution
it is obvious what the framers meant with second amendment
2nd Amendment
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.
Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power *** To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power *** To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
seems pretty clear cut that federal government has ultimate control of militias
what ambiguity was removed in the National Defense Act of 1916 which created the National Guard and the idea of dual enlistment - that those in the national guard can be used in the US army .
so once again there is never been any interpretation where a State militia is in existence to keep the Federal Government "In check" is a modern fantasy
If everything was obvious, Constitutional scholars would not still be debating the issue
And, again, like Bill in UT points out, if the 2nd amendment is so obviously bogus, how does it manage to survive the nearly ceaseless legislative attacks over the past decades?
they did this by taken seperating the 2nd amendment from the other relevant parts of constitution (sited in my previous posts)
if you look at Constitution the idea was that citizen Militia that had their own arms could be commanded by the states and then called by Federal Government in case of the situation explicitly sighted in the constitution.
the whole idea of citizen militia has been not valid since the creation of National Guard with National Defense Act of 1916.
so the idea that citizens needs to be armed is also antiquated
but even an scalia originalist would be hard pressed to twist the second amendment to show that a 9 year old girl should be shooting an Uzi
But shit's out of the bag, and it ain't going back in.
Better off trying to learn how to cope with a world that has both in them, than delude yourself into thinking some kind of safety/constitution/think of the children debate will ever lead to eradication...
#gatsnblunts4eva
#sorryyougotshotbya9yearoldwithanuzi
#thickones
Does it matter? It's still the same shitty Davisian we've come to love. HI, DAVISIAN!
The standards for CAR's should be different for each service. If not, i don't believe any ship would ever got a CAR because they would have to be hit by a missile to garner one. Understandbly, ground troops are going to get the majority of the CAR and other ribbons because of the nature of their mission. They are sent to go in Combat. Navy ships are inherently in harms way just on routine deployments because of where they are operating.
Any time a ship goes into the Persian Gulf, the potential of hitting a mine, getting fired up by patrol boats, rogue boghammers, etc., is significant..And this is in peacetime..ground troops are sent into specific area for the battle. So the threshold for getting a CAR for Marine or soldier is that much greater..
That being said, each service has their own criteria and I don't put any service over the other. They are for the same battle..
Here is the story behind. I don't thin it mentions that we hit an Iranian F4 as it was coming toward us..I was on the USS Wainwright..
Operation Praying mantis - ( New Window )
they did this by taken seperating the 2nd amendment from the other relevant parts of constitution (sited in my previous posts)
if you look at Constitution the idea was that citizen Militia that had their own arms could be commanded by the states and then called by Federal Government in case of the situation explicitly sighted in the constitution.
the whole idea of citizen militia has been not valid since the creation of National Guard with National Defense Act of 1916.
so the idea that citizens needs to be armed is also antiquated
but even an scalia originalist would be hard pressed to twist the second amendment to show that a 9 year old girl should be shooting an Uzi
Then if the right for the people (not militias) to keep and bear arms was negated by the creation of the National Guard, why wasn't the Constitution amended to say so?
The 2nd amendment is actually based on the British Bill of Rights right to have arms for self defense or civic duty.
You can argue if this applies to a 9 year old shooting an Uzi, but you really can't argue as to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. It was not to only arm militias.
The standards for CAR's should be different for each service. If not, i don't believe any ship would ever got a CAR because they would have to be hit by a missile to garner one. Understandbly, ground troops are going to get the majority of the CAR and other ribbons because of the nature of their mission. They are sent to go in Combat. Navy ships are inherently in harms way just on routine deployments because of where they are operating.
Any time a ship goes into the Persian Gulf, the potential of hitting a mine, getting fired up by patrol boats, rogue boghammers, etc., is significant..And this is in peacetime..ground troops are sent into specific area for the battle. So the threshold for getting a CAR for Marine or soldier is that much greater..
That being said, each service has their own criteria and I don't put any service over the other. They are for the same battle..
Here is the story behind. I don't thin it mentions that we hit an Iranian F4 as it was coming toward us..I was on the USS Wainwright..
Operation Praying mantis - ( New Window )
I'm with you regarding the different standards being necessary, and as you can see, even in combat the awarding of CARs or CIBs are skewed based on the units themselves.
As far as the three linked stories go, I am not sure about the third one myself. However, the one from SFGate.com seems legit as it merely states the circumstances of the attack without going into CARs or anything else (since the story was immediately after the incident).
