View Full Version : !!BAD!! the assault weapon ban may come back!!
scooter_the_shooter
07-05-2005, 19:45
I urge any pro gun american to oppose this ban. And join the nra they have been useful in keeping our gun rights around before and maybe they will now.
here is the link http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/3240554
And here is why that ban is useless.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQs/Default.aspx?Section=18
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQs/Default.aspx?Section=68
"An armed society is a polite society"
And while there is a gun thread go ahead and deabte whether citizens should own them.
ps another thing look how useful gun are against criminals Check each state there are too many to read ~:cheers:
pps look at the rest of these if you have time http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQs/Default.aspx?Section=1
I quote the american farmer: "If you do not have a gun, you´r not a real american!"
I wish weapons were legal here in Sweden too...
~:cheers:
Don Corleone
07-05-2005, 19:53
As a member of the NRA, and a strong advocate of second ammendment rights, may I suggest it would probably give your arguments more meaning if you found more impartial sources than the NRA? They are an issue advocacy group and regardless of how right I think they are on a issue, I would be the last one to call them impartial.
That being said, you forgot the words 'so called assault weapon ban'. The wording of the so-called assault weapon ban could easily be used to outlaw any weapon capable of firing more than one round per loading (i.e., anything but a black powder rifle).
Don Corleone
07-05-2005, 19:55
I quote the american farmer: "If you do not have a gun, you´r not a real american!"
I wish weapons were legal here in Sweden too...
~:cheers:
I don't know that I agree with the American farmer, but let's issue Don Corleone's corrolary on the subject:
"If you don't own a gun, you're only an American that has rights until somebody with a gun says you don't".
Crazed Rabbit
07-05-2005, 20:03
Democracy is two wolfs and a lamb voting on dinner; liberty is an armed lamb contesting the decision.
I wouldn't worry to much about this idiotic bill coming back, but its always good to be vigilant. Feinstein just can't stand facts I guess.
Crazed Rabbit
The_Doctor
07-05-2005, 20:03
Why do you need an assault rifle?
Why do you need any guns to protect your rights? If the US government wanted to take away your rights a handful of guys with guns will not do anything against all the tanks, planes, artillery, missiles, and nukes (ok, that is a bit extreme) the US government has.
Don Corleone
07-05-2005, 20:07
Because I'd rather go down fighting than live like a slave.
It's scary you want people to have guns.
The thought of some people round here getting guns is just worrying enough, let alone if they could legally get assualt ones. Every Saturday night would ring with the sound of the army being brought in to crush an armed fight.
PanzerJaeger
07-05-2005, 20:10
Why do you need an assault rifle?
Why do you need free speech? You wont die without it..
If we start judging rights by necessity, then really all the rights we need are those of having food, clothing, and shelter.
Don Corleone
07-05-2005, 20:12
It's scary you want people to have guns.
The thought of some people round here getting guns is just worrying enough, let alone if they could legally get assualt ones. Every Saturday night would ring with the sound of the army being brought in to crush an armed fight.
And yet, that doesn't hardly happen over here. Generally speaking, when firearms are involved with crime, other crimes are being committed as well (such as robbery, drug tranactions, etc). Do you really believe that outlawing firearms would end all crime?
scooter_the_shooter
07-05-2005, 20:13
I don't get why any one wants to ban them criminals will always find somthing.
Lets look at the UK for example.... pretty much all guns are banned and the legal ones cant be kept at home. :furious3:
well now there is a movement to ban certain knives.
BBC: Knives too pointy!
Doctors' kitchen knives ban call
A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.
A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.
They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.
The research is published in the British Medical Journal.
The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.
They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.
None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.
The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs.
In contrast, a pointed long blade pierces the body like "cutting into a ripe melon".
The use of knives is particularly worrying amongst adolescents, say the researchers, reporting that 24% of 16-year-olds have been shown to carry weapons, primarily knives.
The study found links between easy access to domestic knives and violent assault are long established.
French laws in the 17th century decreed that the tips of table and street knives be ground smooth.
A century later, forks and blunt-ended table knives were introduced in the UK in an effort to reduce injuries during arguments in public eating houses.
The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.
"The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime.
"We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect."
Government response
Home Office spokesperson said there were already extensive restrictions in place to control the sale and possession of knives.
"The law already prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of knives in public without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade not exceeding three inches.
"Offensive weapons are defined as any weapon designed or adapted to cause injury, or intended by the person possessing them to do so.
"An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place.
"The manufacture, sale and importation of 17 bladed, pointed and other offensive weapons have been banned, in addition to flick knives and gravity knives."
A spokesperson for the Association of Chief Police Officers said: "ACPO supports any move to reduce the number of knife related incidents, however, it is important to consider the practicalities of enforcing such changes."
__________________
what next base ball bats ~:eek: then after that maybe they can declaw the children. And after that string because you might use it to strangel some one ~:eek:
And now if their government gets oppresives what are they gonna do no chance of a good revouloution without outside help.
Because I'd rather go down fighting than live like a slave.
and down you would go....and really fast too...
if the US government went mad(i mean more than it is now) and decided to institute some form of dictatorship i don´t care if you have an arsenal at your home...you´re loosing.
Why do you need free speech? You wont die without it..
If we start judging rights by necessity, then really all the rights we need are those of having food, clothing, and shelter.
never heard of anyone going on a rampage and killing 20 people using free speech....
i understand you trying to lump the 2 things together for retoric argument´s sake...but they are not the same thing.
scooter_the_shooter
07-05-2005, 20:18
(sorry for double post)
Say you are crippled/old/weak what ever what can you do if a group of "ganstas" mugs you or something with out an edge.... You think outlaws will pay attention to a sign that says no weopons :embarassed:
And dont you antis use columbine to make your point those 2 broke enough laws to be in jail before that even happened.
They built pipe bombs and one of the guns was home made there are more i will find em' soon.
(sorry for double post)
Say you are crippled/old/weak what ever what can you do if a group of "ganstas" mugs you or something with out an edge.... You think outlaws will pay attention to a sign that says no weopons :embarassed:
no......
a police force cracking down on ilegal arms is suposed to MAKE them pay attention...
PanzerJaeger
07-05-2005, 20:22
if the US government went mad(i mean more than it is now) and decided to institute some form of dictatorship i don´t care if you have an arsenal at your home...you´re loosing.
Thats not a truthful statement at all. Look at Afghanistan and what they did with bolt action rifles. The Stinger missles helped, but the resistence against the USSR was mainly done with small arms - not American weaponry.
Lets just ignore the fact that the US military would have a hard time getting its troops to attack civilians, the institution is simply not big enough to stop a popular rebellion.
never heard of anyone going on a rampage and killing 20 people using free speech....
i understand you trying to lump the 2 things together for retoric argument´s sake...but they are not the same thing.
The argument was "Why do you need this right." In reality, we dont need any rights and trying to place value on them via necessity isnt correct.
IrishMike
07-05-2005, 20:33
Thats not a truthful statement at all. Look at Afghanistan and what they did with bolt action rifles. The Stinger missles helped, but the resistence against the USSR was mainly done with small arms - not American weaponry.
Lets just ignore the fact that the US military would have a hard time getting its troops to attack civilians, the institution is simply not big enough to stop a popular rebellion.
I'm with panzer on this issue. The U.S. soldiers are not blind, mindless slaves, they wouldn't attack our citizens just because a dictator told them to.
Also the south is well armed, and also knows how to use those weapons. Thats just the south, you also have the north, and the west, they have weapons to and I know people hunt in the west. The fact is that while we might not be able to defeat the army, but it would be a blood bath before its over. They couldn't guard all the bases at once.
The_Doctor
07-05-2005, 20:34
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Why do you need free speech? You wont die without it..
If we start judging rights by necessity, then really all the rights we need are those of having food, clothing, and shelter.
I agree. I never said people needed free speech, all you need is food, water, warmth and shelter. If you can control these things, people will not care about "rights" and you can get them to do anything.
what next base ball bats
If somebody owns a baseball bat in the UK, that get hung, it is a secret law. ~D
The_Doctor
07-05-2005, 20:39
The fact is that while we might not be able to defeat the army, but it would be a blood bath before its over. They couldn't guard all the bases at once.
And they comes in a foreign power. So guns are bad for the US. Instead of having a strong evil dictatorship, you have a blood soaked weakened country, which may be spilt in small factions, divide and conquer. ~:cheers:
and down you would go....and really fast too...
if the US government went mad(i mean more than it is now) and decided to institute some form of dictatorship i don´t care if you have an arsenal at your home...you´re loosing.
Another one who does not understand how the United States functions or how the citizens think.
How many individuals are in the United States Military that own their own weapons - many of which are the type that would also be banned.
If the United States government attempted a form of dictorship - there will be an armed revolt in this country - just like the Founding Fathers would have wanted, and why they wrote the 2nd Admendment the way in which they did.
The government rules by the consent of the governed.
scooter_the_shooter
07-05-2005, 20:54
Anti gun politicians hate freedom lets see some quotes.
..........................
Yes, I'm denying you your rights.
Tom Bradley
on constitutional rights at a "Save the Brady Bill" rally. Steve Comus, Western Outdoor News
.............................
We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that... If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime.
Mary Ann Carlson
State Senator (VT)
.....................................
You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say.
Bill Clinton
1993-05-29
................................................
If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.
Bill Clinton
1993-08-12
......................................
Any 18 year old can walk into a gun store, pawn shop or gun show and buy a handgun.
Al Gore
almost 30 years after the Gun Control Act of 1968 set the age to buy a handgun from a FFL at 21.
U.S. Vice President
....................................
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty."
Adolf Hitler
Edict of March 18, 1938, H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler's Table Talks 1941-1944 (London: Widenfeld and Nicolson, 1953, p. 425-426)
1938-03-18
.........................................
In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea... Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.
Charles Krauthammer
Disarm the Citizenry, But Not Yet. Washington Post
1996-04-05
...........................................................
I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns.
Howard Metzenbaum
1994
.........................................................................
I would like to dispute that. Truthfully. I know it's an amendment. I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns.
Rosie O'Donnell
.......................................................
Forget what our forefathers said.
Dominick Potifrone
ATF Special Agent (Retired) "On the Inside: The BATF," Discovery Channel
2000
................................
The Democrats ran away from gun safety in the 2002 elections, and look where it got them... Whoever is advising them on gun control should be shot.
Blaine Rummel
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, spokesperson
...............................
Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We wouldn't let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?
Josef Stalin
.................................................
If the [political] opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.
Josef Stalin
.............................................
Every good Communist should know that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, and that gun must remain firmly in the hands of the state.
Mao Tse Tung
.........................................
it is also interesting to note that the top officials of Handgun Control Institute are gun owners themselves. They also intend on keeping them. It's other people's guns that bother them...
Mark Urbin
.....................................
if someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!
Henry A. Waxman
Representative (D-CA)
.........................................
convincing enough?????
sharrukin
07-05-2005, 20:55
Why do you need an assault rifle?
Why do you need any guns to protect your rights? If the US government wanted to take away your rights a handful of guys with guns will not do anything against all the tanks, planes, artillery, missiles, and nukes (ok, that is a bit extreme) the US government has.
The Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam are examples of lightly armed militia's able to prevent a victory by a modern military force. Keep this up long enough and an unpopular government would begin to lose the support of the uninvolved citizenry, and the standing army.
The_Doctor
07-05-2005, 21:15
The Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam are examples of lightly armed militia's able to prevent a victory by a modern military force.
Putting Iraq in there is a bit premeptive.
Afghanistan had a country invading it not a bad government, that came after and did not get over thrown until the USA+Allies went in.
North Vietnam beat South Vietnam+USA. NV had aircraft and artillery and stuff.
Putting Iraq in there is a bit premeptive.
Afghanistan had a country invading it not a bad government, that came after and did not get over thrown until the USA+Allies went in.
North Vietnam beat South Vietnam+USA. NV had aircraft and artillery and stuff.
And you missed his point completely.
I don't know that I agree with the American farmer, but let's issue Don Corleone's corrolary on the subject:
"If you don't own a gun, you're only an American that has rights until somebody with a gun says you don't".
That sounds wiser...
scooter_the_shooter
07-05-2005, 22:03
For those of you who are pro gun do you think there are limits to what you should be allowed to own.
And for the anti gun members are there any circumstances you should be allowed to have one.
I think any thing short of a nuke/chemical/biological weopon is fine.
So if you want full auto rpk m4s ak47 and the great glock 18 go ahead. You can own these BUT you need a class 3 license (near impossible to get) and about 15-30 THOUSAND dollar.
If you want a tank go ahead
King of Atlantis
07-05-2005, 22:03
The right to bear arms is very important as all fascist regimes get rid of fire arms first thing so they can control the populace.
But, i dont see why we need assualt weapons. What can one do with an assualt weapon other than kill many people?
Don Corleone
07-05-2005, 22:16
and down you would go....and really fast too...
if the US government went mad(i mean more than it is now) and decided to institute some form of dictatorship i don´t care if you have an arsenal at your home...you´re loosing.
Well, see, in my mind, quality of life is a choice I make for myself, not something some doctor uses to justify homicide.
scooter_the_shooter
07-05-2005, 22:16
the ak47 is used by many countries army but this same gun will be found on MANY farms across the country it is rugged reliable has cheap ammo and holds alot of it. because of this many people buy the ak47 and other military guns like the sks and m1 garand (used one from the army are CHEAP and good ).
the same goes for almost any military gun that is why people buy them.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
07-05-2005, 22:17
Assault rifles are great fun for target shooting.
I also believe that they would scare the crap out of anyone who breaks into your house (actually, I know that any gun does that but isn't part of the old assault weapons ban a ban on guns that "look scary"?).
AK-47s, M1 Garands : I LOVE them.
And I bet Stingers are great fun too ~:)
I see two different reasons for having guns: one for personal defense and one to fight against your government that suddenly has turned fascist or whatever the IMO far out scenario is.
Now I can understand handguns and maybe even rifles for self defense but if you want to protect yourself against a government turned bad you need more than rifles.
Does that mean anti-tank/air rockets and missiles should be allowed for civilians?
Of course I live in socialist heaven so what do I know ~:)
CBR
Don Corleone
07-05-2005, 22:34
Thank you Taffy. Excellent point. How does putting a pistol grip on a shotgun make it any more deadly? It doesnt'. It just makes you look like a bad ass. Yet, this was one of the features outlawed under the so-called assault weapons ban.
Hell, Janet Reno boasted one time during a DNC fundraiser that if the NRA didn't calm down, she'd show them that if she chose to she could get a 22 revolver declared as an assault weapon.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
07-05-2005, 22:46
I bet stingers are great fun too but, well, you can't really use them for proper target shooting and I bet they wouldn't be too useful for home defense or pest control.
Don Corleone
07-05-2005, 22:48
I think Gawain was saying in here one time if one had had the finanical wherewithal, the 2nd ammendment guarantees their right to own a ballistic nuclear submarine.
scooter_the_shooter
07-05-2005, 22:49
Does that mean anti-tank/air rockets and missiles should be allowed for civilians?
'
yes they should.
Thats true but they would be an essential weapon for those who wants to protect themselves against a dictatorship.
CBR
For those of you who are pro gun do you think there are limits to what you should be allowed to own.
Absolutely. The problem is that the guns I would (perhaps) ban, would be banned just as much for emotional reasons as for technical reasons. Which blows my argument out of the water, yet I still feel the way I do. Go figure.
The basic argument boils down to whether a person can reason that a gun that can kill twenty people a minute is really so much worse than a gun that can kill ten people a minute, that it should be banned while the other is not. We'll use a Lee-Enfield built in 1914 with an 11 shot capacity vs. an AK-series rifle built yesterday with a thirty round capacity as examples.
Is one really so much worse than the other. Yes. And no. The argument has just as much to do with phychology as with mechanics.
Sweden has 9 million inhabitants and 1,1 million hunting weapons. Only 5% of the murders here are committed with these weapons. Does that not prove that ordinary citisens with weapons does NOT have a tendens to murder innocent people on the street?
Sweden has 9 million inhabitants and 1,1 million hunting weapons. Only 5% of the murders here are committed with these weapons. Does that not prove that ordinary citisens with weapons does NOT have a tendens to murder innocent people on the street?
You got any statistics on weapons used in murders?
CBR
No, I´m sorry I don´t. But the numbers are pretty clear. Legaly obtained weapons does not harm the society...
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 00:25
Also criminals dont usually have and ar15 or a colt gold cup. They use brands like hi point and jennings for 2 reasons.
1 they are usually poor and cant afford good guns.
2 many times they get rid of the gun after a crime would you rather lose something worth less then 100 dollars or something worth over 1000 dollars :dizzy2:
And other thing keep mac 10s and tec 9s around (DONT BAN THEM) some gangsters (with some cash) get guns like these and they are JUNK(the semi auto versions jam alot after about 500 rounds)... they get them because they look scary. For not much more money they could get a cz75 this is a VERY good gun and it is not as big and bulky like the beretta 92 or the glock17. (I think the Us military should adopt this gun it can fire with sand in it)
Another myth gun grabbers like to use is that glocks are undetectable by air port security... this is no true the outside is made of polymer but the inside has metal in it and can be picked up by a metal detector as easily as an all metal gun like a 1911.
No, I´m sorry I don´t. But the numbers are pretty clear. Legaly obtained weapons does not harm the society...
Well if we assume they are correct then all it shows is that rifles and shotguns are not used much in murders. Gun statistics for USA shows handguns to be the big killer. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm
I doubt that assault rifles will take over that role as handguns are small and easy to conceal and therefore will always be used more. When the handguns appeared back in the 16th century people saw them as weapons of assassins and thieves IIRC
CBR
I think you are right on that...
Wow. I have to say, I find the passion for weapons in this thread a little scary.
$0.02: Any society without guns is preferable for me. It just resembles a mini arms race from my outsider's perspective. Like, "the criminals have got guns, so I need a gun to protect myself from their guns". Too many guns overall, IMHO.
RabidGibbon
07-06-2005, 01:32
Originally posted by CBR
I doubt that assault rifles will take over that role as handguns are small and easy to conceal and therefore will always be used more. When the handguns appeared back in the 16th century people saw them as weapons of assassins and thieves IIRC
Hmmm, so maybe they should ban handguns and keep assault weapons? ~;)
In response to the "what if our government went bad" reason for guns, as pointed out the US army, being made up of freedom loving US citizens would probably stomp on the bad guys rather than other freedom loving US citizens - so I don't think its necessary to keep a anti-tank missile under the kitchen sink just yet, and that does seem very extreme, but then again, when was the last time an A-T missile was used for a criminal purpose?
My gut feeling is a populace armed to the teeth isn't necessary, and when it is necessary then it's not permitted - but then here in little england it's not permitted and I don't think its necessary.
I'll end my confusing rant on that confusing point methinks.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
07-06-2005, 01:34
I think something like an AT missile was used in Scandinavia a few years ago during a feud between a couple of bike gangs/clubs.
RabidGibbon
07-06-2005, 01:35
Wow, are AT missiles legal in scandinavia?
Hmmm, so maybe they should ban handguns and keep assault weapons? ~;)
If I only could ban one them then I would ban handguns yes. I would prefer to ban assault rifles too but I will do another post on that later...
CBR
Wow, are AT missiles legal in scandinavia?
No they were stolen from a Swedish Army Depot.
CBR
Taffy_is_a_Taff
07-06-2005, 01:38
I don't think the people who used that missile were particularily concerned about its legality.
I do hope they are legal though.
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 01:43
The uk is living proof of why not to ban them ... In London gangs of thugs go around and attack people they call it "happy slapping" some people have been raped and killed by them. Now if they leagalize guns and let people get permits to carry them (with back round checks and training just dont let any moron start carrying) like in the USA. all it would take is a few dead "happy slappers" to clean it all up ~:cheers:
ask some of our london members here they may not agree with what i say but they will know what happy slapping is.
Well in that case we should see a tendency in US of very little crime compared to countries that didnt allow guns?
If guns are easy to get to I would imagine criminals "upgrade" to guns too but of course then you can start using assault rifles instead...
CBR
Taffy_is_a_Taff
07-06-2005, 01:47
I'm more concerned about the rise in gun crime SINCE they banned hand guns in the U.K....
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 01:58
Well in that case we should see a tendency in US of very little crime compared to countries that didnt allow guns?
If guns are easy to get to I would imagine criminals "upgrade" to guns too but of course then you can start using assault rifles instead...
CBR
Look at vermont you dont even need a permit to carry there and they have some of the lowest crime in the usa. Then look at dc they are banned and have high crime but that will change soon the ban is ending http://www.dcexaminer.com/articles/2005/06/30/news/d_c_news/01newsdc01guns.txt
now dc needs a carry permit...
and it is NOT an "assault rifle" unless it is full auto :furious3:
Papewaio
07-06-2005, 01:58
The current situation
In some areas, gun crime is a major cause of fear and distress.
Most worrying is the rise in the number of young people carrying real or imitation firearms, either to boost their image, or from a misguided idea about self-protection. Some of this is linked to gang activity, which itself is linked to the illegal drug trade.
Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in this country is relatively low – less than half of 1 percent of all crime recorded by the police – and in the year ending 31 March 2004, there was:
a 15 per cent reduction in homicides involving firearms
a 13 per cent reduction in robberies involving firearms
Even so, we have seen an unacceptable rise in gun crime over recent years, and are doing everything we can to tackle it.
...
Taffy_is_a_Taff
07-06-2005, 02:02
Papewaio
Indeed. However, gun crime levels are still higher than when hand guns were legal in the U.K.
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 02:03
See they are banned and the criminals still carry all that law does is keep law abiding members of society from being able to defend them selves. even pepper spray is baned :help:
PanzerJaeger
07-06-2005, 02:09
Guns are a very fun hobby. You shouldnt go around banning people's hobbies just because you are insecure.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
07-06-2005, 02:13
what's the deal with almost every Swiss adult male being allowed an assault weapon?
You don't hear about them going on killing sprees so much.
sharrukin
07-06-2005, 02:15
And I bet Stingers are great fun too ~:)
I see two different reasons for having guns: one for personal defense and one to fight against your government that suddenly has turned fascist or whatever the IMO far out scenario is.
Now I can understand handguns and maybe even rifles for self defense but if you want to protect yourself against a government turned bad you need more than rifles.
Does that mean anti-tank/air rockets and missiles should be allowed for civilians?
Of course I live in socialist heaven so what do I know ~:)
CBR
Well living in a country like Denmark I don't suppose you would ever have to deal with a Fascist government. As you say it's really a "far out scenario". However in the unlikely scenario that a Fascist government assumed power in Denmark, or even perhaps Denmark was invaded by an outside Fascist government, not that it could ever come to that of course, but, if it did, the presence of firearms would become a matter of national freedom. Perhaps you could rely on an outside nation to supply the Danish underground, or perhaps not. Some of us prefer a little more solid of a guarantee.
Hmmm, so maybe they should ban handguns and keep assault weapons? ~;)
In response to the "what if our government went bad" reason for guns, as pointed out the US army, being made up of freedom loving US citizens would probably stomp on the bad guys rather than other freedom loving US citizens - so I don't think its necessary to keep a anti-tank missile under the kitchen sink just yet, and that does seem very extreme, but then again, when was the last time an A-T missile was used for a criminal purpose?
