Wow (turpit and Rich must read!)

I'm sorry but that just has bad idea written all over it.

There was a bank robbery here in Birmingham Monday. Dude went in, killed two tellers and wounded two others. One other guy with a permit in there ran out, got his gun out of his car, and kept the guy at bay until the cops got there.

Here's the link to the story. (If you haven't been to al.com before, it may throw up a page asking for birth year, zip, and gender, but no biggie.)

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamn [...] xml&coll=2

...and those lying in a pool of their own blood are the good guys...the very dead good guys.

The only problem wtih that is that it raises the cost for the students attending the Uni.... Why pay for extra extra firepower, when the people could govern and protect themselves for cheaper costs?

Oh, this one's easy. You lock and load, run outside screaming, and start blasting anything that moves!!! (/sarcasm)

The proper thing to do is follow the training that all CCW licensed gun carriers are trained to do....then again, that's EXACTLY what the training is for, right?

If it were me, I would not get involved if a gunfight was in play, unless I knew for a fact who were the "Good" guys and who were the "Bad" guys, AND that I could intercede without unnecessarily endangering the public. But then again, I have had training....

Good point, but is the risk there worth it if that person does happen to save a life or 20, if he does do the right thing? Take the VT incident, for example. If one person had been carrying, and had been able to intervene successfully as soon as shots were fired, perhaps 30 people would be alive right now. Such is the quandry we have today....where do we draw that line?

My theory on that....If you give them a gun, and they are stupid, then hopefully natural selection will take its course, and they will be removed from the gene pool without too many others being removed as well....

The bigger problem with that issue....how many of those people already have guns, legally, OR illegally?

Playing devil's advocate here...what are the consequences of NOT doing something when the situation DOES warrant it? Are we willing to face those consequences? It truly is a damned if you do, damned if you don't, unwinnable situation.



Another question to bring into this entire thread....if we do nothing, but simply allow only the government sanctioned officials to do it for us, then do we not subject ourselves to the very issues that the 1st and 2nd amendments of the Constitution were written to prevent? Do we not give up our freedoms (liberty)? Ben Franklin did say it best....

Imo, I believe that we must never totally rely upon a government to govern us. It is our duty to ensure that we could always govern ourselves, and that we SHOULD govern ourselves to a certain extent. This way, if the need ever arose, we could always overthrow a corrupt or abusive government. Thus, to govern ourselves to a better extent would somewhat alleviate the already overburdened law enforcement officials, and overcrowding prisons.

One example of this...If your meth lab producing neighbor KNEW that you were vigilantly watching the neighborhood, would he really be inclined to put a meth lab in his home? Most likely not...but then again, some people are actually that ignorant....

Oh Christ, not another gun laws discussion...

*reads*

...actually, this looks like being a better idea than criminalising all firearms.

*calls down a plague of Mugabes on Groveling_Wyrm*

I didn't read the article but I just got back from South Carolina and was watching the news.

While I was there.. it was actually Charlotte which is on the boarder with SC.. Plenty of robberies and crime going on. I was a little disappointed that their whole 30 minutes of news was covering all the crime that happened the night before.

The campuses should make it a requirement to register on the campus, get training, and everyone notified that you are a concealed weapon person on the campus. Its the campus that needs to make their rules. They need to make the people take courses on training, what to do in such instances, and make everyone around them aware they may be carrying a weapon. Regardless if they have a weapon or not, a would be offended would question that someone around them may or may not be carrying.

Its that simple. Its sad that one must carry a conceal weapon, or debate about it for an institute for education. Maybe the school should keep them banned and bump up security and be done with it?

When it all boils down, we as the public must defend ourselves first, rely on the authority to defend us second. That doesn't mean everyone should be armed, but aware of what to do in instances of violence.

When the 2nd amendment was written, kids were learning proper use of firearms. It was common for a little boy to know how to use a weapon. This was something a father passed down to his son.

Today, we don't have that happen as often. If you go to states where hunting is popular, you find young boys who know how to handle a weapon. City people and the majority have no real clue on what to do, yet they want carry a concealed weapon.

A one day course, a one week, a semester course, regardless, doesn't make it any safer. After all, you are working on someone's judgement and their thinking. Professional soldiers train constantly and still run into problems in the heat of battle. But having a semester on it would be the best idea.

No amount of training can guarentee an indivual will not make a mistake in tense moments. Especially in rare instances where a civilian will need to draw upon their own weapon to confront another. Its not something that happens often, or even the same person.

I've spoken with police officers who have been in the field for 20 years and had to pull their gun maybe once or twice ever.