My issue mainly was having to explain to my Marines why a bunch of sailors had CARs when they've never seen "combat" as they understand combat. To explain the different standards among the services for the same ribbons/awards to a bunch of junior Marines isn't easy. Hence, my telling them that the ribbons on your chest really isn't all that important (beyond the tangible benefits you can receive as Duned mentioned regarding tuition waiver due to Purple Heart, etc.).
And thanks for the link. That was interesting.
automatic weapons did not exist except in military (they were only invented a few years earlier)
automatic weapons did not exist except in military (they were only invented a few years earlier)
In 1916, automatic weapons were unknown in armies around the world. Good call!
or, hell, forget the Great War - what about the Civil War? Behold, the Union Repeating Gun aka the "coffee mill gun"
Sad thing is that that is actually a prior Marine, no? Sad that he would feel the need to falsify his decorations but more so because he's fat.
automatic weapons did not exist except in military (they were only invented a few years earlier)
The Gatling Gun operates differently than automatic weapons nowadays but the effect was the same and that was in use in the later stages of the Civil War.
Of course the "fat" comment was in jest (sort of)...:)
automatic weapons did not exist except in military (they were only invented a few years earlier)
I don't think the type of weapon really matters. But many gun control laws don't want to control only automatic weapons.
The one issue i had when we got fired on was that, we gave this asshole ship 4 freaking warnings while they where closing the distance on us. We didn't get the order to fire until they fired FIRST. That pissed me of..
People talk about how great a President Reagan was, but this limited operational and authority almost got our ship sunk..
The one issue i had when we got fired on was that, we gave this asshole ship 4 freaking warnings while they where closing the distance on us. We didn't get the order to fire until they fired FIRST. That pissed me of..
People talk about how great a President Reagan was, but this limited operational and authority almost got our ship sunk..
Having had time on several ships as a Marine and as a midshipman, I can completely understand the anxiety when it comes to being attacked while on a ship.
As far as the whole ROE goes, it's just a fucked up thing all the way around. Sometimes it's too restrictive and sometimes it's not restrictive enough...:(
Quote:
because at the time in 1916
automatic weapons did not exist except in military (they were only invented a few years earlier)
I don't think the type of weapon really matters. But many gun control laws don't want to control only automatic weapons.
Automatic weapons aren't as much of a problem as handguns.
I don't know...I just can't differentiate the two groups since while one is doing to obtain benefits and the other for adoration, both are still taking things that they have not rightfully earned (although the adoration part is meh to me).
Quote:
and people who are just not right in the head is the stumbling block for me.
I don't know...I just can't differentiate the two groups since while one is doing to obtain benefits and the other for adoration, both are still taking things that they have not rightfully earned (although the adoration part is meh to me).
I don't like the latter, my point is merely that in almost all the news stories or blog posts I've seen those guys (and occasionally girls) were clearly not right in the head. And I don't take much joy in shaming the mentally ill, even if their conduct is reprehensible.
This.
In my opinion, it's not really that much more different than someone who lies about the number (and quality) of women they've slept with or their high school sports accomplishments. This one just involves wearing fancy medals. People, who are completely sane, will make shit up just so that they can be viewed by others with a bit more respect.
Ok...so their decision making may be off a bit (or more) in a short bus kind of a way, but I just don't see the two groups in any different light.
Indeed, the battalions of fully-grown men — who dress up in military uniforms and shoot each other with Airsoft guns on the weekend — are currently en route to the conflict zone via an extremely short C-130 airbus.
“I’ve been training for this my whole life,” said Jeremy Lyons, a 32-year-old college dropout who swears “Airsoft is just a hobby,” even though his entire Facebook features photos of him looking like a goddamn Navy SEAL.
Sources were unable to confirm whether Lyons had ever actually had sex with a woman.
Link - ( New Window )
Woman Uses Her Gun To Ward Off Abduction - ( New Window )
Not controversial enough.
She did it right. The first thing an attacker should hear is the safety clicking of and looking down a barrel. Never state you have a gun.
Universal language. No press 1 for English, 2 for Spanish, etc.
There’s just one problem: the gun range lost them.
And what happened? Well, here’s what two separate accountings in the investigative report said:
“I was told by the supervisor that the releases went into the wind (north) during this incident.”
“Sgt. Thien then instructed me to obtain copies of the release waivers signed by the family. I was informed by staff that the waivers were blown away by the wind after the incident had occurred.”
Yes, the gun range employees told police the papers were just lost to the wind.
Link - ( New Window )