My gut feeling is a populace armed to the teeth isn't necessary, and when it is necessary then it's not permitted - but then here in little england it's not permitted and I don't think its necessary.
I'll end my confusing rant on that confusing point methinks.
A population armed to the teeth means it never has to become necessary. Simply trusting your leaders to be nice guys is one to go. Didn't work too well for the Weimer Republic of Germany but it's one way to go. The Freikorps had weapons and the various militia's as well but the citizenry was largely unarmed. So it was the militia that ended up as top dog that decided Germanies future. One wonders if Kristallnacht (Crystal Night) would ever have occurred if the Jews had been heavily armed?
Guns are a very fun hobby. You shouldnt go around banning people's hobbies just because you are insecure.
True. But this is a special case where someone's hobby carries the potential for murder and mayhem all out of proportion to most hobbies.
It would be hard to deny it is, at some level, a public health and safety issue.
Guns are a very fun hobby. You shouldnt go around banning people's hobbies just because you are insecure.
Irrelevent. If it was only a hobby, this discussion wouldn't be taking place.
Papewaio
07-06-2005, 02:17
It is easier to enforce a ban on weapons on an isolated country with uniform gun laws (UK, Australia and NZ).
Even with yearly amnesties it takes time to soak up all the outlawed weapons.
However no matter how big your gun is, it doesn't matter if the bad guy already has his pea shooter that may blow up in his hand to your head.
If you really want to decrease crime on a social level (we are discussing las) then seriously look at the root causes of it.
At an individual level be prepared to defend yourself with or without a gun, because at the end of the day people do kill guns just increase your reach.
I have been mugged twice in my life, both times the guys had no weapons. The first time it was myself against 3 but they where all in my field of vision so no problem walked away with 2 stitches to myself and broke the ribs of the first assailant. The second time it was one on one, or that is what I thought until a second person jumped me from behind. Not much of a chance after that but I did manage to stop any major injuries apart from chipped teeth (not much change given the amount of a rugby injuries and bicycle chipping already in place).
Both times the muggers had the initiative. Both times if they had weapons they were at close enough range they could have caused serious injury to myself or themselves. Both times I would have had zero chance if they and I had guns as they mugged me and would have had the weapons drawn. The second time if anything I would have been shot in the back.
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 02:22
A population armed to the teeth means it never has to become necessary. Simply trusting your leaders to be nice guys is one to go. Didn't work too well for the Weimer Republic of Germany but it's one way to go. The Freikorps had weapons and the various militia's as well but the citizenry was largely unarmed. So it was the militia that ended up as top dog that decided Germanies future. One wonders if Kristallnacht (Crystal Night) would ever have occurred if the Jews had been heavily armed?
If they were and knew guerilla war i dont think the whole hollocaust would have happened the nazis knew this and disarmed them.(read my quotes on the first page)
Look at vermont you dont even need a permit to carry there and they have some of the lowest crime in the usa. Then look at dc they are banned and have high crime but that will change soon the ban is ending http://www.dcexaminer.com/articles/2005/06/30/news/d_c_news/01newsdc01guns.txt
now dc needs a carry permit...
Well Im not familiar with gun laws for all US states but there is a big difference in murder rates and Louisiana has the highest so thats must mean they have the most strict laws?
CBR
PanzerJaeger
07-06-2005, 02:36
True. But this is a special case where someone's hobby carries the potential for murder and mayhem all out of proportion to most hobbies.
It would be hard to deny it is, at some level, a public health and safety issue.
Compare the number of people killed while using a car and those killed by using a gun.
I know you are or were a gun owner so maybe you have heard of the system used in Richmond VA, where crimes that involved guns had enormous sentences. It works. Gun crime is down tons if im not mistaken.
We have viable alternatives other than forcing law abiding citizens to give up their guns, when naturally criminals wouldnt anyway.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
07-06-2005, 02:41
The wording of the so-called assault weapon ban could easily be used to outlaw any weapon capable of firing more than one round per loading (i.e., anything but a black powder rifle).
Don't forget the good old muskets and arquebuses. ~:) :bow:
PanzerJaeger
07-06-2005, 02:42
Irrelevent. If it was only a hobby, this discussion wouldn't be taking place.
Its irrelevant to you because you dont enjoy it. How would you like it if someone wanted to ban whatever you like to do?
[Edited to remove personal attack; Ser Clegane]
Papewaio
07-06-2005, 02:57
I agree PJ that guns should be licensed and the penalities for using them in crime should be heavily enforced.
Guns that have an alternative use to self defence such as hunting rifles should be easier to get then assault rifles or concealed handguns.
The license for a weapon should be stricter then a car. Learners permit, probabtion permit, full license.
I'd like to approach this on several levels
First, the social/philosophical. I'd rather live in a society where individuals were expected to be responsible enough to own firearms and use them responsibly, than one where the expectation is that people cannot be expected to be prudent and responsible, and hence, need to be protected.
Each day in the US there are people who live up to both expectations.
Second, the reality. There are so many guns, and their ownership is such a deeply rooted aspect of American life that it will be many years before we will be ready for teh ban. Due to the very high numbers and the ability to produce more, it is unlikely that a ban would have any effect other than diarming the responsible folks, leaving criminals with the guns.
Third, my reasons for owning guns. I've said before that I own guns to protect my home and family, since I live in a semi-rural area where the sheriff is probably 10-20 minutes away, at best. I also enjoy target practice, it is something that my friends and I get together and do for fun. I also collect guns as an investment, and view some of the nicer ones almost as works of art.
Being armed gives me the feeling that God must have when he's holding a gun (J/K, one of my fav Simpson's quotes).
Yes, gun violence can be a real problem, places like the mean streets of LA there are lots of shootings. There are already many many laws against this behavior, and IMHO restricting gun ownership further won't help that problem, which is essentially drug money/turf/racial/poverty in origin.
While it is unlikely that an armed populace could resist a determined world power equipped with today's technology, it is also apparent that most oppressed peoples first lost the ability to resist.
We've been around and around on this subject, probably just as polarized as we were. One thing that I've learned from these discussions is that those who are for restricting firearm ownership are usually concerned about gun violence and are trying to make the world a better place. Most gun-owning Americans are not nuts, just convinced that they are capable of being responsible for their own safety.
The real question for Americans is not whether we should ban guns or assualt weapons, but what is the best way allow responsible gun ownership with reasonable constraints to protect society.
ichi :bow:
Compare the number of people killed while using a car and those killed by using a gun.
I know you are or were a gun owner so maybe you have heard of the system used in Richmond VA, where crimes that involved guns had enormous sentences. It works. Gun crime is down tons if im not mistaken.
We have viable alternatives other than forcing law abiding citizens to give up their guns, when naturally criminals wouldnt anyway.
You're preaching to the choir. I agree with almost all of what you say. I've owned dozens of guns, from assault weapons to single shot .22s. I'm more than well aquainted all most facets of the issue. I even wrote a newspaper article once comparing the M-16 to the Lee-Enfield SMLE in terms of a public safety issue. My conclusion was that both were equally dangerous.
Yet I also have a deep feeling, a mistrust if you will, about high tech weapons in the hands of Joe Average. I know it's an emotional response to a technical issue involving mechanical objects, which is as stupid as the day is long, but at what point do you disregard a gut feeling? Especially one involving the safety of those around you.
I'm not saying I'm right. I'm just saying the other side can raise very valid points.
(How come [edited as the relevant statement has been removed; Ser Clegane])
Well living in a country like Denmark I don't suppose you would ever have to deal with a Fascist government...
For that we have the homeguard (61000 men and women who have their weapon at home) plus various depots for an eventual mobilisation. There should be enough weapons for a small civil war but I guess one can always have more.
We actually did have a near fascist period in the late 1890's and lots of rifle clubs were created back then IIRC.
what's the deal with almost every Swiss adult male being allowed an assault weapon?
You don't hear about them going on killing sprees so much.
AFAIK the Swiss allows people to have their assault rifles at home but they are still part of the militia that are to be mobilised in case of war. So there is still some control of who actually have the weapons and therefore not everyone can have one. I dont know about their handgun laws.
CBR
sharrukin
07-06-2005, 03:11
For that we have the homeguard (61000 men and women who have their weapon at home) plus various depots for an eventual mobilisation. There should be enough weapons for a small civil war but I guess one can always have more.
We actually did have a near fascist period in the late 1890's and lots of rifle clubs were created back then IIRC.
Didn't you also have a Fascist period from 1940 until 1945? The reasons for having an armed citizenry is well illustrated by your nations history, IMHO.
The homeguard doesn't seem to have done much to prevent these incidents.
Productivity
07-06-2005, 03:45
Personally I am an advocate of gun restriction.I can stretch to allowing them for hobbies, as long as they are under extremely secure protection at all times.
Intuitively guns just lead to a MAD scenario. I have a gun, so the criminal gets the bigger gun, so I get a bigger gun, so the criminal gets a bigger gun, so I get a tactical nuclear weapon and there goes my suburb. If guns become common for citizens, then everyone has to get one as they can't risk a criminal coming into their house with a gun and them not having one.
I think if there is a problem with crime, then that is a societal problem, and simply arming everyone to the teeth is not a satisfactory outcome. Was the cold war satisfactory? I would say no, and the non cold war aftermath is far better.
Albino Gorilla
07-06-2005, 03:51
Because I'd rather go down fighting than live like a slave.
You can do that with out a gun. Would Probably be more simple too.
The occupation yes. The homeguard was not created until after the war in the spirit of the resistance movement.
1885 to 1894 was a political/constitutional struggle. The government used provisional laws and did indeed strengthen the police and restricted freedom of press and weapon laws. Many of these laws came into being after an assassination attempt on the PM. But in the end it was solved peacefully. Any armed struggle by the peasants and workers could have turned it something really bad IMO
What to say about the German occupation? Nothing would have stopped the Germans from invading and it took nearly 3 years before the popular opinion had changed enough to force the government to give up. I don't know what lots of weapons would have done to make it different.
CBR
PanzerJaeger
07-06-2005, 04:15
I'm not saying I'm right. I'm just saying the other side can raise very valid points.
Fair enough - i know its ridiculous to let non-military personnel have many weapons.
(How come [edited as the relevant statement has been removed; Ser Clegane])
Declaring the interests of responsible gun owners irrelevant is pretty arrogant.
Intuitively guns just lead to a MAD scenario. I have a gun, so the criminal gets the bigger gun, so I get a bigger gun, so the criminal gets a bigger gun, so I get a tactical nuclear weapon and there goes my suburb. If guns become common for citizens, then everyone has to get one as they can't risk a criminal coming into their house with a gun and them not having one.
Kind of a silly argument don't ya think? A criminal could have a cannon and still 1 well placed .22 shot will stop him cold- no tac nukes needed.
Productivity
07-06-2005, 04:32
Kind of a silly argument don't ya think? A criminal could have a cannon and still 1 well placed .22 shot will stop him cold- no tac nukes needed.
Ok, I went into a bit of hyperbole there ~;). And by bigger I didn't mean in sheer size, it was a general "effectiveness" measure of a gun. I think we have had this discussion before between us though haven't we ~:).
sharrukin
07-06-2005, 04:35
What to say about the German occupation? Nothing would have stopped the Germans from invading and it took nearly 3 years before the popular opinion had changed enough to force the government to give up. I don't know what lots of weapons would have done to make it different.
CBR
Some things would have stopped the Germans from invading.
What nation in europe had a well armed citizenry? Switzerland.
What tiny, neutral, nation was not invaded by the Germans? Switzerland.
If Denmark had in fact, a similar system to the Swiss, I doubt the Germans would have bothered, as it would not have been worth the effort required.
TBH I really doubt it has anything to do with that. Hitler had a clear purpose for most of his invasions.
Taking Denmark was important as he needed an airport to support the invasion of Norway. Norway because of the iron import that UK was about to shut down.
Benelux because of the invasion of France. Yugoslavia because of a sudden pro UK coup that could threaten the flank just when he was about to invade Russia. Greece...blame the Italians on that. etc
No offense to the Swiss but they had absolutely nothing that Hitler needed.
CBR
Papewaio
07-06-2005, 04:59
AFAIK the Swiss allows people to have their assault rifles at home but they are still part of the militia that are to be mobilised in case of war. So there is still some control of who actually have the weapons and therefore not everyone can have one. I dont know about their handgun laws.
CBR
So the right to bear arms as long as you belong to an organised militia...
The_Doctor
07-06-2005, 10:28
What do people think about non-lethal guns?
A bit like a phaser on Star Trek when it is set to stun.
Ja'chyra
07-06-2005, 10:53
Nice, the gun argument again.
Compare the number of people killed while using a car and those killed by using a gun.
I think comparing guns with the use of cars is inappropriate as the use of both is completely different.
Guns are a very fun hobby. You shouldnt go around banning people's hobbies just because you are insecure.
Guns are a hobby and a means to protect yourself from muggers or your own government, but we also have arguments that the government wouldn't be able to send the troops in because they would be, in reality, your brothers and sisters. The thing that's confusing me is that it seems to be the same people making these points depending on how the argument is going.
If guns are a hobby do you really need assault rifles? I would say no, assault rifles are designed for the military for use in war situations, you don't need automatic firing or weapons designed to be used in confined spaces or night firing capabilities to go target shooting.
So what about protection, I'll ignore from the government because to me it just doesn't hold water. I take it most of the population lives in urban areas, for this case do you really want someone with a weapon that can fire their whole mag of 30+ rounds in well under a minute, again I would say no. So we don't want people carrying assault rifles in the street so what about protecting your home. If someone breaks into your home you don't need a weapon that is designed to penetrate body armour at 600m+ when the attacker is likely to be within, what, 10m? In rural areas you might have an argument if you were in a dangerous country where gangs attack isolated homes, but AFAIK this doesn't happen in the US.
So that leaves us with, it's your constitutional right to bear arms. I would argue whether this is even still valid, I can see the point in a fledgling country that is coming to grips with establishing government and trying to win a place in the world, but nowadays? I'm not buying it. There's also the fact that this is the same country that monitors which books you buy, I would say that this is a bigger violation of your rights than banning guns.
Of course, I don't live in the US, so I don't really care and it's none of my business
Fair enough - i know its ridiculous to let non-military personnel have many weapons.
When you think about it, the only reason for an assault weapon (other than fun, which they certainly are) is to miss a lot and be able to keep shooting. Fast.
The question then arises - will Joe Average be in a situation where he will require a heavy volume of fire? Will he be firing, repeatedly, at multiple moving targets? Will he be engaging in firefights where hundreds of rounds are flying through the air? If Mr. Average has a basic assault weapon - thirty round mags and the ability to shoot them off quickly - what situation is it, other than freedom of possesion in itself, that justifies that possesion?
My Galil held twenty-five rounds of .308. I had four magazines, not excessive at all by gun owner standards. I could rapid fire those 100 rounds in a minute or two easily, with a loose degree of accuracy. In other words, I would miss a lot if the target was man sized at a hundred yards. Then again, a standard hunting rifle will pop that man sized target five times in a minute at a 100 yards no problem at all.
What situation is it that Joe Average will find himself in where he requires a heavy volume of sustained fire? (Hell, what situation would require Joe Average to shoot five men in a minute with a hunting rifle?) Won't a lesser volume of accurate fire be more than enough? If this is true, then wouldn't Joe Average be better suited to more conventional arms? Ones that do not so easily permit (or that are actually designed for) a spray and pray slaughter at the local shopping mall? Can he not feel well armed and well protected with "lesser" weapons that perhaps do not carry the inherent threat to the public as the assault weapons?
As a long time gun owner, I find this one of the toughest questions to answer.
Samurai Waki
07-06-2005, 11:11
There is a ban on guns in the Caymans for a very specific reason. The Reason being that during the 60s Many Guns went into Cuba via Central American Countries and Venezuela, their biggest ammo dump was right here in good ol' Cayman, right under the British Authorities Noses. I am not anti-gun by any measure, it just proves that if a group is actively seeking out weapons of such deadly caliber it is very easy to attain them without anyone ever knowing. I think a regulation should be put on the type of weapons a person should be able to possess, for dense Urban Areas (or entire states for that matter) only mid Caliber Hand Guns should be allowed, for less dense states higher Caliber weapons, such as Hunting Rifles should be allowed. And people from another state that has a ban on High Caliber Guns should not be able to cross over state lines and purchase a gun in different state unless they are permanent residents for a certain amount of years. Also the purchase of guns should be regulated, so if you live in a state that is more lax on Gun Laws and move to a state that is more strict on gun laws, authorities should have the right to strip you of any illegal arms and reimburse you for the price that it was sold to you or trade you for one that is legal within the state. If you have been proven to have purchased a gun in the past and then move to a state where it is illegal to possess such a fire-arm and you cannot produce it, then there should be a maximum fine of $1500 or you aren't allowed to purchase a gun within the state until you hand over your illegal weapon. Weapons such as heirlooms can be kept in a safe box.
If by Chance the US or any other country is facing possible invasion (which in todays day and age would be extremely unlikely) then the local military and Police Forces would have large enough weapons caches to adequatly supply the population with Assault Rifles and such. In the Case of an attempted overthrow of Government, I have no doubt that the men of our armed forces would turn on them in proper. Most American soldiers Fight for our Freedom, not for America.
"I am so against legal firearms.
I really cannot see why people want to own guns."
I would be scared if I knew all my neighbours had guns. Why are the legal in the first place? The president thought there were too many inhabitants? So he allowed guns in the U.S.? It has costed many lives so far ...
I'll really never understand this, and I'm afraid I'll never convince the conservative pro-gun americans, so I won't discuss this topic further.
:dizzy2:
bmolsson
07-06-2005, 12:54
Anyone, not including law enforcement or armed forced, with an assult weapon in a modern society is most probably a freak. Sooner or later the person in question will use the assult weapon in a crime. Therefore there should be no assult weapons allowed.
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 13:39
What do people think about non-lethal guns?
A bit like a phaser on Star Trek when it is set to stun.
Those are useless if some one is worth pointing a gun at they are worth killing. you are not suposed to draw unless you are in a life or death sitiuation..... not just because the 5 year old down the road called you stupid
~:eek:
Taffy_is_a_Taff
07-06-2005, 13:53
Ja'chyra : that is fair enough but the issue with the U.S. assault weapons ban is that it basically banned anything that looks scary or anything that has attachments to it (that could make it looks scarier). It also limits magazine size (which means very little in practical terms as you just carry more smaller clips with you).
There are already controls on fully automatic weapons. The assault weapons ban went after semi-automatics for the most part.
Bmolsson: people I live with own, amongst many other guns, an AK 47 and an M1 Garand, they have never, and really are never likely to go nuts and start shooting people. They just like shooting targets/pests. For home defense they have 1911s with hollow tip bullets. Nobody I know with an "assault weapon" has shown any indications of being a freak or a violent nutter with criminal intentions
Ser Clegane
07-06-2005, 13:56
you are not suposed to draw unless you are in a life or death sitiuation ~:eek:
But as people tend to use guns in perceived life or death situation a non-lethal weapon (assuming it would be effective enough to render the opponent helpless) might be a good alternative, or?
After all, your primary objective when you are in danger should not be to kill your opponent but to remove the threat.
if some one is worth pointing a gun at they are worth killing
Charming ... I am sure that most people will be able to make an informed decision on that one in a high-stress situation :rolleyes:
Charming ... I am sure that most people will be able to make an informed decision on that one in a high-stress situation :rolleyes:They had better be. If you shoot someone without proper justification you'd better be prepared to be tried for it- whether its a taser or a .357 you shot them with.
Ser Clegane
07-06-2005, 14:11
They had better be.
of course they'd better be - but are they? And even if you can get busted for both if you err - wouldn't it be slightly better (for all people involved) to err with a taser than with a .357?
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 14:18
tasers dont work all the time :bow:
Ser Clegane
07-06-2005, 14:26
tasers dont work all the time :bow:
1) Martinus' question was generally about non-lethal weapons, without specifically mentioning a taser - you generally rejected the very idea of a non-lethal alternative.
2) Is a gun a 100% guarantee that you will kill the opponent or at least render him completely helpless?
of course they'd better be - but are they? And even if you can get busted for both if you err - wouldn't it be slightly better (for all people involved) to err with a taser than with a .357?
I suppose, yes. But, if the threat was real Id much rather miss with a revolver than a taser. With one, you can still fire again- with the other, it's likely the last mistake you'll make.
Don't get me wrong, if people can't deal with the responsibility of owning a firearm, tasers and the like are ok I guess- but they are far from a 'perfect' alternative. Not to mention, the perception that these devices can't kill often causes people to want to use them in situations where lethal force isnt called for or justified.
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 14:57
I think all you need to read this it is a real good article called "A Nation of Cowards" It was wrote in 1993 but it is still relevent.
A NATION OF COWARDS
Jeffrey R. Snyder
OUR SOCIETY has reached a pinnacle of self-expression and respect for individuality rare or unmatched in history. Our entire popular culture -- from fashion magazines to the cinema -- positively screams the matchless worth of the individual, and glories in eccentricity, nonconformity, independent judgment, and self-determination. This enthusiasm is reflected in the prevalent notion that helping someone entails increasing that person's "self-esteem"; that if a person properly values himself, he will naturally be a happy, productive, and, in some inexplicable fashion, responsible member of society.
And yet, while people are encouraged to revel in their individuality and incalculable self-worth, the media and the law enforcement establishment continually advise us that, when confronted with the threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but simply give the attacker what he wants. If the crime under consideration is rape, there is some notable waffling on this point, and the discussion quickly moves to how the woman can change her behavior to minimize the risk of rape, and the various ridiculous, non-lethal weapons she may acceptably carry, such as whistles, keys, mace or, that weapon which really sends shivers down a rapist's spine, the portable cellular phone.
Now how can this be? How can a person who values himself so highly calmly accept the indignity of a criminal assault? How can one who believes that the essence of his dignity lies in his self-determination passively accept the forcible deprivation of that self-determination? How can he, quietly, with great dignity and poise, simply hand over the goods?
The assumption, of course, is that there is no inconsistency. The advice not to resist a criminal assault and simply hand over the goods is founded on the notion that one's life is of incalculable value, and that no amount of property is worth it. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of the suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social contract: "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want." For years, feminists have labored to educate people that rape is not about sex, but about domination, degradation, and control. Evidently, someone needs to inform the law enforcement establishment and the media that kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, and assault are not about property.
Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but also a commandeering of the victim's person and liberty. If the individual's dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim's dignity. It is, in fact, an act of enslavement. Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist.
The Gift of Life
Although difficult for modern man to fathom, it was once widely believed that life was a gift from God, that to not defend that life when offered violence was to hold God's gift in contempt, to be a coward and to breach one's duty to one's community. A sermon given in Philadelphia in 1747 unequivocally equated the failure to defend oneself with suicide:
He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no
authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense,
incurs the Guilt of self murder since God hath enjoined him to seek
the continuance of his life, and Nature itself teaches every creature
to defend itself.
