Consulting Radiologist LTD

Serving Minneapolis

6525 France Ave S
Minneapolis, MN 55435-2148

Main (952) 927-7017

Latest Reviews of Consulting Radiologist LTD
21 - 40 of 5,968 Comments Last updated Wednesday Jul 30
First Prev
of 299
Next Last
FTW

Junction City, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Oct 7, 2010
 
This is something I came across that is a good point:

The Gun is Civilization

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
possum chaser

Talala, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Oct 7, 2010
 
Hear Ye! Hear Ye!
Bradley Wichita

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Oct 7, 2010
 
Door King wrote:
"Why does no one call for the banishment of cars?"
Because almost everyone needs a car, and almost no one needs a gun?
How do you define, "need?"
Yep

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Oct 7, 2010
 
Dick wrote:
<quoted text>Try this BS on for size. At night when most home invasions happen, there are fewer cops on duty, I don't care what city you live in.
They can't be everywhere; it doesn't matter how well trained they are and how many of them there are.
How big a police force are you willing to pay for? 25..100..200..?
An armed citizenry is a safe citizenry. Safe from thugs.
That late at night also seems like a dangerous combination from the homeowner being startled and still in a haze, fumbling for their gun, and unintentionally killing a loved one thinking that it's an intruder. Try that B.S. on for size.
Door King

Wilson, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Oct 7, 2010
 
"we are addressing the issue of home invasions which are on the rise."

Even after all those people bought guns after Obama was elected? And home invasions aren't on the rise.
CRWTB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Oct 7, 2010
 
Only an idiot would want to ban guns. Take a look at Chicago, they've had a handgun ban for 28 years and now they want the national guard to come in and help the with the gun violence! Banning guns would only affect law abiding people and we all have the right to protect ourselves.
Dick

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Oct 7, 2010
 
Yep wrote:
<quoted text>
That late at night also seems like a dangerous combination from the homeowner being startled and still in a haze, fumbling for their gun, and unintentionally killing a loved one thinking that it's an intruder. Try that B.S. on for size.
Okay, BS this:
That is the reason a responsible gun owner will get training. I stressed a judgemental pistol course as part of that training. Know what you are about to shoot at. JPC is given to law enforcement personnel and can be a valuable part of training for anyone interested in self defense. A trained gun owner won't fumble for their gun. A trained gun owner will only use that gun if required to. A trained gun owner will be able to recognize a threat and react correctly to that threat.
Dick

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Oct 7, 2010
 
Door King wrote:
"we are addressing the issue of home invasions which are on the rise."
Even after all those people bought guns after Obama was elected? And home invasions aren't on the rise.
From Wikiipedia:

"Few statistics are available on home invasion as a crime, because it is not technically a specific crime in most states. Persons charged with "home invasion" are actually charged with robbery, kidnapping, homicide, rape, or assault charges. But law enforcement has been seeing the increase in "home-invasion robberies" since at least June 1995, when "home-invasion robberies" were the topic of the cover story of The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. They state the crime is considered an alternative to bank or convenience store robberies, which are getting harder to pull off cleanly due to technological advances in security. In this same article, the FBI recommends educating the public about home invasion. Before the term "home invasion" came in use, the term "hot burglary" was often used in the literature. Early references also use "burglary of occupied homes"[1] and "burglar striking an occupied residence"[2]"

1.^ Lawrence Southwick, Jr., "Guns and Justifiable Homicide: Deterrence and Defense," 18 St. Louis U Pub Law Rev 217 (1999). page 227.
2.^ James Wright, Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly, Under the Gun, Aldine 1983, page 15.

It would appear that "home invasions" are indeed on the rise.