Yeah, I can have coherent posts more but I choose not to. Posting while on the phone, bored, or just killing time at work to stir up something to entertain me while I'm at work. Lately, I haven't been too interested in the Other. Noobs are flooding it with completely stupid stuff.

Its the simple fact that anything a single person can control that is dangerous is just that, dangerous. A gun is really no more dangerous than a car when put into someone's control.

Everyday I drive to work. Everyday I have hundreds of other cars driving 75 mph in the opposite direction of me. I trust that they will stay on their side as I will stay on my side.

That person with a car could easily turn, cross over a few feet going 75mph and go head first into me.

That same person could also take a gun and shoot someone just as easily.

Regardless of the weapon or way someone is killed by another, it all comes down to that single person.

A gun would be an ideal choice because multiple people can be killed in seconds, with no recoil to the shooter. A knife could be over powered by a few people and would put the wielder at risk. A car would be able to take out one car, maybe damage a few others but they're fairly safe when involved in a crash.

Of all the methods, a gun would probably be the easier route. But who cares what the weapon is. I'm more concerned about the person and their intentions over the idea of them having a lethal weapon.

Ok by this would you want to ban fishing poles? Their main purpose is killing, so by your logic they are a dangerous weapon.

As for your math... We don't feel like doing your work for you so please in the future state evidence with actual numbers and links if applicable. Thanks

BTW I like your quote:

That says it all...

Quite the contrary. I am saying that teh ONLY PURPOSE GUNS HAVE is to kill.

You can defend yourself by the THREAT of killing another with them, but they are still designed for one purpose only.

A fishing pole can be used to kill, but that is not its main intent. Unless you are coating it with ninga stars or something (which, BTW, are illegal, sharpened ones I believe).

No.

You know you are trumped on that one. How many hours a day does the average person spend in their cars in the US? Say 2? How many hours does the average gun owner hold their gun in a manner in which it can be fired? Say in a week? (Excluding firing ranges). It is too small to measure. Why? Because MOST people only hold them for very short periods of time, usually when they are needed, for whatever reason, to shoot.

As soon as you start looking at things like that, the whole premise of equating car deaths to gun deaths goes right out the window.

At 75mph into oncoming traffic.

That says it all...

That is my main point.

It is one thing to give a handgun to someone who is responsible enough to use it and WILL use it to protect the ones he or she is around. But to say that everyone is allowed, unconditionally, to own and use one is not very condusive to a safer society.

If almost everything else in our lives needs some sort of proof, justification, or permission to do, how is owning an instrument of death any different?

Quite honestly, I would feel safer walking around with instead of everyone carrying concealed handguns, they carried Katana blades, but those are illegal.

They are too dangerous you see....

Reminds me of Blazing Saddles I think (where the old lady pulls a 6'er...)

I think the main problem is that we are trying to generalize the whole situation into what we see around us. Certain neighborhoods have different ways of doing things and different outlooks on stuff.

I think most people would not mind having to take more training, or even opting for more advanced training if they know the basics. Make a minimum period no matter how skilled you are, a background check, and a waiting period, then be able to get what you want.

Most people are not in a hurry, so long as you make it simple enough (unlike taxes).

But how do you make a nation wide law that will discourage casual gun ownership and use, and reduce criminal posession (nothing will eliminate it) without forbidding too many of the ones that are relatively "safe" to own one?


BTW, I am not a fan of handguns. I think people should be allowed shotguns. I am not sure whether buckshot or solid slugs would be the best, or whether singleshot/double barrel or pump would be the best, but if there ever was a weapon that said you mean to shoot AND no way in really hiding you have it (except maybe WingDing) the shotgun is definitely it.

That or a claymore, but those are hard to carry with you on the subway.

I know, but that is the not-so-extreme of what most lobbiests are pushing for.

Felons can't get guns, and neither can minors, but what about people who can't shoot strait?

And are the same people forbiddin in all the states?

Incorrect... I can shoot someone in the arm or leg to wound them but not kill them. Same with a fishing pole. You wound the fish and release or you kill them. So try again..

I can defend myself quite well with a fishing pole... If you don't believe me ask my cousin...

Its main purpose is to kill a fish to eat. It as well as guns are a modified weapon.

Yes they can illegally. See Los Angeles, New York, etc.

Once again see Los Angeles, New York, etc.

And again see Los Angeles, New York, etc.

Note: Once again if you are looking for a OMG you are so right, try talking to your wife. None of us are related to you and so therefore we REALLY don't give a sh[i][/i]it.
And you can quote me on that....

Edit:
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and no one else has the right to force their opinion on others.
(I.E.) Opinions are like a[i][/i]ssholes...Everyone has one... And everyone else's stink...