"Cowardice" and "self-respect" have largely disappeared from public discourse. In their place we are offered "self-esteem" as the bellwether of success and a proxy for dignity. "Self-respect" implies that one recognizes standards, and judges oneself worthy by the degree to which one lives up to them. "Self-esteem" simply means that one feels good about oneself. "Dignity" used to refer to the self-mastery and fortitude with which a person conducted himself in the face of life's vicissitudes and the boorish behavior of others. Now, judging by campus speech codes, dignity requires that we never encounter a discouraging word and that others be coerced into acting respectfully, evidently on the assumption that we are powerless to prevent our degradation if exposed to the demeaning behavior of others. These are signposts proclaiming the insubstantiality of our character, the hollowness of our souls.
It is impossible to address the problem of rampant crime without talking about the moral responsibility of the intended victim. Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it, permit it, submit to it. We permit and encourage it because we do not fight back, immediately, then and there, where it happens. Crime is not rampant because we do not have enough prisons, because judges and prosecutors are too soft, because the police are hamstrung with absurd technicalities. The defect is there, in our character. We are a nation of cowards and shirkers.
Do You Feel Lucky?
In 1991, when then-Attorney General Richard Thornburgh released the FBI's annual crime statistics, he noted that it is now more likely that a person will be the victim of a violent crime than that he will be in an auto accident. Despite this, most people readily believe that the existence of the police relieves them of the responsibility to take full measures to protect themselves. The police, however, are not personal bodyguards. Rather, they act as a general deterrent to crime, both by their presence and by apprehending criminals after the fact. As numerous courts have held, they have no legal obligation to protect anyone in particular. You cannot sue them for failing to prevent you from being the victim of a crime.
Insofar as the police deter by their presence, they are very, very good. Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in front of them. Unfortunately, the corollary is that you can pretty much bet your life (and you are) that they won't be there at the moment you actually need them.
Should you ever be the victim of an assault, a robbery, or a rape, you will find it very difficult to call the police while the act is in progress, even if you are carrying a portable cellular phone. Nevertheless, you might be interested to know how long it takes them to show up. Department of Justice statistics for 1991 show that, for all crimes of violence, only 28 percent of calls are responded to within five minutes. The idea that protection is a service people can call to have delivered and expect to receive in a timely fashion is often mocked by gun owners, who love to recite the challenge, "Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first."
Many people deal with the problem of crime by convincing themselves that they live, work, and travel only in special "crime-free" zones. Invariably, they react with shock and hurt surprise when they discover that criminals do not play by the rules and do not respect these imaginary boundaries. If, however, you understand that crime can occur anywhere at anytime, and if you understand that you can be maimed or mortally wounded in mere seconds, you may wish to consider whether you are willing to place the responsibility for safeguarding your life in the hands of others.
Power And Responsibility
Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it? If you believe that it is the police's, not only are you wrong -- since the courts universally rule that they have no legal obligation to do so -- but you face some difficult moral quandaries. How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself? Because that is his job and we pay him to do it? Because your life is of incalculable value, but his is only worth the $30,000 salary we pay him? If you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you?
Do you believe that you are forbidden to protect yourself because the police are better qualified to protect you, because they know what they are doing but you're a rank amateur? Put aside that this is equivalent to believing that only concert pianists may play the piano and only professional athletes may play sports. What exactly are these special qualities possessed only by the police and beyond the rest of us mere mortals?
One who values his life and takes seriously his responsibilities to his family and community will possess and cultivate the means of fighting back, and will retaliate when threatened with death or grievous injury to himself or a loved one. He will never be content to rely solely on others for his safety, or to think he has done all that is possible by being aware of his surroundings and taking measures of avoidance. Let's not mince words: He will be armed, will be trained in the use of his weapon, and will defend himself when faced with lethal violence.
Fortunately, there is a weapon for preserving life and liberty that can be wielded effectively by almost anyone -- the handgun. Small and light enough to be carried habitually, lethal, but unlike the knife or sword, not demanding great skill or strength, it truly is the "great equalizer." Requiring only hand-eye coordination and a modicum of ability to remain cool under pressure, it can be used effectively by the old and the weak against the young and the strong, by the one against the many.
The handgun is the only weapon that would give a lone female jogger a chance of prevailing against a gang of thugs intent on rape, a teacher a chance of protecting children at recess from a madman intent on massacring them, a family of tourists waiting at a mid-town subway station the means to protect themselves from a gang of teens armed with razors and knives.
But since we live in a society that by and large outlaws the carrying of arms, we are brought into the fray of the Great American Gun War. Gun control is one of the most prominent battlegrounds in our current culture wars. Yet it is unique in the half-heartedness with which our conservative leaders and pundits -- our "conservative elite" -- do battle, and have conceded the moral high ground to liberal gun control proponents. It is not a topic often written about, or written about with any great fervor, by William F. Buckley or Patrick Buchanan. As drug czar, William Bennett advised President Bush to ban "assault weapons." George Will is on record as recommending the repeal of the Second Amendment, and Jack Kemp is on record as favoring a ban on the possession of semiautomatic "assault weapons." The battle for gun rights is one fought predominantly by the common man. The beliefs of both our liberal and conservative elites are in fact abetting the criminal rampage through our society.
Selling Crime Prevention
By any rational measure, nearly all gun control proposals are hokum. The Brady Bill, for example, would not have prevented John Hinckley from obtaining a gun to shoot President Reagan; Hinckley purchased his weapon five months before the attack, and his medical records could not have served as a basis to deny his purchase of a gun, since medical records are not public documents filed with the police. Similarly, California's waiting period and background check did not stop Patrick Purdy from purchasing the "assault rifle" and handguns he used to massacre children during recess in a Stockton schoolyard; the felony conviction that would have provided the basis for stopping the sales did not exist, because Mr. Purdy's previous weapons violations were plea-bargained down from felonies to misdemeanors.
In the mid-sixties there was a public service advertising campaign targeted at car owners about the prevention of car theft. The purpose of the ad was to urge car owners not to leave their keys in their cars. The message was, "Don't help a good boy go bad." The implication was that, by leaving his keys in his car, the normal, law-abiding car owner was contributing to the delinquency of minors who, if they just weren't tempted beyond their limits, would be "good." Now, in those days people still had a fair sense of just who was responsible for whose behavior. The ad succeeded in enraging a goodly portion of the populace, and was soon dropped.
Nearly all of the gun control measures offered by Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) and its ilk embody the same philosophy. They are founded on the belief that America's law-abiding gun owners are the source of the problem. With their unholy desire for firearms, they are creating a society awash in a sea of guns, thereby helping good boys go bad, and helping bad boys be badder. This laying of moral blame for violent crime at the feet of the law-abiding, and the implicit absolution of violent criminals for their misdeeds, naturally infuriates honest gun owners.
The files of HCI and other gun control organizations are filled with proposals to limit the availability of semiautomatic and other firearms to law-abiding citizens, and barren of proposals for apprehending and punishing violent criminals. It is ludicrous to expect that the proposals of HCI, or any gun control laws, will significantly curb crime. According to Department of Justice and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) statistics, fully 90 percent of violent crimes are committed without a handgun, and 93 percent of the guns obtained by violent criminals are not obtained through the lawful purchase and sale transactions that are the object of most gun control legislation. Furthermore, the number of violent criminals is minute in comparison to the number of firearms in America -- estimated by the ATF at about 200 million, approximately one-third of which are handguns. With so abundant a supply, there will always be enough guns available for those who wish to use them for nefarious ends, no matter how complete the legal prohibitions against them, or how draconian the punishment for their acquisition or use. No, the gun control proposals of HCI and other organizations are not seriously intended as crime control. Something else is at work here.
The Tyranny of the Elite
Gun control is a moral crusade against a benighted, barbaric citizenry. This is demonstrated not only by the ineffectualness of gun control in preventing crime, and by the fact that it focuses on restricting the behavior of the law-abiding rather than apprehending and punishing the guilty, but also by the execration that gun control proponents heap on gun owners and their evil instrumentality, the NRA. Gun owners are routinely portrayed as uneducated, paranoid rednecks fascinated by and prone to violence, i.e., exactly the type of person who opposes the liberal agenda and whose moral and social "re-education" is the object of liberal social policies. Typical of such bigotry is New York Gov. Mario Cuomo's famous characterization of gun-owners as "hunters who drink beer, don't vote, and lie to their wives about where they were all weekend." Similar vituperation is rained upon the NRA, characterized by Sen. Edward Kennedy as the "pusher's best friend," lampooned in political cartoons as standing for the right of children to carry firearms to school and, in general, portrayed as standing for an individual's God-given right to blow people away at will.
The stereotype is, of course, false. As criminologist and constitutional lawyer Don B. Kates, Jr. and former HCI contributor Dr. Patricia Harris have pointed out, "[s]tudies consistently show that, on the average, gun owners are better educated and have more prestigious jobs than non-owners.... Later studies show that gun owners are less likely than non-owners to approve of police brutality, violence against dissenters, etc."
Conservatives must understand that the antipathy many liberals have for gun owners arises in good measure from their statist utopianism. This habit of mind has nowhere been better explored than in The Republic. There, Plato argues that the perfectly just society is one in which an unarmed people exhibit virtue by minding their own business in the performance of their assigned functions, while the government of philosopher-kings, above the law and protected by armed guardians unquestioning in their loyalty to the state, engineers, implements, and fine-tunes the creation of that society, aided and abetted by myths that both hide and justify their totalitarian manipulation.
The Unarmed Life
When columnist Carl Rowan preaches gun control and uses a gun to defend his home, when Maryland Gov. William Donald Schaefer seeks legislation year after year to ban semiautomatic "assault weapons" whose only purpose, we are told, is to kill people, while he is at the same time escorted by state police armed with large-capacity 9mm semiautomatic pistols, it is not simple hypocrisy. It is the workings of that habit of mind possessed by all superior beings who have taken upon themselves the terrible burden of civilizing the masses and who understand, like our Congress, that laws are for other people.
The liberal elite know that they are philosopher-kings. They know that the people simply cannot be trusted; that they are incapable of just and fair self-government; that left to their own devices, their society will be racist, sexist, homophobic, and inequitable -- and the liberal elite know how to fix things. They are going to help us live the good and just life, even if they have to lie to us and force us to do it. And they detest those who stand in their way.
The private ownership of firearms is a rebuke to this utopian zeal. To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state. It is to reserve final judgment about whether the state is encroaching on freedom and liberty, to stand ready to defend that freedom with more than mere words, and to stand outside the state's totalitarian reach.
The Florida Experience
The elitist distrust of the people underlying the gun control movement is illustrated beautifully in HCI's campaign against a new concealed-carry law in Florida. Prior to 1987, the Florida law permitting the issuance of concealed-carry permits was administered at the county level. The law was vague, and, as a result, was subject to conflicting interpretation and political manipulation. Permits were issued principally to security personnel and the privileged few with political connections. Permits were valid only within the county of issuance.
In 1987, however, Florida enacted a uniform concealed-carry law which mandates that county authorities issue a permit to anyone who satisfies certain objective criteria. The law requires that a permit be issued to any applicant who is a resident, at least twenty-one years of age, has no criminal record, no record of alcohol or drug abuse, no history of mental illness, and provides evidence of having satisfactorily completed a firearms safety course offered by the NRA or other competent instructor. The applicant must provide a set of fingerprints, after which the authorities make a background check. The permit must be issued or denied within ninety days, is valid throughout the state, and must be renewed every three years, which provides authorities a regular means of reevaluating whether the permit holder still qualifies.
Passage of this legislation was vehemently opposed by HCI and the media. The law, they said, would lead to citizens shooting each other over everyday disputes involving fender benders, impolite behavior, and other slights to their dignity. Terms like "Florida, the Gunshine State" and "Dodge City East" were coined to suggest that the state, and those seeking passage of the law, were encouraging individuals to act as judge, jury, and executioner in a "Death Wish" society.
No HCI campaign more clearly demonstrates the elitist beliefs underlying the campaign to eradicate gun ownership. Given the qualifications required of permit holders, HCI and the media can only believe that common, law-abiding citizens are seething cauldrons of homicidal rage, ready to kill to avenge any slight to their dignity, eager to seek out and summarily execute the lawless. Only lack of immediate access to a gun restrains them and prevents the blood from flowing in the streets. They are so mentally and morally deficient that they would mistake a permit to carry a weapon in self-defense as a state-sanctioned license to kill at will.
Did the dire predictions come true? Despite the fact that Miami and Dade County have severe problems with the drug trade, the homicide rate fell in Florida following enactment of this law, as it did in Oregon following enactment of similar legislation there. There are, in addition, several documented cases of new permit holders successfully using their weapons to defend themselves. Information from the Florida Department of State shows that, from the beginning of the program in 1987 through June 1993, 160,823 permits have been issued, and only 530, or about 0.33 percent of the applicants, have been denied a permit for failure to satisfy the criteria, indicating that the law is benefitting those whom it was intended to benefit -- the law-abiding. Only 16 permits, less than 1/100th of 1 percent, have been revoked due to the post-issuance commission of a crime involving a firearm.
The Florida legislation has been used as a model for legislation adopted by Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Mississippi. There are, in addition, seven other states (Maine, North and South Dakota, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and, with the exception of cities with a population in excess of 1 million, Pennsylvania) which provide that concealed-carry permits must be issued to law-abiding citizens who satisfy various objective criteria. Finally, no permit is required at all in Vermont. Altogether, then, there are thirteen states in which law-abiding citizens who wish to carry arms to defend themselves may do so. While no one appears to have compiled the statistics from all of these jurisdictions, there is certainly an ample data base for those seeking the truth about the trustworthiness of law-abiding citizens who carry firearms.
Other evidence also suggests that armed citizens are very responsible in using guns to defend themselves. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, using surveys and other data, has determined that armed citizens defend their lives or property with firearms against criminals approximately 1 million times a year. In 98 percent of these instances, the citizen merely brandishes the weapon or fires a warning shot. Only in 2 percent of the cases do citizens actually shoot their assailants. In defending themselves with their firearms, armed citizens kill 2,000 to 3,000 criminals each year, three times the number killed by the police. A nationwide study by Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The "error rate" for the police, however, was 11 percent, over five times as high.
It is simply not possible to square the numbers above and the experience of Florida with the notions that honest, law-abiding gun owners are borderline psychopaths itching for an excuse to shoot someone, vigilantes eager to seek out and summarily execute the lawless, or incompetent fools incapable of determining when it is proper to use lethal force in defense of their lives. Nor upon reflection should these results seem surprising. Rape, robbery, and attempted murder are not typically actions rife with ambiguity or subtlety, requiring special powers of observation and great book-learning to discern. When a man pulls a knife on a woman and says, "You're coming with me," her judgment that a crime is being committed is not likely to be in error. There is little chance that she is going to shoot the wrong person. It is the police, because they are rarely at the scene of the crime when it occurs, who are more likely to find themselves in circumstances where guilt and innocence are not so clear-cut, and in which the probability for mistakes is higher.
Arms and Liberty
Classical republican philosophy has long recognized the critical relationship between personal liberty and the possession of arms by a people ready and willing to use them. Political theorists as dissimilar as Niccolo Machiavelli, Sir Thomas More, James Harrington, Algernon Sidney, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all shared the view that the possession of arms is vital for resisting tyranny, and that to be disarmed by one's government is tantamount to being enslaved by it. The possession of arms by the people is the ultimate warrant that government governs only with the consent of the governed. As Kates has shown, the Second Amendment is as much a product of this political philosophy as it is of the American experience in the Revolutionary War. Yet our conservative elite has abandoned this aspect of republican theory. Although our conservative pundits recognize and embrace gun owners as allies in other arenas, their battle for gun rights is desultory. The problem here is not a statist utopianism, although goodness knows that liberals are not alone in the confidence they have in the state's ability to solve society's problems. Rather, the problem seems to lie in certain cultural traits shared by our conservative and liberal elites.
One such trait is an abounding faith in the power of the word. The failure of our conservative elite to defend the Second Amendment stems in great measure from an overestimation of the power of the rights set forth in the First Amendment, and a general undervaluation of action. Implicit in calls for the repeal of the Second Amendment is the assumption that our First Amendment rights are sufficient to preserve our liberty. The belief is that liberty can be preserved as long as men freely speak their minds; that there is no tyranny or abuse that can survive being exposed in the press; and that the truth need only be disclosed for the culprits to be shamed. The people will act, and the truth shall set us, and keep us, free.
History is not kind to this belief, tending rather to support the view of Hobbes, Machiavelli, and other republican theorists that only people willing and able to defend themselves can preserve their liberties. While it may be tempting and comforting to believe that the existence of mass electronic communication has forever altered the balance of power between the state and its subjects, the belief has certainly not been tested by time, and what little history there is in the age of mass communication is not especially encouraging. The camera, radio, and press are mere tools and, like guns, can be used for good or ill. Hitler, after all, was a masterful orator, used radio to very good effect, and is well known to have pioneered and exploited the propaganda opportunities afforded by film. And then, of course, there were the Brownshirts, who knew very well how to quell dissent among intellectuals.
Polite Society
In addition to being enamored of the power of words, our conservative elite shares with liberals the notion that an armed society is just not civilized or progressive, that massive gun ownership is a blot on our civilization. This association of personal disarmament with civilized behavior is one of the great unexamined beliefs of our time.
Should you read English literature from the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries, you will discover numerous references to the fact that a gentleman, especially when out at night or traveling, armed himself with a sword or a pistol against the chance of encountering a highwayman or other such predator. This does not appear to have shocked the ladies accompanying him. True, for the most part there were no police in those days, but we have already addressed the notion that the presence of the police absolves people of the responsibility to look after their safety, and in any event the existence of the police cannot be said to have reduced crime to negligible levels.
It is by no means obvious why it is "civilized" to permit oneself to fall easy prey to criminal violence, and to permit criminals to continue unobstructed in their evil ways. While it may be that a society in which crime is so rare that no one ever needs to carry a weapon is "civilized," a society that stigmatizes the carrying of weapons by the law-abiding -- because it distrusts its citizens more than it fears rapists, robbers, and murderers -- certainly cannot claim this distinction. Perhaps the notion that defending oneself with lethal force is not "civilized" arises from the view that violence is always wrong, or the view that each human being is of such intrinsic worth that it is wrong to kill anyone under any circumstances. The necessary implication of these propositions, however, is that life is not worth defending. Far from being "civilized," the beliefs that counterviolence and killing are always wrong are an invitation to the spread of barbarism. Such beliefs announce loudly and clearly that those who do not respect the lives and property of others will rule over those who do.
In truth, one who believes it wrong to arm himself against criminal violence shows contempt of God's gift of life (or, in modern parlance, does not properly value himself), does not live up to his responsibilities to his family and community, and proclaims himself mentally and morally deficient, because he does not trust himself to behave responsibly. In truth, a state that deprives its law-abiding citizens of the means to effectively defend themselves is not civilized but barbarous, becoming an accomplice of murderers, rapists, and thugs and revealing its totalitarian nature by its tacit admission that the disorganized, random havoc created by criminals is far less a threat than are men and women who believe themselves free and independent, and act accordingly.
While gun control proponents and other advocates of a kinder, gentler society incessantly decry our "armed society," in truth we do not live in an armed society. We live in a society in which violent criminals and agents of the state habitually carry weapons, and in which many law-abiding citizens own firearms but do not go about armed. Department of Justice statistics indicate that 87 percent of all violent crimes occur outside the home. Essentially, although tens of millions own firearms, we are an unarmed society.
Take Back the Night
Clearly the police and the courts are not providing a significant brake on criminal activity. While liberals call for more poverty, education, and drug treatment programs, conservatives take a more direct tack. George Will advocates a massive increase in the number of police and a shift toward "community-based policing." Meanwhile, the NRA and many conservative leaders call for laws that would require violent criminals serve at least 85 percent of their sentences and would place repeat offenders permanently behind bars.
Our society suffers greatly from the beliefs that only official action is legitimate and that the state is the source of our earthly salvation. Both liberal and conservative prescriptions for violent crime suffer from the "not in my job description" school of thought regarding the responsibilities of the law-abiding citizen, and from an overestimation of the ability of the state to provide society's moral moorings. As long as law-abiding citizens assume no personal responsibility for combatting crime, liberal and conservative programs will fail to contain it.
Judging by the numerous articles about concealed-carry in gun magazines, the growing number of products advertised for such purpose, and the increase in the number of concealed-carry applications in states with mandatory-issuance laws, more and more people, including growing numbers of women, are carrying firearms for self-defense. Since there are still many states in which the issuance of permits is discretionary and in which law enforcement officials routinely deny applications, many people have been put to the hard choice between protecting their lives or respecting the law. Some of these people have learned the hard way, by being the victim of a crime, or by seeing a friend or loved one raped, robbed, or murdered, that violent crime can happen to anyone, anywhere at anytime, and that crime is not about sex or property but life, liberty, and dignity.
The laws proscribing concealed-carry of firearms by honest, law-abiding citizens breed nothing but disrespect for the law. As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people. A federal law along the lines of the Florida statute -- overriding all contradictory state and local laws and acknowledging that the carrying of firearms by law-abiding citizens is a privilege and immunity of citizenship -- is needed to correct the outrageous conduct of state and local officials operating under discretionary licensing systems.
What we certainly do not need is more gun control. Those who call for the repeal of the Second Amendment so that we can really begin controlling firearms betray a serious misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, such that its repeal would legitimately confer upon government the powers otherwise proscribed. The Bill of Rights is the list of the fundamental, inalienable rights, endowed in man by his Creator, that define what it means to be a free and independent people, the rights which must exist to ensure that government governs only with the consent of the people.
At one time this was even understood by the Supreme Court. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the first case in which the Court had an opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment, it stated that the right confirmed by the Second Amendment "is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." The repeal of the Second Amendment would no more render the outlawing of firearms legitimate than the repeal of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment would authorize the government to imprison and kill people at will. A government that abrogates any of the Bill of Rights, with or without majoritarian approval, forever acts illegitimately, becomes tyrannical, and loses the moral right to govern.
This is the uncompromising understanding reflected in the warning that America's gun owners will not go gently into that good, utopian night: "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands." While liberals take this statement as evidence of the retrograde, violent nature of gun owners, we gun owners hope that liberals hold equally strong sentiments about their printing presses, word processors, and television cameras. The republic depends upon fervent devotion to all our fundamental rights.
................................................................ the end
Ok why do you think some one who is a mugger or the like even deserves to be in society... all they do is make life harder on us.
1) Martinus' question was generally about non-lethal weapons, without specifically mentioning a taser - you generally rejected the very idea of a non-lethal alternative.
2) Is a gun a 100% guarantee that you will kill the opponent or at least render him completely helpless?If there were (there isnt) a non-lethal firearm alternative that worked as well and as reliably my question would be..... why arent the police being forced to use it in place of their firearms?
Why do people say that only the police should have guns? If there are viable alternatives or no guns allowed at all, why should the police be permitted to use lethal force? What about retired or off duty officers? This is kind of a peeve of mine. Police officers are not in a different caste of citizenry set above us peasants- or at least they shouldnt be.