A link to the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_invasion
Yep

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Oct 7, 2010
 
Dick wrote:
<quoted text>Okay, BS this:
That is the reason a responsible gun owner will get training. I stressed a judgemental pistol course as part of that training. Know what you are about to shoot at. JPC is given to law enforcement personnel and can be a valuable part of training for anyone interested in self defense. A trained gun owner won't fumble for their gun. A trained gun owner will only use that gun if required to. A trained gun owner will be able to recognize a threat and react correctly to that threat.
OK....but as far as I know, this isn't a criteria for people who own handguns. Point made. You are assuming everyone who owns a gun does this?
Bradley Wichita

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Oct 7, 2010
 
Phil Cook wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you can't conceal a car in your waistband. I read a news item from Florida (Sorry, can't find the link) where two gung-ho gun enthusiasts were both packing legal concealed handguns. They got into some trivial, petty argument and murdered each other. I just had to laugh.
The easy availability of handguns lead to impulsive acts. This is a factor in many handgun suicides. A break-up or loss of job will cause a temporary irrationality combined with a nearby handgun in the nightstand leads to tragedy. With no gun, no easy way out, a potential suicide victim will endure the stressor and live through it. I read that in the Journal Of the American Medical Association.
You said people fear guns and rightly so. They were designed to kill things. Cars were designed for travel. The manufacturers of arms are always coming up with more sick, sadistic and twisted ways of killing like Black Talon bullets designed for maximal tissue damage for example. Why are gun owners so scared and paranoid of home invasion is what I'd like to know?
I think we would do better to have a healthy respect for firearms as opposed to irrational fear. Cars can be just as deadly in the hands of an angry, drunk or depressed person. In recent years we’ve seen the advent of “car bombs”. I believe that anyone inclined to commit suicide will find away. Bows and arrows, knives, spears were also designed to kill things. It helps when you want to eat or defend yourself. I don’t hear of too many afraid of those. I am conflicted on the type of ammunition you mentioned. One the one hand I’d like to see it relegated to the armed forces or police force. However, I don’t know if that would open a Pandora’s Box that would lead to problems down the road. I’m very confused regarding your statement on home invasions and not understanding why people are so afraid of them. Maybe going through one would change your mind?
I care

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Oct 7, 2010
 
"Early Americans wrote of the right in light of three considerations:(1) as auxiliary to a natural right of self-defense; (2) as enabling an armed people to deter undemocratic government; and (3) as enabling the people to organize a militia system."
What else do we have to give up,Freedom of Speech, Religion, maybe what little freedom we have left. Wars are fought over peoples rights being taken away. Some worry about people with guns. We send thousands to other countries(with guns)to do what! It's not for a BBQ. Whats the answer Ban crime don't legalize it by banning guns. Our goverment cant protect our borders what makes you think they will you.
Yep

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Oct 7, 2010
 
Bradley Wichita wrote:
<quoted text>
I think we would do better to have a healthy respect for firearms as opposed to irrational fear. Cars can be just as deadly in the hands of an angry, drunk or depressed person. In recent years we’ve seen the advent of “car bombs”. I believe that anyone inclined to commit suicide will find away. Bows and arrows, knives, spears were also designed to kill things. It helps when you want to eat or defend yourself. I don’t hear of too many afraid of those. I am conflicted on the type of ammunition you mentioned. One the one hand I’d like to see it relegated to the armed forces or police force. However, I don’t know if that would open a Pandora’s Box that would lead to problems down the road. I’m very confused regarding your statement on home invasions and not understanding why people are so afraid of them. Maybe going through one would change your mind?
Please provide me with the relevant velocities and homicide statistics for the weapons you mentioned. How exactly do you get a "healthy respect" for a concealed weapon that an anonymous person is carrying that you do not know their background/training/intentions ? The problem in your logic is that I don't drive my handgun to work (or the grocery store or anywhere else). Cars serve a purpose in daily life. How often do you drive a car and how often do you fire a gun? Maybe people should think about the frequency of the events occurring before they look at the shear numbers. What is the percent of time an average person spends driving to firing a gun? Please let me know since you are so informative. FYI..car bombs (in inappropriate air quotes for some reason) is not new. That has been occurring since cars were produced. Please also provide me with the data for death from spears, bows and arrows, and knives compared with handguns. People are not afraid of those because 1) they are not common anymore (especially in public) and 2) they are more foreseeable than a handgun. Have you been hiding a spear in your waist lately? God..could you really be more of an idiot? I'm done with Fort Scott. Kill yourselves with your own damn handguns.
Dick

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Oct 7, 2010
 
Yep wrote:
<quoted text>
OK....but as far as I know, this isn't a criteria for people who own handguns. Point made. You are assuming everyone who owns a gun does this?
Unfortunately, no. You have me on this point; however, if gun ownership was encouraged rather than stigmatized by the liberal press, then maybe training would become more available and encouraged.