Edit: Good article, btw. Not sure what he meant by the population thing for Pennsylvania though- my permit allows me to carry pretty much anywhere in PA, including Philadelphia. The only restriction Im aware of is that to open carry in Philly you still need a concealed weapons permit. Whereas, theoretically, you don't need one to open carry anywhere else in PA.
PanzerJaeger
07-06-2005, 15:13
If guns are a hobby do you really need assault rifles? I would say no, assault rifles are designed for the military for use in war situations, you don't need automatic firing or weapons designed to be used in confined spaces or night firing capabilities to go target shooting.
Again with the need argument. I dont need my books or my computer, does that mean I shouldnt have them?
Im a law abiding citizen without a criminal record, why shouldnt I get to enjoy shooting an assault rifle if I want to? You might not find it fun, but I do.
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 15:17
Also the police are NOT good shots in general they usualy shoot at qualifying and that is it. The owner of my local range showed me a target our swat shot at.... i have seen 12 year olds shoot better then those guys they were shooting at a human shaped starget AND HAD BULLETS EVERY WHERE no grouping.
When you shoot you try and keep all your bullets as close as possible on the target (these are called groups) they were every where and some of them missed the target completly. (and some of this was with carbines not all hand gun)
I would rather have a bunch of civilains who pratice regularly come to my rescue then some one who is not that good of a shot.
PanzerJaeger
07-06-2005, 15:19
When you think about it, the only reason for an assault weapon (other than fun, which they certainly are) is to miss a lot and be able to keep shooting. Fast.
My argument is that they are fun! Law abiding citizens should be trusted enough by the government to allow us to have fun with them. I dont even care about automatic(that can get expensive ~;) ). I really wasnt all that concerned with the Clinton gun laws except for the fact as I saw them as one more step towards the full ban.
Ser Clegane
07-06-2005, 15:22
If there were (there isnt) a non-lethal firearm alternative that worked as well and as reliably my question would be..... why arent the police being forced to use it in place of their firearms?
Why do people say that only the police should have guns? If there are viable alternatives or no guns allowed at all, why should the police be permitted to use lethal force? What about retired or off duty officers? This is kind of a peeve of mine. Police officers are not in a different caste of citizenry set above us peasants- or at least they shouldnt be
And there I would completely agree with you - if there was a reliable (!) non-lethal alternative, it should be the primary equipment for the police (and of course I have our police in mind as well - not just the US police).
@ceasar010:
For such long articles it might be a good idea to provide a link, instead of posting the article in its entirety. :book:
PanzerJaeger
07-06-2005, 15:23
Anyone, not including law enforcement or armed forced, with an assult weapon in a modern society is most probably a freak. Sooner or later the person in question will use the assult weapon in a crime. Therefore there should be no assult weapons allowed.
Ridiculous.
Can you give any numbers as to how many law abiding citizens who owned assault weapons suddenly went crazy and used the weapons in a crime? I would bet there are very few cases.
The fact is that most people who use guns in a crime have those guns illegally anyway. We should focus on enforcing laws already on the books instead of punishing citizens who enjoy gun ownership responsibly.
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 15:32
Ridiculous.
Can you give any numbers as to how many law abiding citizens who owned assault weapons suddenly went crazy and used the weapons in a crime? I would bet there are very few cases.
The fact is that most people who use guns in a crime have those guns illegally anyway. We should focus on enforcing laws already on the books instead of punishing citizens who enjoy gun ownership responsibly.
This is the kind of junk they use they are cheap don't fit the hand well and are NOT accurate. they have confiscated over one hundred of these from "gangstas" in New York City.
http://www.mkssupply.com/
These are what anti gun people refer to as a "saturday night special"
Should they ban them NO not all good people have the money for a glock or sig they need guns too.
\
note you can get high points in gun shops even cheaper then that website. they are less then 100 in gunshops
Taffy_is_a_Taff
07-06-2005, 15:42
indeed, Saturday night specials are so popular with street criminals that my girlfriend's grandfather jokes that they should be handed out so that scum can shoot each other more readily (as drug deals go wrong, gang stuff etc.).
He never said the same thing about "assault weapons" though.
The_Doctor
07-06-2005, 16:00
I must point out that in the UK you can go to shooting clubs and shoot stuff (targets, clay pigoens etc).
Also I think farmers are allowed shotguns.
Also a guy two houses away from my house killed himself with a gun. They collected I think.
gang bangers
~:eek: Do you have any idea what that means in Britain. I think the mods should edit that out.
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 16:03
That is what many people call gangsters in the US... I get how that could sound i will change it to gangsters
Ser Clegane
07-06-2005, 16:03
I the mods should edit that out.
Well ... it's not exactly an insult or swearword, or is it?
Of course I wonder what these guys would need assault weapons for ~:confused: (or perhaps I'd rather not know :shifty: )
Ja'chyra
07-06-2005, 16:07
I must point out that in the UK you can go to shooting clubs and shoot stuff (targets, clay pigoens etc).
Also I think farmers are allowed shotguns.
Also a guy two houses away from my house killed himself with a gun. They collected I think.
.
Yep, you can own guns and keep them in your own house but you must have a secure container that is bolted to the wall to keep them in, I believe the police check this before you get your licence.
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 16:09
the average "gangsta" does not have a ar15 ak47 or mini14 tucked in his pants for 2 reasons.
one is that it would not be concealed
the other is they cant afford them when they buy rifles it is usually a cheap 22 long rilfe.
So what is the point of this ban?? To disarm criminals... or the masses so they can do a socialist take over.... and turn us into the UK :help:
The_Doctor
07-06-2005, 16:16
Well ... it's not exactly an insult or swearword, or is it?
It could be interpreted the wrong way.
So what is the point of this ban?? To disarm criminals... or the masses so they can do a socialist take over.... and turn us into the UK
What is wrong with the UK?
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 16:27
They are banning every thing first most of the guns now some kitchen knives and in some places you cant wear hooded sweat shirts..... what next declaw the children finger nails are dangerous you know :dizzy2:
They also have to register hunting knives now ( basically any knife like this)
http://cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/links/link.jhtml?id=0013048513568a&type=product&cmCat=search&returnString=No=20&hasJS=true&Nty=1&Go.y=0&Ntx=matchall&Go.x=0&Ntt=knife&N=4887&QueryText=knife&noImage=0&_D%3AhasJS=+&_DARGS=%2Fcabelas%2Fen%2Fcommon%2Fsearch%2Fsearch-box.jhtml.22&Ntk=Products&returnPage=search-results1.jhtml
or this
http://cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/links/link.jhtml?id=0033963516984a&type=product&cmCat=search&returnString=No=20&hasJS=true&Nty=1&Go.y=0&Ntx=matchall&Go.x=0&Ntt=knife&N=4887&QueryText=knife&noImage=0&_D%3AhasJS=+&_DARGS=%2Fcabelas%2Fen%2Fcommon%2Fsearch%2Fsearch-box.jhtml.22&Ntk=Products&returnPage=search-results1.jhtml
heck you cant even carry a knife there :help:... or pepper spray
Ja'chyra
07-06-2005, 16:30
Again with the need argument. I dont need my books or my computer, does that mean I shouldnt have them?
Im a law abiding citizen without a criminal record, why shouldnt I get to enjoy shooting an assault rifle if I want to? You might not find it fun, but I do.
You can make as many of these comments as you like but until you compare assault rifles with similar equipment then it doesn't mean much.
Anyone, not including law enforcement or armed forced, with an assult weapon in a modern society is most probably a freak. Sooner or later the person in question will use the assult weapon in a crime. Therefore there should be no assult weapons allowed.
Not only is this not true, its insulting. I'm not sure what you mean by 'freak', but many people who own 'assault weapons' (as defined in the bill) are quite normal, responsible people. This group includes me, so your over-generalization is personally offensive.
Stats show that most gun owners never use their assault weapon (again, as defined in the bill) in a crime. Your asertion is faulty.
Broad-brushed rhetoric such as this serves no purpose other than to vilify and polarize.
ichi :bow:
Ja'chyra
07-06-2005, 16:35
They are banning every thing first most of the guns now some kitchen knives and in some places you cant wear hooded sweat shirts..... what next declaw the children finger nails are dangerous you know :dizzy2:
They also have to register hunting knives now ( basically any knife like this)
http://cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/links/link.jhtml?id=0013048513568a&type=product&cmCat=search&returnString=No=20&hasJS=true&Nty=1&Go.y=0&Ntx=matchall&Go.x=0&Ntt=knife&N=4887&QueryText=knife&noImage=0&_D%3AhasJS=+&_DARGS=%2Fcabelas%2Fen%2Fcommon%2Fsearch%2Fsearch-box.jhtml.22&Ntk=Products&returnPage=search-results1.jhtml
or this
http://cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/links/link.jhtml?id=0033963516984a&type=product&cmCat=search&returnString=No=20&hasJS=true&Nty=1&Go.y=0&Ntx=matchall&Go.x=0&Ntt=knife&N=4887&QueryText=knife&noImage=0&_D%3AhasJS=+&_DARGS=%2Fcabelas%2Fen%2Fcommon%2Fsearch%2Fsearch-box.jhtml.22&Ntk=Products&returnPage=search-results1.jhtml
heck you cant even carry a knife there :help:... or pepper spray
First of all we're not banning kitchen knives, that was stated by doctors in emergency wards not politicians.
You have to register hunting knives, that's a new one on me but you might be right, I don't know.
You can't wear hooded tops, this one is true but only in one shopping centre in one city that I know of.
Lastly, you can carry a knife just nothing with blade over 3 inches long, also flick, butterfly knives are banned I think, but let's face it they are designed to stab people not hunting, fishing or working.
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 16:37
wait a sec i will find the huntiong knife link
The_Doctor
07-06-2005, 16:38
kitchen knives
I believe it is only the ones with a point, which cooks have said are not needed.
QUOTE]in some places you cant wear hooded sweat shirts[/QUOTE]
It is so people cannot hide their face from a CCTV camera.
They also have to register hunting knives now
So. Why would you need a hunting knife?
heck you cant even carry a knife there
Again, what normal non-paranoid person would need a knife?
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 16:44
got it http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=713332005
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 16:46
well you need a hunting knife to hunt ~D i do go hunting regularly nothing beats pheasent and stuffing ~D Gonna try and get me a wild boar this year.
Its better to have something and not need it then to need it and not have it....that is why you should carry a knife in places where it is legal.
its not paranoind its being prepared
The_Doctor
07-06-2005, 16:57
Its better to have something and not need it then to need it and not have it....that is why you should carry a knife in places where it is legal.
That would be one hell of list.
umm:
Gun
Anti-tank rocket
knife
sun glasses
hat
wooly hat (if it gets cold)
bicorn hat (if I travel though time)
oxygen tank (if there is a flash flood)
space suit (if the atmosphere disappears)
umbrella
spear
axe
spider
snake
morse code book
fire
water
Laridus Konivaich
07-06-2005, 17:00
Again, what normal non-paranoid person would need a knife?What normal, non-paranoid person would need to ban everyone else from having guns or knives?
That would be one hell of list.
umm:
Gun
Anti-tank rocket
knife
sun glasses
hat
wooly hat (if it gets cold)
bicorn hat (if I travel though time)
oxygen tank (if there is a flash flood)
space suit (if the atmosphere disappears)
umbrella
spear
axe
spider
snake
morse code book
fire
waterYou forgot 'condom' and 'pepper spray'... ~;)
The_Doctor
07-06-2005, 17:20
What normal, non-paranoid person would need to ban everyone else from having guns or knives?
Doctors. Think of all the accidents people have had with guns and knivesm plus all the crimes. These are the people who ahve to clean up the mess.
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 17:21
First the knife is not always for self defense you may need to cut a rope or pry somthing open that is what the knife is mainly for it is a utility knife. I dont mean to carry somthing like this every day http://cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/links/link.jhtml;jsessionid=M0WRO124YW22HTQSNOLSCOWOCJVYQIWE?id=0006443610045a&type=product&cmCat=searchFeat&returnString=No=20&hasJS=true&Nty=1&Go.y=0&Ntx=matchall&Go.x=0&Ntt=knife&N=4887&QueryText=knife&noImage=0&_D%3AhasJS=+&_DARGS=%2Fcabelas%2Fen%2Fcommon%2Fsearch%2Fsearch-box.jhtml.22&Ntk=Products&returnPage=search-results1.jhtml&_requestid=8917
when i say carry a knife I mean one that folds and you can open with one hand.
My knife has a bunch of features all on different blades
knife blade
saw
digital thermometer farenheit and celsius(this is on the handel)
compass this is on pouch that goes on your belt to put it in
bottle opener
pliars/wire cutters
siscors
file
It is a very good work knife.
any what back on topic guns.
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 17:22
Another thing why take our guns for somthing SOME ONE ELSE did.
The_Doctor
07-06-2005, 17:30
My knife has a bunch of features all on different blades
knife blade
saw
digital thermometer farenheit and celsius(this is on the handel)
compass this is on pouch that goes on your belt to put it in
bottle opener
pliars/wire cutters
siscors
file
It is a very good work knife.
That is quite a handy knife. I have nothing against people carring those.
I have something like that. A barlow b182v Superpilers. It has:
Needle nose pilers
wire cutter
mini saw and ruler
small screwdriver
phillips screwdriver
can opener
large flat head screwdriver and bottle opener
meduim flat head screwdriver
small knife
large knife
It also says "Union Texas Petroleum" on it. My unlce used to work for them. I don't take it outside.
The_Doctor
07-06-2005, 17:32
Another thing why take our guns for somthing SOME ONE ELSE did.
Somebody else might do something.
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 17:40
Cool pliars.\
I think we should arm all the school staff too (and train them of course)... columbine would have not been near as bad if the teachers would have killed them right when they started.
If every one walking down the street has a gun and you are a mugger will you still try and mug knowing you will probably be gunned down imediatley.
And no bullets will not go through. there is make frangible hollow point ammo that is what most people carry for defense. some of it can make a 4 inch wide whole and wont go through if you buy the right brands.
It cost over 20 dollars for 8 of them. ~:eek:
The_Doctor
07-06-2005, 17:53
I think we should arm all the school staff too (and train them of course)...
I agree. In my high school we had the police coming around every week. One time someone in my class tried to kill someone else with some string.
Actually we did have armed police in the school once, when Cherrie Blair came to try to make more people vote, which is odd because most of the people in the school where too young to vote.
In another school someone brought an air rifle in and started shooting people. That is in the bad part of Merseyside.
If every one walking down the street has a gun and you are a mugger will you still try and mug knowing you will probably be gunned down imediatley.
That would be a pretty stupid mugger.
And no bullets will not go through.
I thought most bullets fragmented inside the body.
Goofball
07-06-2005, 18:05
I think we should arm all the school staff too (and train them of course)... columbine would have not been near as bad if the teachers would have killed them right when they started.
Yes, because while teachers' main function is to educate our children, their secondary function is to discipline them, and nothing says "Time out!" like a double-tap to the back of the head...
I think I have just stepped either into the Twilight Zone or am on Candid Camera. Come on, show yourselves! Where are you hiding with those cameras recording the absolutely astounded look on my face?
You seriously propose that we should arm all of our teachers? Are you out of your mind? Maybe you should ask some teachers what they think about this. I'm betting the majority of them would find the idea repugnant.
So what do you propose? M-16's for their main weapons, Glocks for sidearms and snub 38's in ankle-holsters for back-up pieces (all with full combat loads, of course)?
I am extremely frightened that anybody would consider arming teachers to be a rational proposal.
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 18:44
ohhhh i see goof ball you just want a bunch of kids to die instead. Have you read any of this thread especially the "nation of cowards" article.
m16 use the 223 round most of it is in fmj and will go through walls so no. what they should do is have these guns they are 9mm and use the same magazine.
http://www.cx4storm.com/index.aspx?m=53&did=85
http://www.berettausa.com/product/product_pistols_main.htm
And they should be loaded with ammo that wont go through a wall. Those 2 killers would not have gotten far at columbine if the teachers were armed.
Oh wait a minute I am sure the phycos will follow a no fire arms allowed sign.
It really is a good plan goof it worked for Israel why not the US
Yes, because while teachers' main function is to educate our children, their secondary function is to discipline them, and nothing says "Time out!" like a double-tap to the back of the head...
I think I have just stepped either into the Twilight Zone or am on Candid Camera. Come on, show yourselves! Where are you hiding with those cameras recording the absolutely astounded look on my face?
You seriously propose that we should arm all of our teachers? Are you out of your mind? Maybe you should ask some teachers what they think about this. I'm betting the majority of them would find the idea repugnant.
So what do you propose? M-16's for their main weapons, Glocks for sidearms and snub 38's in ankle-holsters for back-up pieces (all with full combat loads, of course)?
I am extremely frightened that anybody would consider arming teachers to be a rational proposal.
And I am even more scared of it. Teachers should not be armed, when that happens that truely says something about our society. It will be time for me to head to the hills with my hunting rifles and act like the crazy militants in Montana and Idaho.
Now why I am very pro-firearms because of the value its use as a tool for farmers and ranchers in protecting their livestock, and for its value as a tool for hunters to control the wildlife from over-habitation of the land. It serves no purpose to arm teachers other then to give into the culture of fear that is the subscribition of the likes of Michael Moore and others.
If you own a weapon because of fear - you have absolutely no business owning that weapon. Firearms are tools for a spefic purpose - its a right proscribed in the United States Constitution for numerous reasons - but not for arming teachers in the classroom.
And I was going to ignore most of this discussion because it covers old ground in the .org, but I found myself flappergasted (SP) by such a thought, and in complete agreement with Goofball (which is not the normal course of events) but this concept is not one we want in the United States.
ohhhh i see goof ball you just want a bunch of kids to die instead. Have you read any of this thread especially the "nation of cowards" article.
m16 use the 223 round most of it is in fmj and will go through walls so no. what they shoud do is have these guns they are 9mm and use the same magazine.
http://www.cx4storm.com/index.aspx?m=53&did=85
http://www.berettausa.com/product/product_pistols_main.htm
And they should be loaded with ammo that wont go through a wall. Those 2 killers would not have gotten far at columbine if the teachers were armed.
A 9MM bullet that is strong enough to pass through the human body will penerate the thin walls of most classrooms.
A handgun or rifle has absolutely no business in the classroom. Such statements are exactly what the likes of Michael Moore are looking for to show how extreme the pro-gun lobby and crowd have gotten.
Weapons are tools - monitoring by parents and active responsiblity in the their children's lives would of prevented most if not all of the school shootings.
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 18:59
I am not talking about using wolf and other full metal jacket brands.
My local range did a test with certain ammo
they lined up 9 milk jugs full of water
And used that hornady frangible/hollow point ammo it hit the first jug blew most of the front end off then just made a small whole in 3 more. Now the owner said that is the equivalent of 6 inches of human flesh now that would not go through some one and if it did it would lose most of its power cause it is all inserted on the front.
So no it would not go through.
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 19:02
Ok then forget the carbine that might scare the kids. But the teachers should still have some means of defense for themselves and the students.
Locking the door and hiding in the corner is not very useful ~:confused:
I am not talking about using wolf and other full metal jacket brands.
My local range did a test with certain ammo
they lined up 9 milk jugs full of water
And used that hornady frangible/hollow point ammo it hit the first jug blew most of the front end off then just made a small whole in 3 more. Now the owner said that is the equivalent of 6 inches of human flesh now that would not go through some one and if it did it would lose most of its power cause it is all inserted on the front.
So no it would not go through.
Ah a test by an impartial owner of weapons. Care to guess how thin most drywall is in classrooms? A test into water filled milk jugs is not a test in a classroom full of innocent students - nor is it a test into the walls that seperate classrooms. A peneration of 6 inches into the body of a human being equates to how much of a 3/4 inch dry wall? And if the teacher is armed and fires into the gun-toting youngster - and only hits the fleshy part of the arm - how many innocent students does the teacher get to hit in their attempt to shoot the suspect?
Care to guess how accurate most people are at firing a weapon when under stress? So in order to protect the rest of the students from the would be mass murders of the world - lets arm the teachers - put the weapon in the classroom, and allow a shot-out to happen in school.
Yep about to change my pro-gun stance to lets get rid of them all with such logic as you are subscribing to here. Teachers have absolutely no need to arm themselves in the classroom. That speaks to something about our society which does not need to exist and is a false one at this time.
Locking the door and hiding in the corner is not very useful ~:confused:
Responsible parenting will be very useful.
Security guards and metal screening at the doors could be useful.
Community awareness about people's behavior would be very useful.
Teachers talking to their students to get a feel about how they are doing would be useful.
Parents monitoring their children's activities is very useful.
Arming teachers in the classroom - is not useful and would resort in even more stupidity happening in the schoolyard.
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 19:17
Edit red leg answered the question with the post above this
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 19:24
Good parenting isn't as common as it once was
They usually suicide after the shooting any way they will shoot the guards and stroll on in.
You're 3rd one will get a bunch of morons yelling they have a right to privacy.
kids can cover things up pretty well by pretending everything is fine
Parents can't be every where.
The_Doctor
07-06-2005, 19:25
Arming teachers is a bit much.
Cameras (maybe with machine guns attached to them) and police (or police robots with machine guns attached to them) would be better. Then people would fear me (we are assuming that I rule the country). HAHAHAHAHAHA.
On a more serious note. What if teachers where armed with non-lethal weapons?
Ok red leg i will hear you out you what do you suggest for the teachers to do if there is a school shooting it seems there are a lot of copy cats sense columbine.
Prevent from happening in the first place. Most of these events had warning signs that should of been noticed by the parents and the teachers. Train teachers to instead of just teaching from a textbook - to teach the students and look for the signs of an extremely troubled youth.
From this website -
But the massacre at Columbine, perpetrated by boys from an affluent community, defied explanation in terms of these established risk factors, many of which were absent from the profile of the Columbine shooters. Instead, school-related factors appeared more salient. The school shooters were social outcasts who had experienced bullying and other forms of cruel treatment from classmates. Ultimately, it was the school that bore the brunt of their rage. After Columbine, the National Threat Assessment Center, run by the secret service, discovered that in more than two-thirds of 37 recent school shootings, the attackers felt "persecuted, bullied, threatened, attacked or injured" (Labi, 2001, p. 46).
Researchers began to focus on school connectedness (also called school bonding) as an important variable in reducing risk for violent behavior. Definitions of the variable usually emphasize students' experience of caring at school and a sense of closeness to school personnel and environment (Resnick et al., 1997). Attitude toward school was an important aspect of recent focus-group discussions conducted by Erwin about the social situations and problems young people face. The sample included youth in treatment for behavioral problems as well as youth who were not. Notes Erwin (2002), "The institution of school was a symbol with many meanings, but the basic attitude of liking or not liking it was the pivotal factor. . . . There was a high degree of emotion present when discussing negative experiences, including sadness, anger, and anxiety" (pp. 29-30).
http://www.apria.com/resources/1,2725,494-271937-2,00.html
If one searches hard enough one can find the FBI report that reports all the warning signs that the investigators found that were presented to the teachers and the parents prior to the event.
one armed police man isn't enough at red lake that is the guy the kid went after first.
Never said it was - school is suppose to be about education - not fear.
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 19:32
tasers could work if you get good ones.
And the prices have sure gone down last time i checked they were more expensive.
They got laser sites too that means less money on training.
http://www.impactguns.com/store/taser.html#4134
Good parenting isn't as common as it once was
How true - but it does solve some of the issues.
They usually suicide after the shooting any way they will shoot the guards and stroll on in.
And you don't think that will happen to teachers if they are armed. Its could be a matter of just having two guards. Who knows.
You're 3rd one will get a bunch of morons yelling they have a right to privacy.
Awareness and monitoring by teachers is not a violation of privacy - so the morons would loose.
kids can cover things up pretty well by pretending everything is fine
That is why the training in what to look for is important.
Parents can't be every where.
They don't have to be. Its about just being involved in the child's life.
The_Doctor
07-06-2005, 19:35
tasers could work if you get good ones.
Does this mean we agree?
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 19:35
Alright red leg i get it gun toatin' teachers would scare the students in general probably. then once you get to the high school level start getting more anti gun kids and etc.
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 19:36
yes it means we agree ~:eek: normal guns would scare the kids and they wouldnt focus on their work.
Goofball
07-06-2005, 20:42
ohhhh i see goof ball you just want a bunch of kids to die instead.
Yep, that's what I want. Being the father of a nineteen month-old myself, nothing makes me happier than when kids die.
~:rolleyes:
This statement of yours has been typical of the arguments you have been making in this thread: directionless and swinging dangerously from side to side, like a badly hitched trailer careening down a hill behind an out of control pickup truck that's in such bad repair it should be up on blocks in a front yard.
Have you read any of this thread especially the "nation of cowards" article.
Have you ever read anything other than Soldier of Fortune Magazine and NRA promotional material?
m16 use the 223 round most of it is in fmj and will go through walls so no. what they should do is have these guns they are 9mm and use the same magazine.
Believe me, young man, I know far more about the NATO .556 round and what it does than you do. But I'm not going to get into an argument about that with you because it is tangential to my point: no guns of any kind belong in the classroom.
I personally believe all your bluster and bull**** in this thread about the many virtues of guns and how cool they are are just common symptoms that are found in many young boys who want to inflate their own sense of personal power and toughness.
But you'll probably get over it someday.
Or not.
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 21:07
Just about any ANY 223 (thats what we call it in the US) will go through dry wall see this site about what certain ammo can do
http://theboxotruth.com/
its a pretty interesting site
(no i dont brag about guns i usually dont like to tell people i have them because i am afraid they will tell poeple and eventually my house will be broken into and then all of them stolen and used in a crime ~:eek: )
And yes saying you want children to die was out of line i apoligize. :embarassed:
I certainly don't agree that teachers should be forced to train with and carry firearms- dont agree with that at all.
If a teacher doesn't want a gun, or worse, is scared of it they will be careless with them and not keep them safe and under their control. However, I DO think that teachers and especially school administrators should have the option or being armed. For that matter, anyone who can pass the criminal records anal exam required to attain a concealed weapons permit should be able to carry pretty much anywhere- schools included.
Redleg, your horror at the thought of responsible, safety concious individuals carrying a concealed weapon to defend themselves and others is disappointing. Guns in schools is not so foreign a concept... not too long ago students would bring their rifles with them to school and have target shooting competitions on school grounds. I've been to a school that has an indoor shooting range (now a storage room) in its basement. The idea that guns somehow manifest an evil consciousness when they enter a school or that responsible, law abiding suddenly lose all self-control just because they have a gun is not only silly, but its factually false.
I certainly don't agree that teachers should be forced to train with and carry firearms- dont agree with that at all.
You should of just stuck to this point - because that was what I was addressing.
If a teacher doesn't want a gun, or worse, is scared of it they will be careless with them and not keep them safe and under their control. However, I DO think that teachers and especially school administrators should have the option or being armed. For that matter, anyone who can pass the criminal records anal exam required to attain a concealed weapons permit should be able to carry pretty much anywhere- schools included.
Schools are not the place for firearms - even concealed weapons carried by licensed individuals. When individuals feel the need to carry a weapon for protection - then the basis of our society has given into the "society of fear" concept as viewed by the likes of Michael Moore and others.
Redleg, your horror at the thought of responsible, safety concious individuals carrying a concealed weapon to defend themselves and others is disappointing.
Carry it in the open and I will respect your right to have a weapon. Concealed permits is not a guarntee in the Consitution. Nor should it be allowed, except in special circumstances as determined by the state. If you feel you need a concealed weapon to defend yourself - well then again you are falling into the trap of the society of fear concept.
Carry the weapon on your hip or in a shoulder harness in plain view, I have absolutely no respect for anyone that thinks a concealed permit is something they have to have to defend themselves.
Guns in schools is not so foreign a concept... not too long ago students would bring their rifles with them to school and have target shooting competitions on school grounds. I've been to a school that has an indoor shooting range (now a storage room) in its basement.
A different concept then having teachers arm themselves for protection. I to used to carry a shotgun to school during hunting season - it was locked in the trunk for use before and after school, same thing with the hunting rifle. Again a different concept then allowing teachers to harm themselves.
An apples to oranges attempt in the arguement?
The idea that guns somehow manifest an evil consciousness when they enter a school or that responsible, law abiding suddenly lose all self-control just because they have a gun is not only silly, but its factually false.
Never stated that - nor did I imply that at all. Tell me what purpose it serves to allow teachers to carry concealed weapons into the classroom?
Your mixing your apples and oranges in the arguement. Stick to point - not the talking points of the pro-gun lobby.
BTW if you can not tell I am against concealed weapons completely. Its not a right in the constitution. The constitution grants us the right to keep and bear arms - not to conceal them.
scooter_the_shooter
07-06-2005, 23:32
Well if you carry openly that screams "shoot that guy in the back first" ~:confused:
Carry it in the open and I will respect your right to have a weapon. Concealed permits is not a guarntee in the Consitution. Nor should it be allowed, except in special circumstances as determined by the state. If you feel you need a concealed weapon to defend yourself - well then again you are falling into the trap of the society of fear concept.
Carry the weapon on your hip or in a shoulder harness in plain view, I have absolutely no respect for anyone that thinks a concealed permit is something they have to have to defend themselves.
Open carry is great- and I'd like to see more of it. However, there are plenty of reasons not to do so. First and most obvious, try going to your local grocery store wearing casual clothes with a gun strapped to you- wait and see how long it takes for someone to panic and call the police saying "There's a man with a gun stalking the grocery store!". You get arrested, frisked, maybe charged with disturbing the peace (typical tactic when they got nothing else on you) and then released because you weren't breaking any laws. Maybe you'd like to go through that on a regular basis- but I wouldnt. In places where it isnt common, open carry scares people.
Second, when you open carry you forfiet the element of surprise... i suppose the tradeoff is the deterent effect of it, but you're telling would be assailants that you have a gun and where you keep it on your person. Again, if more people open carried I wouldnt see this as much as a problem- but since they don't, it is one.
Lastly, I'd say its debatable whether or not concealed carry is constitutionally protected or not- but it's irrelevant right now. In 36+ states, the democratically elected legislatures have passed concealed carry permit laws and it IS legal. Allow me to quote John Stossel.
The government wants to say things like the Brady Gun Control Law are making a difference, but they aren't. Some maximum security felons I spoke to in New Jersey scoffed at measures like the Brady law. They said they'll have no trouble getting guns if they want them.
A Justice Department study confirmed what the prisoners said. But get this: the felons say that the thing they fear the most is not the police, not time in prison, but, you, another American who might be armed.
It's a reason many states are passing gun un-control. They're allowing citizens to carry guns with them; it's called concealed carry or right to carry. Some women say they're comforted by these laws.
Many people are horrified at the idea of concealed carry laws, and predict mayhem if all states adopt these laws.
But surprise, 36 states already have concealed carry laws, and not one reported an upsurge in gun crime.
BTW if you can not tell I am against concealed weapons completely.I'm glad that there are enough people can see through the hype to keep it legal most everywhere in the US. For my part,I won't live in a state that doesn't allow for concealed carry. Personally, Im intrigued by how the issue is handled in Vermont- if you can own a gun you can carry it... no permits or other nonsense.
Open carry is great- and I'd like to see more of it. However, there are plenty of reasons not to do so. First and most obvious, try going to your local grocery store wearing casual clothes with a gun strapped to you- wait and see how long it takes for someone to panic and call the police saying "There's a man with a gun stalking the grocery store!". You get arrested, frisked, maybe charged with disturbing the peace (typical tactic when they got nothing else on you) and then released because you weren't breaking any laws. Maybe you'd like to go through that on a regular basis- but I wouldnt. In places where it isnt common, open carry scares people.
Responsible use of the weapon - its not a toy, and if your carrying a weapon into a store the owner of such establishment as a right to know that you have brought a firearm into his establishment. Your trading his right to know what is going on in his establishment for your rights.
Second, when you open carry you forfiet the element of surprise... i suppose the tradeoff is the deterent effect of it, but you're telling would be assailants that you have a gun and where you keep it on your person. Again, if more people open carried I wouldnt see this as much as a problem- but since they don't, it is one.
My arguement has always been about weapon is - if you want the right to bear arms - then do so openly. The constitution does not protect your priveledge to carry a concealed weapon - it grants you the right to keep and bear arms.
Lastly, I'd say its debatable whether or not concealed carry is constitutionally protected or not- but it's irrelevant right now. In 36+ states, the democratically elected legislatures have passed concealed carry permit laws and it IS legal. Allow me to quote John Stossel.
Which is exactly why the founding fathers worded the constitution the way it is - so that individual states can determine what is the law for that area. That is following the legislative process. Licensing for Concealed weapons is a state granted priveledge which the state can take away - and can legislate away if they so chose.
I'm glad that there are enough people can see through the hype to keep it legal most everywhere in the US. For my part,I won't live in a state that doesn't allow for concealed carry. Personally, Im intrigued by how the issue is handled in Vermont- if you can own a gun you can carry it... no permits or other nonsense.
If you talk about rifles, shotguns, and firearms and the right to keep and bear arms of anytype then the constitution supports that right. When you talk about concealed weapons permits - your talking about individual states and their legislative process. Be careful of accusing others about hype when your demonstrating it yourself.
bmolsson
07-07-2005, 04:04
What normal, non-paranoid person would need to ban everyone else from having guns or knives?
Same reason we don't want Iran to have nukes. Sooner or later they will be used against you...... :book:
Responsible use of the weapon - its not a toy, and if your carrying a weapon into a store the owner of such establishment as a right to know that you have brought a firearm into his establishment. Your trading his right to know what is going on in his establishment for your rights. Point out to me where I said guns are toys, why did you mention that?
A store owner has a right to know what if I carry a weapon into the store? Why? It's irrelevant and has no bearing on why Im there or what bussiness Im conducting. I suppose they do have a right to know everything I have on my person, technically, since its private property but I've no right to go out of my way to inform them of everything I have on me. If they want to know for some bizarre reason they can search people as they enter or use metal detectors or whatnot. Its their 'right' to do so afterall. Of course me and many others will stay away in droves from a store with such policies. As a matter of fact, in states where 'no firearms' signs are legally binding (not mine) many stores and chains are targetted by letter campaigns and boycotts for trying to keep people from carrying- I can post some examples if you want. Point being, if they want to control what people bring into their stores, the burden is on them- not me.
My arguement has always been about weapon is - if you want the right to bear arms - then do so openly. The constitution does not protect your priveledge to carry a concealed weapon - it grants you the right to keep and bear arms.I don't know where in the Constitution it says "if you want the right to bear arms - then do so openly". Im pretty sure it just says that the right to keep and bear them shall not be infringed.
If you talk about rifles, shotguns, and firearms and the right to keep and bear arms of anytype then the constitution supports that right. When you talk about concealed weapons permits - your talking about individual states and their legislative process. Be careful of accusing others about hype when your demonstrating it yourself.What did I hype? I stated exactly what you just said- it's allowed by state law. Just because you don't like it doesnt mean its hype. I suggested you're buying into hype because you seem to somehow think that something terrible will happen if the most law abiding people among us are able to keep weapons on their person without advertising it while riding roughshod over very valid reasons to do so. What are you afraid of? What are your reasons for disallowing it other than you just dont like it?
Point out to me where I said guns are toys, why did you mention that?
Well it seems you wanted to put words in my mouth - so to speak - so I used the same arguementive style that you started.
A store owner has a right to know what if I carry a weapon into the store? Why? It's irrelevant and has no bearing on why Im there or what bussiness Im conducting. I suppose they do have a right to know everything I have on my person, technically, since its private property but I've no right to go out of my way to inform them of everything I have on me.
When you go onto private property - that individual has certain rights that take presdence (SP) over yours
If they want to know for some bizarre reason they can search people as they enter or use metal detectors or whatnot. Its their 'right' to do so afterall. Of course me and many others will stay away in droves from a store with such policies. As a matter of fact, in states where 'no firearms' signs are legally binding (not mine) many stores and chains are targetted by letter campaigns and boycotts for trying to keep people from carrying- I can post some examples if you want. Point being, if they want to control what people bring into their stores, the burden is on them- not me.
And its the right of the store owner to decide what he wants carried into his store - not your right.
I don't know where in the Constitution it says "if you want the right to bear arms - then do so openly". Im pretty sure it just says that the right to keep and bear them shall not be infringed.
The constitution clearly states you have the right to keep and bear arms. Concealed permits are a legislative act and requires a license.
What did I hype? I stated exactly what you just said- it's allowed by state law. Just because you don't like it doesnt mean its hype. I suggested you're buying into hype because you seem to somehow think that something terrible will happen if the most law abiding people among us are able to keep weapons on their person without advertising it while riding roughshod over very valid reasons to do so. What are you afraid of? What are your reasons for disallowing it other than you just dont like it?
And that is not what I stated - I said I don't beleive in concealed permits - not that law abiding individuals shouldn't have the right to arm themselves. When accusing others of hype - make sure you understand their arguement.
A concealed weapon does not offer you anymore protection from criminal behaviors then being aware of the situations around you. What am I afraid of - not much.
My non-support of concealed weapons comes from personal observation, being around weapons since before I can remember, having lived in a rural environment where everyone carries there weapons openly in their vehicles, and being in environment where a criminal has pulled a weapon on me. Guess what if a criminal intends you harm personally - you most likely will not have a chance to get your concealed weapon out, and in an environment where you might be able to use it - I doubt the average concealed gun carrying individual has the training to fire a weapon in a stressful situation. Police - who are trained in firing their weapon in stress - have enough problems as it is.
When I am in a situation I rather know who is armed and who is not. I have also worked in several convience stores while in college and was held up twice by armed robbers. If a customer in the store at the time was carrying a concealed weapon - the situation would of turned out differently. I was fixing my vehicle in the run down area and approached by a bleeding teenager being followed by the gang that initiated him, where talking allowed me to take the teenager to the hospital - where a concealed weapon might have allowed a false bravo to happen - instead of talking the gang into allowing me to take the teenager to the hospital - violence might have happened. Like I have stated - I am not afraid of much.
But I am worried about the direction a society is taking when individuals believe that teachers should be armed and carrying concealed weapons into the classroom - verus teaching childern. Which from the hype you accused me of - seems to be that you support the hype reasons for allowing teachers to carry weapons into the school.
Like I have stated in other gun threads - I support the 2nd Admendment. But don't give me the hype reasons that one must have a concealed weapon to protect oneself.
scooter_the_shooter
07-07-2005, 16:54
"My non-support of concealed weapons comes from personal observation, being around weapons since before I can remember, having lived in a rural environment where everyone carries there weapons openly in their vehicles, and being in environment where a criminal has pulled a weapon on me. Guess what if a criminal intends you harm personally - you most likely will not have a chance to get your concealed weapon out, and in an environment where you might be able to use it - I doubt the average concealed gun carrying individual has the training to fire a weapon in a stressful situation. Police - who are trained in firing their weapon in stress - have enough problems as it is."
Many local ranges have tatical training courses and after that you can go to IDPA shoots. What they will do is set up real life scenarios and you have to go through them and you have to try and hit the heart or head.
And many ccw holders go to places like this to train http://www.thunderranchinc.com/
Many local ranges have tatical training courses and after that you can go to IDPA shoots. What they will do is set up real life scenarios and you have to go through them and you have to try and hit the heart or head.
And how many concealed weapons permit holders go through this training?
How many go through this training on a regular basis to remain in condition for stressful situation involving firearms? Does the concealed weapons permit holder go through the same training regime as a Police Officer? How many Police Officers are unsuccessful in firing their weapons accurately in a stressful situation?
Care to guess where I got this little bit of information about Police Officers and how effective they are in shoot-outs. When I was training the Oklahoma National Guard - the Battalion CSM of one unit was the Chief Investigator for the Oklahoma State Police who's main job for the state was to investigate every police officer death.
Most officer deaths that he investigated showed that the officer fired and emptied his weapon without hitting the criminal, and his revolver was empty, empty shells in his pocket, and the reload cyclinder in his hand.
Sasaki Kojiro
07-07-2005, 17:17
I think the chance of the US government attempting to take away the freedoms of the people is nil. For home defense there are better investments than an assault gun. The fact that homeowners could have such guns is useful as a deterrent to criminals though.
I don't care about the ban either way.
scooter_the_shooter
07-07-2005, 17:27
Most police are NOT good shots most of them shoot at qualifying that is it. The local range owner was saying that except for a few of the older cops that come in the rest are not nearly as good as any of the regulars that come. Even the swat team in my home town are horrible.
Most police are NOT good shots most of them shoot at qualifying that is it. The local range owner was saying that except for a few of the older cops that come in the rest are not nearly as good as any of the regulars that come. Even the swat team in my home town are horrible.
Nice information - but your not answering the questions. I am a better shot then many police officers myself - however that doesn't qualify me to fire a weapon in a stressful situation.
scooter_the_shooter
07-07-2005, 17:55
I Agree with you on part of that ccw in ohio lets the instructor decide what the class has. there are some top notch classes. But I have heard of one place where if you can hit a 9 inch circle with your gun bench rested at 15 feet they will let you have your permit :help: . Not all seek further instruction and many of them have never been shooting before.
Ja'chyra
07-07-2005, 18:41
I Agree with you on part of that ccw in ohio lets the instructor decide what the class has. there are some top notch classes. But I have heard of one place where if you can hit a 9 inch circle with your gun bench rested at 15 feet they will let you have your permit :help: . Not all seek further instruction and many of them have never been shooting before.
Damn, if you cant hit a 9" circle at 150 ft you shouldn't have a gun, I would say 4 out of 5 hits on a man size target at 600 feet is reasonable, with optical sights of course ~;)
When you go onto private property - that individual has certain rights that take presdence (SP) over yours
...
And its the right of the store owner to decide what he wants carried into his store - not your right.
Where do you shop Redleg? Do they make you empty your pockets when you enter a convenience store? Sure they have a right to stop whoever they want from entering their property- but, again, when its a public place of bussiness, the burden is on the store to identify people they don't want to do bussiness with and to inform them of it. Its extremely foolish to think that banning concealed carry in a store would solve anything- people that want to conceal a weapon and use it for criminal purposes will respect no such signs or "rights" of the owners
A concealed weapon does not offer you anymore protection from criminal behaviors then being aware of the situations around you. What am I afraid of - not much. How's that? I'd rather be both aware of my situation and armed. If you think you've accidentally wondered into a dangerous situation, the first thing you should do is leave. But, if leaving is no longer safe or possible it'd sure be nice to have a firearm to defend myself with.
Guess what if a criminal intends you harm personally - you most likely will not have a chance to get your concealed weapon out, and in an environment where you might be able to use it - I doubt the average concealed gun carrying individual has the training to fire a weapon in a stressful situation. Police - who are trained in firing their weapon in stress - have enough problems as it is.What evidence do you have for that assumption? If you'd like, I can find you many instances of people using concealed weapons to successfully defend themselves- but it seems to me you've already drawn all of the conclusions yourself. If one is carrying concealed properly, it should take virtually no more time to draw than it does if carrying openly- sometimes it could even be faster. As has been said, I bet many police are wose shots than your average person who carries concealed on a regular basis.
When I am in a situation I rather know who is armed and who is not.And you honestly think that banning concealed carry permits will allow for this?
I was fixing my vehicle in the run down area and approached by a bleeding teenager being followed by the gang that initiated him, where talking allowed me to take the teenager to the hospital - where a concealed weapon might have allowed a false bravo to happen - instead of talking the gang into allowing me to take the teenager to the hospital - violence might have happened.Had you shot in that situation you could've likely been tried for it unless your life was in imminent danger. If you think that carrying a weapon gives you false bravado, then I would say you have no bussiness carrying any sort of weapon.
But I am worried about the direction a society is taking when individuals believe that teachers should be armed and carrying concealed weapons into the classroom - verus teaching childern. I too think they should be teaching children, I don't think I ever said otherwise. I also think, those that choose to do so, should be allowed to take steps to defend themselves and their students should the need arise.
Like I have stated in other gun threads - I support the 2nd Admendment. But don't give me the hype reasons that one must have a concealed weapon to protect oneself.If by "support" you mean hunters and farmers should be able to have and use guns, then its not much support at all. You still have yet to present credible reasons why people shouldnt be able to carry handguns on their person- concealed or otherwise.
The real irony here is while you advocate open carry and rail against concealed carry, according to Texas law OPEN carry of handguns is illegal- concealed is the only way of keeping a handgun on your person legally and only with a permit.
I think the chance of the US government attempting to take away the freedoms of the people is nil. For home defense there are better investments than an assault gun. The fact that homeowners could have such guns is useful as a deterrent to criminals though.
Yep, its a great deterrent. Surveys of criminals have shown that even more than the police, or prison time.. they fear armed citizens.
Where do you shop Redleg? Do they make you empty your pockets when you enter a convenience store? Sure they have a right to stop whoever they want from entering their property- but, again, when its a public place of bussiness, the burden is on the store to identify people they don't want to do bussiness with and to inform them of it. Its extremely foolish to think that banning concealed carry in a store would solve anything- people that want to conceal a weapon and use it for criminal purposes will respect no such signs or "rights" of the owners
I shop in a whole bunch of different locations - some that are not in the favorable parts of town. And I still see no reason to carry a concealed weapon. So your are advocating that your rights take overwhelming consideration over the property owners?
How's that? I'd rather be both aware of my situation and armed. If you think you've accidentally wondered into a dangerous situation, the first thing you should do is leave. But, if leaving is no longer safe or possible it'd sure be nice to have a firearm to defend myself with.
If your aware of your surroundings and what the situation is - then there is no need to go armed.
What evidence do you have for that assumption? If you'd like, I can find you many instances of people using concealed weapons to successfully defend themselves- but it seems to me you've already drawn all of the conclusions yourself. If one is carrying concealed properly, it should take virtually no more time to draw than it does if carrying openly- sometimes it could even be faster. As has been said, I bet many police are wose shots than your average person who carries concealed on a regular basis.
And I can find many instances where carrying a concealed weapon did more harm then good.
And you honestly think that banning concealed carry permits will allow for this? Had you shot in that situation you could've likely been tried for it unless your life was in imminent danger. If you think that carrying a weapon gives you false bravado, then I would say you have no bussiness carrying any sort of weapon.