I am for the responsible ownership of guns, not irresponsible use.
WOW

Coffeyville, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Oct 7, 2010
 
wow wrote:
i vote no guns for any one
What a stupid post...
CRWTB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Oct 8, 2010
 
It ought to be a federal law that everybody owns at least 4 guns by the age of 18.
where to go

Columbia, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Oct 8, 2010
 
So, if the state or nations were to ban guns, where am I suppose to drop off my truckload of guns? Would you like them at the Mexican border?

Since: Aug 10

Coffeyville, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Oct 8, 2010
 
Door King wrote:
...... A well-trained and adequate police force is a better deterant than an 80-year-old huddled in his bedroom with a loaded Mega-pistol.
Are you out of your mind? So, if are awakened at 3:00 AM by your back door opening and then footsteps coming down your hall, you would feel much safer not having a gun but just simple fact that you know that there is a "well-trained and adequate police force..." out there somewhere?

In your fantasy world where guns are outlawed, I guess you think that the first sound the intruder hears is you on your cell phone giving your address to the "well-trained and adequate police force" dispatcher which will cause the intruder to either drop to his knees and beg for mercy or get out as fast as he can. Either way, there will be absolutely no harm done to you or your property. Doesn't this sound pretty unrealistic?

In my world, the first sound the intruder will hear is either the small sound made when the gun comes off safety or the slightly more intense (and well recognized) sound that occurs as the result of a firing pin hitting a primer. Either way, he will be on the ground when the police arrive and there will be no harm done to me or my property.

The ONLY way that a "well-trained and adequate police force" could protect you is if there is at least one of those adequate police force members at your home 24 hours a day (with no doughnut breaks) guarding you and your property. Here's a hit... This will never happen!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Oct 8, 2010
 
wally515 wrote:
It is my personal property. It is my right to chose if I own one, carry one, and or use one in self defence. this will only LIMIT government intrusion on my RIGHTS. the 2d amendment was good enough for the United States, why would it not be good enough for an individual sovereign State?
The right to keep and bear arms is already written into the state's Constitution as a part of its Bill of Rights ( http://kslib.info/constitution/rights.html : see #4). At best the amendment is merely redundant, at worst it presents a false choice, because a no vote doesn't leave us with no right to bear arms, it leaves us with the one we have.

Somebody in the state is pretty much just raising money to encourage us to vote for what we already have, by putting up a question that everyone here knows is going to pass by an at least 3-1 margin. If they're the least bit smart, all they have to do is spend a few bucks on yard signs and pocket the difference for themselves. Nice work if you can get it...
Nutty

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Oct 8, 2010
 
wow wrote:
i vote no guns for any one
OK we will take your right to own a gun away. Now the guy that robs or kills you will have one. Why because he does not care about the law.
Dick

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Oct 8, 2010
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The right to keep and bear arms is already written into the state's Constitution as a part of its Bill of Rights ( http://kslib.info/constitution/rights.html : see #4). At best the amendment is merely redundant, at worst it presents a false choice, because a no vote doesn't leave us with no right to bear arms, it leaves us with the one we have.
Somebody in the state is pretty much just raising money to encourage us to vote for what we already have, by putting up a question that everyone here knows is going to pass by an at least 3-1 margin. If they're the least bit smart, all they have to do is spend a few bucks on yard signs and pocket the difference for themselves. Nice work if you can get it...
The amendment may very well be redundant given the fact that the 2nd Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees that "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."
However the wording of that amendment is just dicey enough that the Supreme Court has had many cases through the years involving the right to "keep and bear arms". Depending on the mood of the Court, the question has revolved around the argument by some that what was meant by the writers of the amendment was that it was a "collective" right. In other words; it gave the States the right to form Militas to make sure that a Federal government would not be able form a police state without the States having means to protest.

This Amendment to the Kansas Constitution would remove all doubt about the individual right to keep and bear arms.

I strongly favor such an amendment and firmly believe that it should have been a part of the original Kansas constitution.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 299
Next Last
Type your review below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Loading Map...

Get driving directions