Mixing the apple with the orange again - I have stated that its an individual state legislative process concerning concealed permits. That I am against concealed permits does not mean that I advocate going and ban them. Let the legislative process work, the way its intend to. And yes I see to much evidence on this board of false bravado concerning weapons from several different posters in this forum. Plus I see it out on the streets. Give me my mind to keep myself out of harm's way. Like I said I don't need a weapon to protect myself from possible harm - my mind and paying attention to my surroundings have worked for close to 40 years now.
I too think they should be teaching children, I don't think I ever said otherwise. I also think, those that choose to do so, should be allowed to take steps to defend themselves and their students should the need arise.
Not in the schools - weapons in the hands of untrained school teachers - yea right.
If by "support" you mean hunters and farmers should be able to have and use guns, then its not much support at all. You still have yet to present credible reasons why people shouldnt be able to carry handguns on their person- concealed or otherwise.
The constitution states we have the right to keep and bear arms - I support that concept. The concealed weapons permit - is a legislative process not part of that admendment. I don't need to have a credible reason in your opinion for supporting a position on what is a legislative process, because its a simple matter of principle and how one thinks about the current law. However it seems that your one main reason to have a concealed permit - is to override the private property owner's right to know what people are bringing onto his property.
Talking about credible reasons for having a concealed weapon - you have not presented anything creditable yourself.
Like I have stated don't accuse other's of hype when you yourself are guilty of the very thing.
The real irony here is while you advocate open carry and rail against concealed carry, according to Texas law OPEN carry of handguns is illegal- concealed is the only way of keeping a handgun on your person legally and only with a permit.
I don't carry a weapon - so its absolutely no Irony at all. And then you might want to check the law out a little more closely.
Unlawful Carrying Weapons (Texas Penal Code)
A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his person a handgun, illegal knife or club.
Except as provided in Subsection (c), an offense under this section is a class A misdemeanor.
An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if it occurs on any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages.
and the futher part of the penal code
Section 46.03 - Non-Applicable (Texas Penal Code)
The provisions of Section 46.02 of this code do not apply to a person;
in the actual discharge of his official duties as a member of the armed forces or national guard or a guard employed by a penal institution;
on his own premises or premises under his control unless he is an employee or agent of the owner and his primary responsibility is to act in the capacity of a private security guard to protect person or property, in which event he must comply with subdivision (5) of this section;
traveling;
engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting activity if the weapon is a type commonly used in that activity;
who holds a security officer commission issued by the Texas Board of Private Investigators and Private Security agencies, if:
he is engaged in the performance of his duties as a security officer or traveling to and from his place of assignment;
he is wearing a distinctive uniform, and
the weapon is in plain view, or
6. who is a peace officer
Care to guess how many states I have lived in? Texas isn't even where I was born. Making assumptions again - your starting to show why its always bad to assume.
Of course there are exceptions- for soldiers, police, prison guards, ect. I hope that really isnt a suprise to anyone. The fact remains that open carry of handguns in TX is illegal for the general public- you havent refuted that.
I don't carry a weapon - so its absolutely no Irony at all. And then you might want to check the law out a little more closely. I never thought you carried, but you are saying over and over that everyone should open carry if they're going to carry at all, when all the while someone could get arrested for doing so in the state where you live.
Again, I ask you to explain what awful things will happen if law abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons. And please don't refer to criminals do (they're almost never permit holders) or what you would do if you carried (you admit you dont).
Of course there are exceptions- for soldiers, police, prison guards, ect. I hope that really isnt a suprise to anyone. The fact remains that open carry of handguns in TX is illegal for the general public- you havent refuted that.
And is irrevelant to my point about concealed weapon permits. No need to refute it all all.
I never thought you carried, but you are saying over and over that everyone should open carry if they're going to carry at all, when all the while someone could get arrested for doing so in the state where you live.
Now your getting there. What reason is there to carry a sidearm in today's world. There are very few reasons for carrying a weapon on the public street. If your scared of criminals and fearful of being a victim of a crime - then you have absolutely no business carrying a weapon in the first place.
Again, I ask you to explain what awful things will happen if law abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons. And please don't refer to criminals do (they're almost never permit holders) or what you would do if you carried (you admit you dont).
Never said there was an awful thing that will happen if law abiding citizens have concealed weapons. All I stated was the the vast majority of those that carry concealed weapons are not adequately trained in the use of the weapon nor are they trained to fire a weapon in a stressful situtation.
That is the direction you wish to assume of my position on them. Just stated that I am against concealed weapon permits.
Now your getting there. What reason is there to carry a sidearm in today's world. There are very few reasons for carrying a weapon on the public street. If your scared of criminals and fearful of being a victim of a crime - then you have absolutely no business carrying a weapon in the first place.
There are plenty of reasons. Read (http://johnrlott.tripod.com/AEIarticle.html) a few here.
A few samples:
Columbia, South Carolina: As two gas station employees left work just after midnight, two men attempted to rob them, beating them about the head and neck with a shovel handle. The male employee broke away long enough to draw a handgun from his pocket and shot at his attacker, who later died.
Detroit, Michigan: A mentally disturbed man,veiled that the President was going to have him killed, and started firing at people in passing cars. A man at the scene who had a permit to carry a concealed handgun fired shots that forced the attacker to run away.
West Palm Beach, Florida: After being beaten during a robbery at his home, a home owner began carrying a handgun in his pocket. When another robber attacked him just two days later the homeowner shot and wounded his assailant.
Never said there was an awful thing that will happen if law abiding citizens have concealed weapons. All I stated was the the vast majority of those that carry concealed weapons are not adequately trained in the use of the weapon nor are they trained to fire a weapon in a stressful situtation.Do you know how many times more people police accidentally shoot and kill than concealed permit holders? The numbers of people accidentally killed by a legally held concealed weapon is almost nil, whereas police accidentally kill hundreds. Maybe you should be more concerned about police carrying handguns? If your argument amound to concealed carry being bad because permit holders could possibly do something bad, by accident while having no evidence to support that view Id say its not a very strong position.
You claim to be libertarian right? Read this (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284.html) when you get some time- maybe it can make a dent. ~;)
edit: You know, I used to hold the same view about concealed weapon permits. I bumped into a guy in college who said he had one- it was very unnerving to me to think that this nobody could be toting around a gun. Years later, after I was married, my wife began pressuring me to get a handgun for when I wasn't around (her mother had defended herself from a possible rape using one before). I thought sure, why not- I will enjoy target shooting with it at least.. So, like I always do when I'm going to spend hundreds of dollars on something, I spent some time on the net trying to make sure I got the best for my money. I invariably came across many arguments on both sides- and it opened my eyes. I now know many people who have permits and not one of them isnt a decent, level-headed guy who is easy to get along with.
BTW, I got a really great gun too- Ruger GP-100. ~D
http://ruger.com/Firearms/images/Products/53L.gif
There are plenty of reasons. Read (http://johnrlott.tripod.com/AEIarticle.html) a few here.
A few samples:
Columbia, South Carolina: As two gas station employees left work just after midnight, two men attempted to rob them, beating them about the head and neck with a shovel handle. The male employee broke away long enough to draw a handgun from his pocket and shot at his attacker, who later died.
Detroit, Michigan: A mentally disturbed man,veiled that the President was going to have him killed, and started firing at people in passing cars. A man at the scene who had a permit to carry a concealed handgun fired shots that forced the attacker to run away.
West Palm Beach, Florida: After being beaten during a robbery at his home, a home owner began carrying a handgun in his pocket. When another robber attacked him just two days later the homeowner shot and wounded his assailant.
Should I now post an article that shows the opposite side of the story on concealed weapons. Because they are out there as well.
Do you know how many times more people police accidentally shoot and kill than concealed permit holders? The numbers of people accidentally killed by a legally held concealed weapon is almost nil, whereas police accidentally kill hundreds. Maybe you should be more concerned about police carrying handguns? If your argument amound to concealed carry being bad because permit holders could possibly do something bad, by accident while having no evidence to support that view Id say its not a very strong position.
LOL - your attempting a circular arguement because I don't agree with concealed permits. The police have a job to do which they are paid for by the taxpayer to do such a job. So you want to remove all police and allow citizens to carry weapons with concealed permits? Because I can easily state that from this attempt of an arguement.
You claim to be libertarian right? Read this (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284.html) when you get some time- maybe it can make a dent. ~;)
Yep I am more of a libertarian then anything else - and because I am - doesn't mean I have to agree with everything or disagree with it either. Another attempt at straw-man arguement I see.
edit: You know, I used to hold the same view about concealed weapon permits. I bumped into a guy in college who said he had one- it was very unnerving to me to think that this nobody could be toting around a gun. Years later, after I was married, my wife began pressuring me to get a handgun for when I wasn't around (her mother had defended herself from a possible rape using one before). I thought sure, why not- I will enjoy target shooting with it at least.. So, like I always do when I'm going to spend hundreds of dollars on something, I spent some time on the net trying to make sure I got the best for my money. I invariably came across many arguments on both sides- and it opened my eyes. I now know many people who have permits and not one of them isnt a decent, level-headed guy who is easy to get along with.
And again you miss the point. You seem to be claiming that its a right - in this you are incorrect. Concealed weapons are a legislative act - not a constitutional one. If I can not disagree with the current law, and voice my opinion on that law - then why am I living in the United States?
BTW, I got a really great gun too- Ruger GP-100. ~D
http://ruger.com/Firearms/images/Products/53L.gif
I got one better then that. A fully functional '73 winchester - been in the family for generations. Plus an assortment of rifles and shotguns I leave at my father's house.
Should I now post an article that shows the opposite side of the story on concealed weapons. Because they are out there as well. First of all- you said "What reason is there to carry a sidearm in today's world." So, I gave you some very good examples of why it can be beneficial. But yeah- I'll call that... find me 3 published news stories of permit holders using their concealed weapons in the commission of a violent crime.
And again you miss the point. You seem to be claiming that its a right - in this you are incorrect. Concealed weapons are a legislative act - not a constitutional one. If I can not disagree with the current law, and voice my opinion on that law - then why am I living in the United States?I do say its a right- however, that is irrelevant to this discussion since it is also passed as law by state legislatures. You're free to disagree with a law or even a constitutional right if you want- its none of my concern. What I want to get to the root of, for the benefit of anyone else who may still be reading this, is why? You still haven't said why law abiding citizens who meet strict requirements should not be allowed to obtain government permits allowing them to legally carry concealed weapons. What harm comes from it? If your argument is that there's no need for it we can start adding alot more things to your list that we are legally allowed to do but don't need.
Don Corleone
07-07-2005, 22:25
I have my CCW permit, but I never actually carry on my person. I have it because if you ever get pulled over on your way to the gun range, and your gun isn't in plain sight (and who really drives around like that) you could be in a world of hurt if the officer doesn't care for armed citizens and decides to write you up for carrying concealed (concealed in your vehicle counts) without a permit.
I have my CCW permit, but I never actually carry on my person. I have it because if you ever get pulled over on your way to the gun range, and your gun isn't in plain sight (and who really drives around like that) you could be in a world of hurt if the officer doesn't care for armed citizens and decides to write you up for carrying concealed (concealed in your vehicle counts) without a permit.
That was basically the reason that I originally got mine. :bow:
Of course, now I probably carry a good 2/3 of the time I'm out...
scooter_the_shooter
07-07-2005, 23:13
Xihauo i know of a gun forum you might like pm me if you want to join it. (there is a political section but alot of paranoid yahoos hang out in there) the rest of it is just people talking about tatics gear fire arms etc. I wont post it here cause i dont want the anti gun people to go over there and start trouble.
First of all- you said "What reason is there to carry a sidearm in today's world." So, I gave you some very good examples of why it can be beneficial. But yeah- I'll call that... find me 3 published news stories of permit holders using their concealed weapons in the commission of a violent crime.
Again what is the reason to carry a concealed weapon. Are you living in fear of the criminal element that is out there? Are you living completely unaware of your surroundings? I don't think so - neither do I live in a fear state of what criminals might or might not do.
So you want to see stories - I guess you might want to check out the Bradley site about concealed weapons permits and thier holders.
The gun lobby claims that only law-abiding citizens get CCW permits. But an August 2000 study by the Violence Policy Center revealed that, from January 1996 through April 2000, the arrest rate for weapon-related offenses among Texas concealed handgun license holders was 66% higher than that of the general adult population of Texas. CCW license holders are committing crimes - including murder, rape, assault and burglary - but because the gun lobby makes it difficult if not impossible for the public to determine if a shooter has a CCW license in most states, the full story has not yet been told.
Now of course its a baised site. http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=ccw
just like the one where you got your stories from.
I do say its a right- however, that is irrelevant to this discussion since it is also passed as law by state legislatures. You're free to disagree with a law or even a constitutional right if you want- its none of my concern. What I want to get to the root of, for the benefit of anyone else who may still be reading this, is why? You still haven't said why law abiding citizens who meet strict requirements should not be allowed to obtain government permits allowing them to legally carry concealed weapons. What harm comes from it? If your argument is that there's no need for it we can start adding alot more things to your list that we are legally allowed to do but don't need.
The need to carry a weapon in today's society is different then it was back when the constitution was written. Now the constitution states we have a right to keep and bear arms. Which I support because its a constitutional right, and it can be shown where weapons are a functional tool of society. The concealed weapons permits are not as strict as you would like every one to believe. But that is also a different subject. You accused me of hype on the issue - but it seems again you are falling into that same trap yourself.
I don't have to provide any overwelming reason why I disagree with the concealed weapons permit - other then the fact I do not believe in the necessity for a conceal weapons permit. For every situation where you show how an individual protected himself on the city street with his concealed weapon - there is another story about how it is misused.
Do you want an overwhelming justification for my postion about Concealed Weapons permits to convince you of the error of your thinking. Frankly is not going to happen when you are claiming that its a fundmental right granted by the constitution. And can you provide an overwelming reason why conceal weapons permits should be granted?
I got one better then that. A fully functional '73 winchester - been in the family for generations.
ichi = jealous
scooter_the_shooter
07-07-2005, 23:41
the bradies are more biased then the nra and thats pretty hard to do :dizzy2:
listen to their little propaganda recording on the home page notice it never says how these killers get guns ~:confused:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/
For every situation where you show how an individual protected himself on the city street with his concealed weapon - there is another story about how it is misused. Im still waiting for even 1.
Do you want an overwhelming justification for my postion about Concealed Weapons permits to convince you of the error of your thinking. Frankly is not going to happen when you are claiming that its a fundmental right granted by the constitution. And can you provide an overwelming reason why conceal weapons permits should be granted?Any overwhelming reasons? I've said it several times- it saves lives.
Im still waiting for even 1.
And I am waiting for 1 from you also
Any overwhelming reasons? I've said it several times- it saves lives.
Same thing can be said about not having concealed weapons permit
scooter_the_shooter
07-08-2005, 01:39
Here are some statistics i found not sure if the first one is true
Medical Advice:
>>
>> Number of physicians in the US: 700,000. Accidental deaths
>> caused by physicians per year: 120,000. Accidental deaths per
>> physician.... 0.171
>> (U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services)
>>
>> Number of gun owners in the US: 80,000,000. Number of
>> accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) 1,500.
>> Accidental deaths per gun owner: 0.0000188
>>
>> Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more
>> dangerous than gun owners.
>>
>> "FACT: Not everyone has a gun, but everyone has at least
>> one doctor."
>>
>> Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban
>> doctors before this gets out of hand. As a Public Health
>> Measure, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear that
>> the shock could cause people
>> to seek medical aid.
Here is a good reason to carry read the bottom lines
http://www.amfire.com/php/container.php?content=../htm/statistics/firearmsFacts.htm
Here is why the awb is pointless
http://www.amfire.com/php/container.php?content=../htm/statistics/assaultRifles_ViolentCrime.htm
And I am waiting for 1 from you also I gave you 3 examples, you gave me 0- I know you saw them, you commented on it.
Honestly, I'm weary of debating this with you... Your opposition has shifted from 'you just dont like it', to 'they not trained well enough', to 'they're irresponsible' to claiming many of permit holders become criminals. Just say what you think- Average, law abiding common folk just can't be trusted to carry weapons on their person to defend themselves with. That's what it comes down to isnt it?
You're entitled to your opinions on gun control, as I've said. I'm just glad your thinking isnt in the majority and that our state legislatures are continuing to pass laws that empower people to defend themselves. :bow:
Productivity
07-08-2005, 03:16
>> "FACT: Not everyone has a gun, but everyone has at least
>> one doctor."
>>
>> Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban
>> doctors before this gets out of hand. As a Public Health
>> Measure, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear that
>> the shock could cause people
>> to seek medical aid.
Now factor in how many lives doctors save, versus how many lives guns save.
Its irrelevant to you because you dont enjoy it. How would you like it if someone wanted to ban whatever you like to do?
[Edited to remove personal attack; Ser Clegane]
Maybe you could send me a PM with whatever it was that was edited out of your post, Panzerjager. I'm curious about how I could possibly have prompted a personal attack. You must really care about your guns, huh...
My point, which you failed to pick up on, was that it is irrelevant that guns are a hobby for many. That's not the issue at hand. I've enjoyed time at a firing range myself. The issue is that they are used to kill peopleillegally. This discussion wouldn't be taking place if they were simply used for pasttime activities. It is the illegal use of these weapons that is of concern, it's not a conspiracy to specifically ruin someone's hobby...
Don Corleone
07-08-2005, 04:07
Now factor in how many lives doctors save, versus how many lives guns save.
Actually, that's a great point DGB. If we were allowed to in our country, we should publish some statistics on how many home invasions, rapes, robberies and muggings were stopped because the intended victim was armed. We can't, because the justice department refuses to consider that as a mitigating factor. Just listed as 'unsuccessful'. Just for the record, I don't think doctors stop many rapes or murders, but I could be wrong.
Productivity
07-08-2005, 04:38
I don't know. I do know however that it is patent nonsense to suggest that doctors should be banned because they have a higher level of accidents than guns.
I would like to have information about how many lives are saved/crimes are prevented though.
bmolsson
07-08-2005, 04:57
I never understood the point with a concealed weapon if you don't have the intention ot actually hurt somebody. Even if I am against civilians carry any weapons, I can understand a visible weapon to deter any criminal acts against the carrier, but a concealed weapon speaks intent to me.....
I talked about that a few pages ago, but I'll happily re-summarize here...
Open carry of weapons is great- and I wouldn't mind seeing it more widespread, but there are some problems with it. First off, where open carry isnt common, it scares people. People have been known to call the police when they see it, and even in places where its perfectly legal, the police have been known to arrest, harass and otherwise embarass people for doing so.
Second, it gives up the element of suprise. The upside is, hopefully a bad guy will pick another target if they see you armed- the downside, if they don't, they already know your armed and where you're carrying it so they can plan accordingly. Again, if open carry was common this might be less a problem- but its not.
I gave you 3 examples, you gave me 0- I know you saw them, you commented on it.
Ah but I work swing shift - so the amount of time to search the web to get the stories is limited - but you posted three - so here is three facts from three different sites.
In the 29 states that had lax CCW laws during 1997 and 1998, the crime rate fell 6%, from 5296.6 to 4971.2 crimes per 100,000 population. During the same time period, in the 21 states and the District of Columbia with strict carry laws or which don't allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all, the crime rate fell 7%, from 4613.7 to 4297.2 crimes per 100,000 population. While the rate of violent crime for states with strict carry laws fell at relatively the same rate as less restrictive states from 1997 to 1998 (8% and 7.5% respectively), the robbery rate for these 22 strict states fell 13%, compared to the lax state's 10% (this includes an 11% drop for those states which relaxed their CCW laws after 1992, and a drop of only 7% who have had lax CCW laws since before 1992).
"These numbers demonstrate what we've been saying all along," said Sarah Brady, chair of the The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Inc. "We don't need to make it easier for just anyone to carry a gun nor do we need more concealed handguns on our streets to fight crime. The way to fight crime is to punish criminals and to make sure that criminals don't get guns in the first place."
It seems that concealed weapons permits don't have the effect on reducing crime that you would like to claim.
Between 1992 and 1998, over a quarter (27%, 3/11) of the states that were "shall issue" during this entire time period experienced an increase in the violent crime rate, as well as in the robbery rate. This compares to increases in violent crime over the same 6 year time period in just 18% (4/22) of states with strict carry laws. Only 18% (4/22) of states with strict carry laws experienced an increase in robberies. If allowing more people to carry concealed handguns is supposed to be such an effective crime fighting strategy, why did the crime rate go up in so many "shall issue" states — particularly when compared to states that employed other strategies to fight crime?
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=conctruth&menu=gvr
A second site that shows the same data as the Brady site - but cites the FBI data sheets
Between 1992 and 1997, the violent crime rate dropped by 24.8 percent in states enforcing strict concealed carry laws and no-issue laws compared to an 11.4 percent decline in states with lax or weak concealed carry laws.
Source: Press Release, January 18, 1999. Handgun Control/Center to Prevent Handgun Violence: Washington, DC [data analysis of Uniform Crime Reports, FBI]
Another case study of Florida's Conceal Carry Law.
Recent numbers from Dade County, Florida do not offer a comforting picture. According to information first reported in U.S. News & World Report, the Metro-Dade Police Department tracked 63 incidents involving concealed carry license holders in a five-year period (1987 to 1992) after the law went into effect; 25 incidents involved arrests. The 25 arrest incidents included such crimes as: aggravated assault with a firearm, aggravated battery with a firearm, reckless display and discharging a firearm in public, armed trespass, and cocaine possession. Despite the arrests, in at least 12 of the 25 cases the arrestee was able to retain his concealed carry license—including one incident in which an armed license holder was arrested for misdemeanor battery on his spouse. The remaining 38 non-arrest incidents included: four accidental shootings (resulting in two injuries); three cases in which the license holder's gun was stolen; two cases of unauthorized carrying in restricted areas; and six disputes that escalated to the point where a gun was pulled. A review of the Dade County information reveals that in a broad sense 16 of the 63 incidents could be classified as attempts at defense of person or property, or efforts to intercede during the commission of a crime. And while there do appear to be legitimate self-defense uses detailed by the Metro-Dade police, in many of the 16 incidents the actual threat is unclear, possession of a concealed carry license may not have been necessary (because the license holder did not leave his or her home), or it is unclear whether the license holder was legally justified in brandishing or firing the weapon. (Please see Appendix One of the full study for the complete list of incidents.)
http://www.vpc.org/Studies/cccrimst.htm
Charles Wesley Parrot was convicted in September 1958 of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. He was sentenced to serve three years in a state penitentiary. His sentence was suspended after 18 months and he was placed on three years probation. In March 1983 Mr. Parrot was convicted of unlawful possession of a pistol. He was sentenced to serve two years in the state penitentiary. After nine months his sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for 18 months and fined $512.25. He was granted a full pardon in the state of South Carolina in January 1989. On March 15, 1995 Charles Wesley Parrot was granted the specific authority to own, possess, and use firearms by the state of Florida's Office of Executive Clemency. Mr. Parrot has subsequently applied for, and obtained, a license to carry a concealed firearm.
And then another individual who express himself much better then I can
I would feel uncomfortable carrying a loaded weapon. Very uncomfortable that I would possibly have the means to end a person's life within arm's reach. That doesn't mean I'm going to do it, or would ever be tempted. Just that fact makes me uncomfortable.
I also would feel uncomfortable knowing that anyone on the street, in the theatre, at a restaurant, at the supermarket could be carrying a loaded gun on their person. And here's why - despite training, despite temperament, despite the best of intentions: I don't trust you. That's simply it, I don't trust you. I don't trust a person who is not a licensed law enforcement officer of some kind - someone who, by virtue of their job, I would assume they have proper gun training - to carry a weapon. You may be a great person, love your kids, go to church, would never pull a gun in anger at another person - you may be supremely confident of that fact in your own mind, but I'm not. To me, you would be just as likely to be the one sticking up the fast-food clerk as the one defending him, or - in your possibly untrained and excited state - could be the one who with the best of intentions attempts to intervene but misses and hits someone else. Or you could be the one who gets pissed off at me in traffic and, instead of the flipping me the finger you pop off a few rounds at my back window.
I'm not concerned whether there are documented cases of this happening - I am afraid that they will, when more and more people are allowed to carry concealed weapons.
I understand completely that you have the best of intentions, the best training, the best gun money can buy, and the best reasons in the world to want to defend yourself. But I'm sorry, I don't have insight into your character from my vantage point and I can't assume you can be trusted with a gun any more than I can assume you're not going to attack me anyway without a gun.
Some people have used the automobile analogy as a comparison: A car is as lethal a device as a gun - do you have ethical problems driving a car? To that I would say, no, because I have a reasonable trust in my mind that: a) an acceptable percentage of the people driving have a legal driver's license, have been driving for a number of years, and know how to operate a car. I trust myself in that regard as well. Therefore, I think the relative risk of getting in or causing an accident and vital necessity of using a car is acceptable compared to the hardship and chaos that would result in banning automobiles. With firearms, however, even with the several self-defense case story articles I've read recently, I'm not convinced that the negligible gain from carrying a gun would outweigh the high potential risk of an accidental or intentional shooting.
I'm not pushing for any legislation change, I'm not pushing for repealing the 2nd amendment or anything like that. I'm just saying that I don't think it's a good idea because inevitably - inevitably - there will be a tragedy, or tragedies. And I don't want to be anywhere near it.
Thank you. I hope I've made myself clear - please reference this post if necessary.
http://lasthome.blogspot.com/2003_12_14_lasthome_archive.html#107177145463406787
Honestly, I'm weary of debating this with you... Your opposition has shifted from 'you just dont like it', to 'they not trained well enough', to 'they're irresponsible' to claiming many of permit holders become criminals. Just say what you think- Average, law abiding common folk just can't be trusted to carry weapons on their person to defend themselves with. That's what it comes down to isnt it?
And did I not say that. The average person does not have the training to fire a weapon at another human being in a stressful situation. When you are in your home - you can do what the hell you want to defend yourself. However when your out in public - you have to be aware of other people's right to exist.
You're entitled to your opinions on gun control, as I've said. I'm just glad your thinking isnt in the majority and that our state legislatures are continuing to pass laws that empower people to defend themselves. :bow:
Then you should of just stated that verus calling my opinion hype.
bmolsson
07-08-2005, 07:58
People have been known to call the police when they see it, and even in places where its perfectly legal, the police have been known to arrest, harass and otherwise embarass people for doing so.
Why would the police do that if it's legal and accepted ??
Yes, I've seen the Miami study- and it supports my point totally. Out of more than 22,000 permits issued only 13 actually committed a felony and had their permits revoked. Thats what? 1/2 of 1%? There are hundreds of thousands of permits issued throughout the state of Florida. Where are the shooting rampages caused by your untrained nervous-nelly permit holders? Even your own biased study says that there is no significant increase in crime when people are empowered to defend themselves. So whats your argument against it again?
I also would feel uncomfortable knowing that anyone on the street, in the theatre, at a restaurant, at the supermarket could be carrying a loaded gun on their person. And here's why - despite training, despite temperament, despite the best of intentions: I don't trust you. That's simply it, I don't trust you.[/quote]Again, you're proving my point by allowing this person to speak for you- you apparently just don't trust people to carry guns to defend themselves. I guess this is where we differ.
It's interesting to me that while you claim to support gun rights you dredge up all of the muck and slanted studies you can from well-known gun grabber groups to prove how evil concealed carry is. If you think they're credible, you should keep reading and learn why all guns should be banned. Did you know that guns in the home are 33x more likely to be used against the owners than a criminal? It's not, but they'll still tell you that and give twisted stats to back it up. Keep looking to the Brady campaign for inspiration...
Why would the police do that if it's legal and accepted ??
If only I knew the answer to that one. ~;)
Like I said, where its not common, open carry can throw certain people into a panic. You would think that police know better- but I've heard several first hand accounts that beg to differ. Maybe 911 operators should ask more questions when they get a 'man with a gun' call... like, 'what's he doing with it?' 'Buying groceries?' 'Then why do you need police?' ~D
|OCS|Virus
07-08-2005, 08:37
Why do you need an assault rifle?
Why do you need any guns to protect your rights? If the US government wanted to take away your rights a handful of guys with guns will not do anything against all the tanks, planes, artillery, missiles, and nukes (ok, that is a bit extreme) the US government has.
you talk about the government as if it is a thing, WE ARE the government. People rule themselfs out here, if it gets put to a vote, it will be fair, any full grown adult could vote on it. If it gets put to a vote and my side looses {I like guns so you know my side} I would not contest the results formaly, but you can be im going to say something along the lines of "I outta kill those bastards" then after turning in my guns, I would promptly strike the wall or lamp closest to me.
bmolsson
07-08-2005, 09:31
If only I knew the answer to that one. ~;)
Like I said, where its not common, open carry can throw certain people into a panic. You would think that police know better- but I've heard several first hand accounts that beg to differ. Maybe 911 operators should ask more questions when they get a 'man with a gun' call... like, 'what's he doing with it?' 'Buying groceries?' 'Then why do you need police?' ~D
Well, wouldn't it be safe to assume that the risk for this happen is FAR much smaller if NOBODY carry a gun ?? ~:)
Well, wouldn't it be safe to assume that the risk for this happen is FAR much smaller if NOBODY carry a gun ?? ~:)If no one carried a gun would there be less a risk for people making 911 calls about people carrying guns? Umm, yeah, I suppose so... Of course that's neither a practical nor desirable situation. ~:confused:
Yes, I've seen the Miami study- and it supports my point totally. Out of more than 22,000 permits issued only 13 actually committed a felony and had their permits revoked. Thats what? 1/2 of 1%? There are hundreds of thousands of permits issued throughout the state of Florida. Where are the shooting rampages caused by your untrained nervous-nelly permit holders? Even your own biased study says that there is no significant increase in crime when people are empowered to defend themselves. So whats your argument against it again?
What the study shows is that it is not impossible for criminals to have a concealed carrry permit. Which is something those that advocate conceal carry permits state will not happen. Which was exactly your point that criminals would not get conceal carry permits. So what point did it prove?
Again, you're proving my point by allowing this person to speak for you- you apparently just don't trust people to carry guns to defend themselves. I guess this is where we differ. Try again - I don't trust their training and ability to actually use the weapon on a city street. Defend yourself in your home that is your right - however you don't have the right to risk other people in a crowded store just because someone decides to rob the store. I guess you missed the six occasions that show that guns were pulled as an arguement escalated by concealed carry permit holders. Something once again those that advocate conceal carry permits stated would not happen. Just like while the study has a very low percentage of people with conceal carry permits committing crimes with their weapons - it goes to show that it does happen, again something that those who advocate the permit stated would not happen.
It's interesting to me that while you claim to support gun rights you dredge up all of the muck and slanted studies you can from well-known gun grabber groups to prove how evil concealed carry is. If you think they're credible, you should keep reading and learn why all guns should be banned.
So an individual can not have multiple sources of input to come to their own conclusions? How interesting. THe studies of the like of Lott who advocated the reduceing the restrictions of concealed carry permits are not skewed and slanted? Yea right - I read his study, try again.
Did you know that guns in the home are 33x more likely to be used against the owners than a criminal? It's not, but they'll still tell you that and give twisted stats to back it up. Keep looking to the Brady campaign for inspiration...
And that makes the Florida Study invalid? Keep spouting about having guns in the classroom and I will go the opposite direction. That is the most ridiclous and acidine comment that comes from the pro-gun lobby - and is more dangerous then making assualt weapons completely illegal and banning the conceal carry permit. When the crowd that supports that type of nonsense screams baised about the Bradley Campaign - well they need to wake up themselves and stop reading the NRA sites.
What the study points to about the 33x more likely is the high number of suicides and low number of accidents in the home involving firearms. Is it skewed - sure it is to make a point, but when one looks at the numbers one can see what the point is.
(Two can play that game)
Again be careful of accusing others of something you yourself are guilty of.
What the study shows is that it is not impossible for criminals to have a concealed carrry permit. Which is something those that advocate conceal carry permits state will not happen. Which was exactly your point that criminals would not get conceal carry permits. So what point did it prove? You keep trying to hammer this point home- but you're fighting an argument that Ive never put forth. I never said permit holders never break the law. The point that I've been making is that they are statistically less likely to commit gun crimes than any other group. They're less likely to use a gun criminally in public than people who arent even legally supposed to be carrying guns in public.
So an individual can not have multiple sources of input to come to their own conclusions? How interesting. THe studies of the like of Lott who advocated the reduceing the restrictions of concealed carry permits are not skewed and slanted? Yea right - I read his study, try again.My point was, and still is, that if you think they're a credible organization you can't logically support people keeping guns in the home either as they've shown how dangerous it is to do so. Personally, I think they're full of crap, but you use it to support your arguments. Virtually every study of theirs has been disected and debunked, if anyone wants links I'll gladly provide them, but I wasnt wasting the time with you since you'll only believe data that supports your beliefs. I even took your skewed stats as a given, for the sake of discussion, and showed that even still it's not a compelling argument against concealed permits.
And that makes the Florida Study invalid? Keep spouting about having guns in the classroom and I will go the opposite direction. You already have. You've said in other threads that you don't like handguns and you've said you only support gun rights because they're tools for farmers or hunters.
What the study points to about the 33x more likely is the high number of suicides and low number of accidents in the home involving firearms. Is it skewed - sure it is to make a point, but when one looks at the numbers one can see what the point is.
What is that point? Try looking at the stats they don't show you. Suicide rates in households without guns are just the same as ones with guns. There's no appreciable difference. That doesnt stop them from trying to blame guns.
To anyone interested, this (http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/concarry.pdf) pdf is a study on 'shall-issue' permits produced by the Minnesota legislature. It's probably the closest you'll get to an unbiased examination of claims on both sides. What it comes down to is, if you believe pro-carry studies permits can actually reduce crime. Alternatively, if you believe anti-carry studies, then permits have no significant effect on crime.
Now depending on your political leanings, I guess this could mean different things to people. From where I stand, I believe government should allow people to do what they want until it is convincingly proved that it's harmful to others. If the worst-case scenario that gun-grabbers can find is that it has no net effect on crime, why should we strip people of this right? If they could produce real proof that it actually increased crime in a significant manner at least they would have something to support their arguments with. I say let competent law-abiding citizens carry weapons to defend themselves with if they desire. There is certainly anecdotal evidence available in the media to show that people can and do save lives when carrying responsibly.
Note: Minnesota, in the end, did legalize 'shall-issue' permits.
You keep trying to hammer this point home- but you're fighting an argument that Ive never put forth. I never said permit holders never break the law. The point that I've been making is that they are statistically less likely to commit gun crimes than any other group. They're less likely to use a gun criminally in public than people who arent even legally supposed to be carrying guns in public.
Less likely does not equate to a perfect record now does it.
My point was, and still is, that if you think they're a credible organization you can't logically support people keeping guns in the home either as they've shown how dangerous it is to do so. Personally, I think they're full of crap, but you use it to support your arguments. Virtually every study of theirs has been disected and debunked, if anyone wants links I'll gladly provide them, but I wasnt wasting the time with you since you'll only believe data that supports your beliefs. I even took your skewed stats as a given, for the sake of discussion, and showed that even still it's not a compelling argument against concealed permits.
There just as credible as the NRA - both are baised and skewed in thier reports and their information. Just like everyother advocy group out there. Again be careful of accusing others of what you yourself are guilty of. I have never stated I completely follow their agenda nor do I believe their information is 100% correct. But don't let that prevent you from arguing the arguement verus taking cheap ad homien attacks at someone who disagree's with you. Should I show you the studies on Lott's data that completely discredits his lack of scientific and social studies research on his report.
You already have. You've said in other threads that you don't like handguns and you've said you only support gun rights because they're tools for farmers or hunters.
Yep that is correct - handguns are a useless tool as far as I am concerned.
What is that point? Try looking at the stats they don't show you. Suicide rates in households without guns are just the same as ones with guns. There's no appreciable difference. That doesnt stop them from trying to blame guns.
Never said it did - again making assumption on something? What I stated is that they are using suicides from guns to back up their 33x claims.
To anyone interested, this (http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/concarry.pdf) pdf is a study on 'shall-issue' permits produced by the Minnesota legislature. It's probably the closest you'll get to an unbiased examination of claims on both sides. What it comes down to is, if you believe pro-carry studies permits can actually reduce crime. Alternatively, if you believe anti-carry studies, n permits have no significant effect on crime
There you go -
Now depending on your political leanings, I guess this could mean different things to people. From where I stand, I believe government should allow people to do what they want until it is convincingly proved that it's harmful to others. If the worst-case scenario that gun-grabbers can find is that it has no net effect on crime, why should we strip people of this right? If they could produce real proof that it actually increased crime in a significant manner at least they would have something to support their arguments with. I say let competent law-abiding citizens carry weapons to defend themselves with if they desire. There is certainly anecdotal evidence available in the media to show that people can and do save lives when carrying responsibly.
However it seems that you don't want to believe the anecdotal evidence that points out that sometimes the conceal carry permit holder's commit crimes with their weapons. Yep lets get upset with people who don't subscribe to your way of thinking.
Like I stated earlier - you want to carry a weapon then do so openly. The people around you in public have just as much right to know if you are armed as you have to be armed.
Less likely does not equate to a perfect record now does it.Using the strawman again- I never made an argument that there's a 'perfect' record.
Yep that is correct - handguns are a useless tool as far as I am concerned. Good, then lets be clear- you don't support the second ammendment. While they're covered by it and I support their rights, it was not written with sportsmen in mind.
However it seems that you don't want to believe the anecdotal evidence that points out that sometimes the conceal carry permit holder's commit crimes with their weapons. Yep lets get upset with people who don't subscribe to your way of thinking. You still havent provided any anecodtal evidence- despite multiple requests. Is there some? Probably- but it still doesn't override the fact that, at best concealed weapons holders reduce crime, and at worst they have no net effect. Yet you want it banned because you don't trust people.
I believe that under both the 2nd and 9th amendments, people should have the freedom to do what they want, particularly when it comes to protecting themselves from harm until it can be proven convincingly that a great harm is being done by allowing people their freedom. There is no such evidence here. I don't believe in constraining people's freedoms just because they dont provide a clear benefit.
We can continue this if you want, but I think it's fruitless at this point. Any readers should be quite clear on both of our positions now and can judge the merits of each for themselves.
scooter_the_shooter
07-08-2005, 22:57
Like I stated earlier - you want to carry a weapon then do so openly. The people around you in public have just as much right to know if you are armed as you have to be armed.
A gun IS an inatimate object do they have a right to know if you have your car keys and money on you also.
Goofball
07-08-2005, 23:04
A gun IS an inatimate object do they have a right to know if you have your car keys and money on you also.
There's that badly hitched trailer again. When was the last time somebody opened fire with their car keys and killed somebody?
Using the strawman again- I never made an argument that there's a 'perfect' record.
The same methods that you have used - good to see that you recongize it.
Good, then lets be clear- you don't support the second ammendment. While they're covered by it and I support their rights, it was not written with sportsmen in mind.
Again you are incorrect - I support the second admendment - I don't support the concept of concealed carry permits falling under that protected constitutional right. Your confusing what I think as a useless tool means that I don't support the 2nd Admendment. A strawman arguement - which you should recognize by now - since I did it to you to drive a point home. Again the Constitution protects your right to keep and bear arms - it does not grant you the right to carry a concealed weapon. That is a legislative law - the consitution allows you to keep and bear arms that is exactly what it states.
You still havent provided any anecodtal evidence- despite multiple requests. Is there some? Probably- but it still doesn't override the fact that, at best concealed weapons holders reduce crime, and at worst they have no net effect. Yet you want it banned because you don't trust people.
Sure I have - there was even one about a convicted criminal getting a concealed carry permit in Florida - which you dismissed. People as a group have shown that they are not trustworthly. I trust individuals - but not the mob. Nor the mob believe that one must pack iron in order to protect oneself and thier property.
I believe that under both the 2nd and 9th amendments, people should have the freedom to do what they want, particularly when it comes to protecting themselves from harm until it can be proven convincingly that a great harm is being done by allowing people their freedom. There is no such evidence here. I don't believe in constraining people's freedoms just because they dont provide a clear benefit.
Again your confusing what I beleive with what you want to think I believe. The 2nd Admendment does not grant you the right to carry a concealed weapon. It does not grant you the right to carry out justice. What it grants you is the right to keep and bear arms - and the law allows you to defend yourself and your property. Like I have stated several times - carry any weapon you want - but do so openly so other members of society can evalute and decide if they want to be near you and your weapon. The constitutional right to keep and bear arms - does not give you the premission to stomp on other people's rights to know what is around them in a public area - nor and especially this one - on their property.
We can continue this if you want, but I think it's fruitless at this point. Any readers should be quite clear on both of our positions now and can judge the merits of each for themselves.
And again before accusing someone of hype - which was what started this - maybe you should discuss the issue in a calm and collective manner verus going off on them. Your attempts at ad homien arguements have fallen on death ears.
A gun IS an inatimate object do they have a right to know if you have your car keys and money on you also.
A firearm is a tool that has deadly consequences if used incorrect or disapportantly to the situation.
If you go into a store - and the owner dislikes firearms in his store - and you are carrying a concealed weapon - you have violated his rights - in order to carry the weapon.
If your on a communter train that is full of people - they should have the right to know that someone on that train is armed with a weapon so they can decide if they want to be in that situation or not? By carrying a concealed weapon - and not being an undercover police officer - you can recklessly endanger their lives because of your desire to go armed into society. Society allows you that right - however you should also owe society the ability to know that you are armed.
You want to carry a weapon on your person - then do so openly.
PanzerJaeger
07-08-2005, 23:21
There's that badly hitched trailer again. When was the last time somebody opened fire with their car keys and killed somebody?
When is the last time someone who legallly owned a gun did that?
scooter_the_shooter
07-08-2005, 23:34
A firearm is a tool that has deadly consequences if used incorrect or disapportantly to the situation.
If you go into a store - and the owner dislikes firearms in his store - and you are carrying a concealed weapon - you have violated his rights - in order to carry the weapon.
If your on a communter train that is full of people - they should have the right to know that someone on that train is armed with a weapon so they can decide if they want to be in that situation or not? By carrying a concealed weapon - and not being an undercover police officer - you can recklessly endanger their lives because of your desire to go armed into society. Society allows you that right - however you should also owe society the ability to know that you are armed.
You want to carry a weapon on your person - then do so openly.
If i walked down a crowded street with even a pellet gun displayed. I would have the cops called on me. If i walked down the street with it concealed there is no panic and people go about there every day activities.
Also you support carrying openly what about rifles and shot guns.
Goofball
07-09-2005, 00:14
When is the last time someone who legallly owned a gun did that?
You're joking, right? Are you trying to claim that people who own their guns legally never kill people with them? I'd be willing to bet that just about every overweight, 40-year old, sub-urbanite boob that pumps his wife full of lead when he comes home and finds her balling the pool-boy owned his gun legally.
You're joking, right? Are you trying to claim that people who own their guns legally never kill people with them? I'd be willing to bet that just about every overweight, 40-year old, sub-urbanite boob that pumps his wife full of lead when he comes home and finds her balling the pool-boy owned his gun legally.
Actually, it's the tree service guy, he's 41, and not overweight.
Also, I'm a rural boob. Not a sub-urbunite.
PanzerJaeger
07-09-2005, 00:31
You're joking, right? Are you trying to claim that people who own their guns legally never kill people with them? I'd be willing to bet that just about every overweight, 40-year old, sub-urbanite boob that pumps his wife full of lead when he comes home and finds her balling the pool-boy owned his gun legally.
Id take that bet.
How about double or nothing? I bet you the number of people killed by a person who had legal ownership of the gun in question is less than 10% of all people killed by guns in the US or Canada.
I'd be willing to bet that just about every overweight, 40-year old, sub-urbanite boob that pumps his wife full of lead when he comes home and finds her balling the pool-boy owned his gun legally.
Are you suggesting that only those who are married to the very ugly should be allowed to legally own guns?
or that promiscious women should also be armed?
what about the pool-boys, don't they a chance to defend themselves?
By carrying a concealed weapon - and not being an undercover police officer - you can recklessly endanger their lives because of your desire to go armed into society.
stats show that very few permitted carriers use their weapons, in response to violence or when they run amuck. Many many more are injured or killed by criminals with guns.
ichi :bow:
If i walked down a crowded street with even a pellet gun displayed. I would have the cops called on me. If i walked down the street with it concealed there is no panic and people go about there every day activities.
And it proves my point - you don't need to go into society armed.
Also you support carrying openly what about rifles and shot guns.
When I go hunting the weapon is normally in the back seat of my truck for the police officer to see if I am stopped. When I go to a store to have the weapon looked at - I carry it into the store with the barrel pointed down. Like I have said not just once but numerous times - if you want to go around armed - then do it openly so that other citizens can make the decision to be near you or as far away as they need to be in their own minds.
stats show that very few permitted carriers use their weapons, in response to violence or when they run amuck. Many many more are injured or killed by criminals with guns.
ichi :bow:
Now Ichi - someone is going to come up and say that is nothing but disproved hype from the Bradley Campaign.
2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S:
17,108 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
11,829 homicides (39% of all U.S gun deaths),
762 unintentional shootings (3% of all U.S gun deaths),
and 300 from legal intervention and 243 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2005
Now the question that needs to be answered is out of how many of suicides were done with legally obtained firearms. Most of them according to the studies were done with handguns.
How about double or nothing? I bet you the number of people killed by a person who had legal ownership of the gun in question is less than 10% of all people killed by guns in the US or Canada.
A site with the Canadian Data.
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html
Type of document: peer-reviewed research report
Firearms and adult, domestic homicides: the role of alcohol and the victim. Joshua E. Muscat and Michael S. Huncharek. The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 12(2):105-110. 1991.
Key words: homicide, firearms
Summary: This study found that alcohol may be a contributing factor to domestic firearm homicides:
53% of victims had been drinking before the homicide
40% of victims were intoxicated (blood alcohol concentration of 0.10% or greater) at the time of the homicide
62% of offenders had been drinking before the homicide
58% of victims who incited the homicide (by initiating physical contact, drawing a weapon, or verbally daring the offender to attack) had been drinking
The authors note that over 80% of the homicides were committed with handguns, and 45% of the handguns were Saturday night specials. eover, only half the offenders owned the guns used in the homicides; handguns were easily obtained through friends, spouses, or relatives.
The data were drawn from police records of 129 adult homicides and interviews with 49 offenders in six major Ohio cities. The homicides occurred between 1982 and 1985. A domestic homicide was defined as involving relatives or close friends, occurring inside or immediately outside the home, and which did not occur as secondary to another crime (for example, robbery). Domestic homicides committed with firearms are the largest distinct type of homicides.
Practical implications: Because it found that alcohol appears to contribute to the likelihood of domestic homicide, this study lends support to efforts to reduce violence by reducing alcohol use. The study also suggests that limiting the availability of cheap handguns may diminish domestic homicide.
http://www.tf.org/tf/alcohol/ariv/vfsum5.html#2
Yep achocal and legally owned guns can be dangerous. The bolded sentence could actually mean half of the domestic homicides were committed with legally owned firearms - primarily handguns.
scooter_the_shooter
07-09-2005, 01:49
And it proves my point - you don't need to go into society armed.
Now what happened to open carry. Just answer this question do you think people should be allowed to own guns.(this includes "assault weapons and hand guns of all types)
Yes or no cause you are really confusing me on what you think of the 2nd amendment.
Now what happened to open carry. Just answer this question do you think people should be allowed to own guns.(this includes "assault weapons and hand guns of all types)
Yes or no cause you are really confusing me on what you think of the 2nd amendment.
Indeed, now he's attacking owning guns at home because people might use them to commit suicide... :dizzy2:
You're joking, right? Are you trying to claim that people who own their guns legally never kill people with them? I'd be willing to bet that just about every overweight, 40-year old, sub-urbanite boob that pumps his wife full of lead when he comes home and finds her balling the pool-boy owned his gun legally. Resorting to stereotypes now are we? How often do you think the scenario you've outlined happens? How big a percentage of gun deaths do you think that accounts for? 1%? 0.5%?
Here's (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/04/08/EDG67C515F1.DTL) a relevant news article from April.
Now what happened to open carry. Just answer this question do you think people should be allowed to own guns.(this includes "assault weapons and hand guns of all types)
Yes people should be able to own guns because its a protected right under the constitution. The founding fathers placed it into the constitution to insure that the citizens had the ability to overthrow a tryanical government.
Yes or no cause you are really confusing me on what you think of the 2nd amendment.
Its confusing because your attempting along with another to pretend that conceal carry is part of the 2nd Admendment. The 2nd Admendment does not state that one is entitled to conceal their weapons upon their person and go into society. It clearly states something else. The conceal carry permits is a legislative action done by the states - not by the Federal Government.
Indeed, now he's attacking owning guns at home because people might use them to commit suicide... :dizzy2:
No such arguement has been shown - it seems that you only want to believe the data that supports your arguement - or you want to place words that are not there. (And you accuse me of strawman arguements) Here is what I stated with that data.
Now the question that needs to be answered is out of how many of suicides were done with legally obtained firearms. Most of them according to the studies were done with handguns.
Don't try reading into what is written - read what is written.
Resorting to stereotypes now are we? How often do you think the scenario you've outlined happens? How big a percentage of gun deaths do you think that accounts for? 1%? 0.5%?
Here's (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/04/08/EDG67C515F1.DTL) a relevant news article from April.
I guess you missed the data about the achocal related - homicide's at the home which account for more deaths then the 1% your trying to downplay.
No such arguement has been shown - it seems that you only want to believe the data that supports your arguement - or you want to place words that are not there. (And you accuse me of strawman arguements) Here is what I stated with that data.This isnt the first time in this thread that you've put forth evidence that condemns firearm ownership. You say I am mischaracterizing that as attacks on private gun ownership. You tell me, should I take it as evidence of your support for it?
I guess you missed the data about the achocal related - homicide's at the home which account for more deaths then the 1% your trying to downplay.I'm not sure what you're talking about.... this was clearly in response to Goofball, not any data presented by you. As he offered no data I don't see how I missed any.
This isnt the first time in this thread that you've put forth evidence that condemns firearm ownership. You say I am mischaracterizing that as attacks on private gun ownership. You tell me, should I take it as evidence of your support for it?
So an individual has to be blindly in support of something - or he is against it?
Great logic on your part. I have clearly stated several times I am against concealed carry permits - because its a legislative process - not a consitutional right. And these means I am against private gun ownership, because I use data from anti-gun sites to counter your comments about gun save lives when carried by individuals with conceal carry permits.
Yep - someone accuses me of hype and then states something like that. Laughable.
I'm not sure what you're talking about.... this was clearly in response to Goofball, not any data presented by you. As he offered no data I don't see how I missed any.
What Goofball was talking about was included in part of the achocal-firearm domestic homicide data that was posted before you asked - and assumed it was a 1% figure - its much more then that.
PanzerJaeger
07-09-2005, 06:13
Yep achocal and legally owned guns can be dangerous. The bolded sentence could actually mean half of the domestic homicides were committed with legally owned firearms - primarily handguns.
Is it not illegal to operate a firearm while intoxicated?
And these means I am against private gun ownership, because I use data from anti-gun sites to counter your comments about gun save lives when carried by individuals with conceal carry permits. Ok, so what did this have to do with concealed carry?
2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S:
17,108 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
11,829 homicides (39% of all U.S gun deaths),
762 unintentional shootings (3% of all U.S gun deaths),
and 300 from legal intervention and 243 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2005
Or this?
Type of document: peer-reviewed research report
Firearms and adult, domestic homicides: the role of alcohol and the victim. Joshua E. Muscat and Michael S. Huncharek. The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 12(2):105-110. 1991.
Key words: homicide, firearms
Summary: This study found that alcohol may be a contributing factor to domestic firearm homicides:
53% of victims had been drinking before the homicide
40% of victims were intoxicated (blood alcohol concentration of 0.10% or greater) at the time of the homicide
62% of offenders had been drinking before the homicide
58% of victims who incited the homicide (by initiating physical contact, drawing a weapon, or verbally daring the offender to attack) had been drinking
The authors note that over 80% of the homicides were committed with handguns, and 45% of the handguns were Saturday night specials. eover, only half the offenders owned the guns used in the homicides; handguns were easily obtained through friends, spouses, or relatives.
The data were drawn from police records of 129 adult homicides and interviews with 49 offenders in six major Ohio cities. The homicides occurred between 1982 and 1985. A domestic homicide was defined as involving relatives or close friends, occurring inside or immediately outside the home, and which did not occur as secondary to another crime (for example, robbery). Domestic homicides committed with firearms are the largest distinct type of homicides.
Practical implications: Because it found that alcohol appears to contribute to the likelihood of domestic homicide, this study lends support to efforts to reduce violence by reducing alcohol use. The study also suggests that limiting the availability of cheap handguns may diminish domestic homicide.
Yep - someone accuses me of hype and then states something like that. Laughable.How many pages ago was it I mentioned the word hype- one time? And you still bring it up in nearly every post? But I'm laughable? Forgive me if I think that's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. :rolleyes:
Anyhow, if anyone else thinks I haven't been clear on my points or have left anything unanswered please do ask and I'll be happy to answer on either "assault weapons" or concealed carry. :bow:
bmolsson
07-09-2005, 12:27
Being drunk in US increase the risk to get shot ??
Mr. Murderer, it's only water in my glass, I swear......
Being drunk in US increase the risk to get shot ??
That's funny, I never even thought of it like that, but, yes, it was an unspoken underlying assumption that I have.
It never occurred to me to actually think the thought as you have written it. However, I bet everyone knows that its true.
ichi :bow:
Ok, so what did this have to do with concealed carry?
Or this?
It shows a counter to your comments about it being false or as you stated hype. It shows that the number of deaths from legally acquired handguns is greater then those that were gained illegally. And yes I consider suicide deaths as an arguement against handguns as legimated - when it is handguns that are used in the vast majority.
How many pages ago was it I mentioned the word hype- one time? And you still bring it up in nearly every post? But I'm laughable? Forgive me if I think that's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. :rolleyes:
You might want to go back and read some of your other comments. And yep I am playing the same word game that you first started - so its more then a bit of the pot calling the kettle black - I am using your own technique of arguement in this case.
Anyhow, if anyone else thinks I haven't been clear on my points or have left anything unanswered please do ask and I'll be happy to answer on either "assault weapons" or concealed carry. :bow:
Oh its quite clear - however if anyone disagrees with you its because they don't support the 2nd Admendment. Someone needs to show where it states in the constitution that you can carry a concealed weapon.
Its not written anywhere - it clearly states you have the right to keep and bear arms - but it says absolutely nothing about concealing the weapon now does it?
Kagemusha
07-11-2005, 16:11
On what does an civilian need assault weapon for?
On what does an civilian need assault weapon for?
Well the first thing you'd need to do is define what an assault weapon is.
This (http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/) site does an interesting job of explaining what an 'assault' weapon was under the ban- check it out. :bow:
I don't personally own any long guns at all, let alone something that'd be considered an "assault" weapon- but I dont see why law-abiding citizens shouldn't be able to.
Kagemusha
07-11-2005, 16:52
Thanks for the info Xiahou.I thought the ban concerned fully automatic rifles but now i see its about semi-automatics i have no problem with that.We call semi-automatic rifles that have been chanced from fully automats "reservist rifles" here in Finland,and those are fully legal.But burst shooting fully automats i would like to see only in use of military and police personel. :bow:
Marcellus
07-11-2005, 18:33
but I dont see why law-abiding citizens shouldn't be able to.
Because guns are designed to injure and kill. I don't see what use a law-abiding citizen could put an assault weapon to without breaking the law.
Because guns are designed to injure and kill. I don't see what use a law-abiding citizen could put an assault weapon to without breaking the law.
There's lots of reasons... target shooting, hunting, collecting, home defense.... pest control ~D . Seriously, I don't care why someone would want one- if they're not using them to commit crimes its none of my concern.
Again, if the government wants to take away people's rights, they need to show that allowing such a right causes unquestionable harm and that such a law will actually solve the harm. The assault weapons ban failed on all counts- 'assault weapons' are rarely used in shootouts and the ban did nothing to stop the few that did happen. It just made it more difficult for good guys to buy them.
Again, if the government wants to take away people's rights, they need to show that allowing such a right causes unquestionable harm and that such a law will actually solve the harm. The assault weapons ban failed on all counts- 'assault weapons' are rarely used in shootouts and the ban did nothing to stop the few that did happen. It just made it more difficult for good guys to buy them.
Actually this is incorrect - the Assualt weapons ban does not prevent police departments from getting the weapons necessary to fulfill the requirements of their jobs.
Police departments can get many different weapons and aspects of military hardware that you as a civilian can not get without special permits.
Some Police Departments have the same sniper weapons as the United States Army. (and I believe some are even trying to get the same .50 caliber system that the military uses.)
So no the "good guys" are restricted by their own budgets and beaurarcies (SP) from getting the hardware necessary to take out the criminal elements that have these weapons - the Assualt weapons ban did not prevent it.
Marcellus
07-11-2005, 22:44
There's lots of reasons... target shooting, hunting, collecting, home defense.... pest control ~D .
target shooting - are you sure you need assault weapons? I'm sure there are less powerful guns you could use.
Hunting - again, less powerful guns could be used
collecting - Ever though about collecting something less...lethal? Spoons perhaps?
Home Defense - How about you just don't give criminals assault weapons either?
Pest Control - ! There are methods of pest control that don't involve blowing holes in your floor.
Seriously, I don't care why someone would want one- if they're not using them to commit crimes its none of my concern.
And how would you know what someone is going to use an assault weapon for when you sell them? Ask 'are you going to use this gun to kill people with'?
Are there less powerful weapons that can be used? Ummm, yeah... try shooting at targets with a .22LR and a .308 and see if its the same experience with both. ~;)
Did you read the link about the so called 'assault' weapons that I posted? Most of the guns listed are in similar caliber to popular hunting rifles. The AWB only addressed "scary" features on the rifles. With little modifications the banned weapons were again legally available.
And how would you know what someone is going to use an assault weapon for when you sell them? Ask 'are you going to use this gun to kill people with'? I think a decent criminal background check is a reasonable indicator.
Actually this is incorrect - the Assualt weapons ban does not prevent police departments from getting the weapons necessary to fulfill the requirements of their jobs. This is apparently where we differ... I consider the average law-abiding American citizen a 'good guy'- you obviously don't.
Marcellus
07-11-2005, 23:18
Are there less powerful weapons that can be used? Ummm, yeah... try shooting at targets with a .22LR and a .308 and see if its the same experience with both. ~;)
Did you read the link about the so called 'assault' weapons that I posted? Most of the guns listed are in similar caliber to popular hunting rifles. The AWB only addressed "scary" features on the rifles. With little modifications the banned weapons were again legally available.
I think a decent criminal background check is a reasonable indicator.
This is apparently where we differ... I consider the average law-abiding American citizen a 'good guy'- you don't.
1) Ok, so you think that you should let potential criminals own assault weapons because it gives you a slightly better 'experience' during target practice?
2) So, if the ban still allows hunting rifles as long as they don't have grenade launchers or bayonet lugs, then what's your problem with it?
3) For a person to have a criminal background, then he/she must have committed a crime! Before this crime was committed, then he/she could have bought an assault weapon, meaning that you have just sold an assault weapon to someone who is about to commit a crime. The easier solution: Don't sell assault weapons (or better still guns) at all!
4) But a citizen is not necessarily a 'good guy': he could be a criminal. You just don't know.
Again, I think that gets to the heart of the issue. I think most people are law-abiding, reasonably intelligent, good natured and responsible. You think they're all potential criminals. ~D
Edit:
Contrary to myth and misrepresentation, most murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens either going berserk, or because a gun was handy during a moment of uncontrollable rage: suddenly "blow-away" their spouse, friend, neighbor, acquaintance, or all four.
Studies conducted at both the local and national level indicate the overwhelming majority of murders are committed by people with previous criminal records. Even a significant percentage of homicide victims themselves have criminal records.
Domestic homicides as well are preceded by a long history of violence. The "crime of passion" homicide is much more the exception rather than the rule. LINK (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html)
Marcellus
07-11-2005, 23:35
Again, I think that gets to the heart of the issue. I think most people are law-abiding, reasonably intelligent, good natured and responsible. You think they're all potential criminals. ~D
I think that it is foolish to give weapons designed to kill and maim to anybody. I think that 'law-abiding, reasonably intelligent, good natured and responsible' people do not need assault weapons (or almost any type of gun, for that matter). Thus only criminals will use the assault weapon. I therefore think that allowing people to have assault weapons will only benefit criminals.
Edit:
Contrary to myth and misrepresentation, most murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens either going berserk, or because a gun was handy during a moment of uncontrollable rage: suddenly "blow-away" their spouse, friend, neighbor, acquaintance, or all four.
Studies conducted at both the local and national level indicate the overwhelming majority of murders are committed by people with previous criminal records. Even a significant percentage of homicide victims themselves have criminal records.
Domestic homicides as well are preceded by a long history of violence. The "crime of passion" homicide is much more the exception rather than the rule.
What difference does this make? You are still allowing criminals to obtain assault weapons.
Copperhaired Berserker!
07-11-2005, 23:35
ALL of you people who think this ban is stupid are stupid. Think about it. Your protection excuse is stupid. Think about it. I'd not have a handgun to shoot a burglar. If i needed a firearm, I'd use a tranquelizer gun or a tazer. It won't kill anyone but will serve the job for protection. and you think that the goverment might turn facist. Jeez! if they turned fascist they would do a terrible atrocity eventually and a war against them would start with people that are trained and smart enough not to shoot a civillan because of the punishment they would get. Now a gangster wouldn't be reconized if he went into a gun shop really. so they you go. there's a lethel gun in the wrong hands. Please read this and see why a gun should not be selled in a smegging gun shop!
I think that it is foolish to give weapons designed to kill and maim to anybody. I think that 'law-abiding, reasonably intelligent, good natured and responsible' people do not need assault weapons (or almost any type of gun, for that matter). Thus only criminals will use the assault weapon. I therefore think that allowing people to have assault weapons will only benefit criminals.I don't think the facts back that up- rifles of any kind, let alone "assault" weapons are rarely used in violent crime. Am I the only one who thinks the anti arguments are somewhat circular?
'You don't need them, so you shouldn't have them'... I point out legitimate uses... 'well, people could use them for crime'... I point out that almost all who do so already arent legally allowed to own any guns and those that own them legally are (in the vast majority) no threat at all.... now we're back to 'you dont need them, so you shouldnt have them'.
ALL of you people who think this ban is stupid are stupid. That's good stuff! ~D
Marcellus
07-12-2005, 00:05
I point out legitimate uses...
...and I argue against them
'you dont need them, so you shouldnt have them'.
Well, if there are no uses for weapons designed to kill, then I see no reason to put them out onto a market.
Don Corleone
07-12-2005, 00:21
I don't think the facts back that up- rifles of any kind, let alone "assault" weapons are rarely used in violent crime. Am I the only one who thinks the anti arguments are somewhat circular?
'You don't need them, so you shouldn't have them'... I point out legitimate uses... 'well, people could use them for crime'... I point out that almost all who do so already arent legally allowed to own any guns and those that own them legally are (in the vast majority) no threat at all.... now we're back to 'you dont need them, so you shouldnt have them'.
That's good stuff! ~D
Give it up Xiahou. The Left can't enslave you and force you to join your local collective if you and your fellow citizens are armed. Of course you can't win this argument! ~:cheers:
Marcellus
07-12-2005, 00:28
Give it up Xiahou. The Left can't enslave you and force you to join your local collective if you and your fellow citizens are armed. Of course you can't win this argument! ~:cheers:
Don't worry Xiahou, I'm several thousand miles away, so I don't represent a threat to your massive collection of weapons (which are, of course, designed to kill and maim...) ~D
ALL of you people who think this ban is stupid are stupid.
Stupid? Perhaps.
By the by, what do you call people who cannot spell properly or use proper punctuation in their posts?
I think that it is foolish to give weapons designed to kill and maim to anybody.
This is includes cars, knifes, bows and arrows, hammers, pipes, rocks, chainsaws, and my house keys, which could be used violently.
It's not about the tool, its about the crime.
I think that 'law-abiding, reasonably intelligent, good natured and responsible' people do not need assault weapons (or almost any type of gun, for that matter). Thus only criminals will use the assault weapon. I therefore think that allowing people to have assault weapons will only benefit criminals.
hmmm, you don't think reasonable people need assault weapons. OK. I don't think you need a car, or clothes, or a comp with a hot internet connection. Just because someone thinks that another person shouldn't have the right to possess something is a pretty thin reason to deny that person.
I think that I do need a gun (assault weapons is not even defined well) and I claim my right to own several, for protection, hunting, investment, and personal enjoyment.
Well, if there are no uses for weapons designed to kill, then I see no reason to put them out onto a market.
There are legitimate uses, protection, hunting, hobby, and there are intangible benefits from a society that is responsible enough to own guns. Just the idea that people are responsbile for themselves and not reliant on the nanny state from cradle to grave is important. Being around guns from a young age was one of things that helped me develop a sense of safety and responsibility.
There may not be a need now, but just 60 years ago there was a tremendous need to have young men who knew how to handle a gun, and my guess is that free societies will have that need again.
ALL of you people who think this ban is stupid are stupid. Think about it. Your protection excuse is stupid.
Thanks for clearing that up, one of the most eloquent arguments I've ever heard from the gun control crowd. Pretty much sums up the debate. I am too stupid to be free and responsible. ~:confused:
ichi :bow:
Kagemusha
07-12-2005, 01:17
I dont really think this whole discussion is about semi-automatic rifles.I think here are many people who would like to ban guns from all civilians.I dont understand that at all.Here in Finland we have somekind of firearm in almost every family for hunting.
And we dont shoot eachother more than normal Europeans.Infact majority of killing people in here are done with knives.Should we ban knives?
This is apparently where we differ... I consider the average law-abiding American citizen a 'good guy'- you obviously don't.
The average law-abiding American citizen is a decent and moral person - but the context of your statement is that the Assualt Weapon's ban did not allow the "good guys," is false on your part - and you accused me of something when that is not what I stated. The term "good guys," is normally associated with Law Enforcement - not the average citizen. Your reaching - and again using a straw-man arguement.
While I am far from a left leaning individual - your attempts at accusations of not supporting the 2nd Amendment, your statements along the lines that I see here - with this post - all indicitate to me that - you would prefer not a free society of independent and free people who express themselves - but a society of like minded individuals who only see the issues the exact same way you do.
Someone has gone so far right - they are now approaching the left.
bmolsson
07-12-2005, 02:49
pest control
Isn't that what Iran what to use their nukes for...... :charge:
Sarcasm intended.
Isn't that what Iran what to use their nukes for...... :charge:
Sarcasm intended.I think they've failed their background checks though. ~;)
bmolsson
07-12-2005, 05:52
I think they've failed their background checks though. ~;)
Not at all. They don't live in New York..... ~;)
If the citizens of the US bear arms, including military hardware, in order to act as a militia if necessary and as decreed both their right and duty in the Constitution does that make those citizens into a legimate military target? If so what does this mean for the "War on Terror"?
Marcellus
07-12-2005, 19:25
This is includes cars, knifes, bows and arrows, hammers, pipes, rocks, chainsaws, and my house keys, which could be used violently.
Ah, but all of these things (with the exception of bows) are designed (with the exception of rocks) for things that are not violent. Cars for transportation, knives for cooking, hammers for putting nails in walls, pipes for moving water about, rocks...well they don't really have a purpose, chainsaws for cutting down trees, house keys for opening locks.
On the other hand, guns are designed to fire pieces of metal at things, to kill and injure.
Yeah, we should only ban assault knives, assault chainsaws, assault rocks, and so on... ~;)
Don Corleone
07-12-2005, 19:54
If the citizens of the US bear arms, including military hardware, in order to act as a militia if necessary and as decreed both their right and duty in the Constitution does that make those citizens into a legimate military target? If so what does this mean for the "War on Terror"?
Interesting take on this, Slyspy. At the very least, you could argue that as you're not allowed firearm ownership as a minor, minor's don't constitute part of the militia and wouldn't be valid targets. Killing innocent children seems to be something the Wahabists delight in.
I don't agree with that. Just owning a gun does not automatically make one a combatant. Now if we were invaded, and citizens took their arms and formed militias and took up arms against the invader- then yes, those citizens are fair game.
But to say owning guns = militias = military target is a stretch of logic. You may as well say men over 18 = draftees = military target to justift their slaughter. Armed citizenry was and is common in most societies and Im not aware of it ever being thought valid justification to pre-emptively kill them.
Don Corleone
07-12-2005, 20:40
Now careful, he's got a point. The wording of the ammendment itself specificially implies gun-owner=militia.
You could argue that a militia is inherently defensive in nature (and this would finally end the Left's crazy claims that the National Guardsmen are the only ones entitled to 2nd ammendment rights).
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.