I agree, what i said was a generalization. But I firmly believe that the vast majority of those who legally own handguns know how to use them AND know gun safety. Not all, but most.

I am ex-military (Military Police, Army). But I learned handguns from my daddy. Army don't teach a lot of handgun stuff... it's mostly rifles and machine guns. In fact, the US military only uses ONE handgun for your average soldier: the M9 (Beretta 92FS). And for the MOST part the only folks who carry M9's in the Army are.... MPs, Tankers, Company Commanders and up (officers). Most soldiers use long rifles (even SF, Spec Ops, and SEALs)... you won't see SF or SEALs using M9's on missions very often. 5.56 is more likely to kill than a 9mm cap gun.

*nimbly dodges out of the way of the assassination attempts of the Lord Almighty's only begotten son...*

HAHAHA mere immoral....erm...I mean....Immortal. You think you can rid yourself of me that easily? (/freudian)

Because I am not including Nascar or any driving course in the hours for driving.

Okay, if it's 'assassination attempt' you want, I can call DSN. The plague of Mugabes was a mere annoyance.

No.

Yes.

Sadly, I must agree here.

*wanders off to kill things with a minigun*

The point that I was making was that a gun has a purpose, just like any other tool. The ONLY time you have a problem with a gun, a car, a powersaw, or any other tool is when that tool is abused. For example, no one complains about cars being deadly until some child gets run over by a car, nor do you hear anything bad about nail guns until someone gets a nail right to the forehead. You must ask yourself, would you REALLY have anything bad to say about guns if everyone used them appropriately?

Now, as to the rest of those items, such as crossbows and such, the reason why they are illegal IS because there are no protections against making them illegal. Therefore, they have been declared to be illegal to carry around. However, guns are different. We DO have a right to carry them around.

In the instance of guns, it was deemed by our forefathers that they would be necessary to protect our freedoms. Therefore, guns have yet another purpose, to protect us from the very government we created, in the case that it would become unjust, and must be overthrown.

And why would you say that believing it is your unalienable right to own one is not realistic, when it is a power to the local communities, yet you argue to remove the right to carry guns, THEN you complain that the local communities don't have enough power? You contradict yourself.

And as far as your comments about state and federal control...The states do have powers. A government of any state can, at will, can refuse to participate in certain functions that the federal government requests. One example of this is the drinking age of 21. However, to do so would endanger many grants, loans, and other benefits that the states get from the federal government. So, the problem really relies upon the question of whether or not a state could stand without all the federal programs and such that would be lost. The greater majority of states could not. Who is fault for that? The states themselves are, since they chose that road. They could have said no. It is thus the states obligation to choose otherwise, if they choose so.

However, I feel that more control needs to be placed not so much at states, but at local governments. It is the diversity of the different communities that is the most different. A state or federal law can affect one town or county totally differently than the county next to it. A good example of this is the two communities on the two sides of the GWB bridge...right next to each other, but worlds apart..... Therefore, the laws should be made to enhance the communities, not to destroy them, in favor for something else. But then again....that is my opinion...

On other notes...

Paper targets that you commonly find on the market are actually more likely to be a circle, rather than human silhouette, as you so claim. The only reason why you would think that silhouettes are more popular is because of the use by law enforcement agencies. Go to your local Isaac Walton League and you will be surprised. For that fact, go to your local gun shop, Wal-Mart, or other store that sells gun accessories, and you would actually be hard-pressed to find a silhouette target. How do I know? I have tried... But then again, I do see your point on the subject...

Guns pose a high risk? ONLY when you don't respect them. Guns only pose a risk when not handled with care. I can asure you that when you are around me, there is no greater risk whether I have my pistol, or when I don't. Why? Because a gun, when handled WITH CARE is not dangerous. I don't carry it around with a round chambered, and the design virtually eliminates any possibility of a round becoming chambered unintentionally. Therefore, you could throw it around, kick it, drop it, etc... with actually less risk than if you were handling someone's pocket knife. Don't get me wrong though. A gun IS dangerous when a round is in the chamber. The greatest risk is the person who chooses to use that gun.

My suggestion to you is to go to a local gun club, and take a course that they offer, or just talk with them about guns. It would familiarize you with them better, and probably make you more comfortable with them. It sounds to me as if you are afraid of them because you don't understand them.

I know whre you are coming from GW, but somehow saying that guns are not abused is also being naieve.

You know everything is, and will be abused.

Nitro Glycerine and C4 are very safe if handled properly too, but that does not mean I want everyone to have the right to carry it around with them.

The tricky thing with gun laws is that the only thing we hear from are the radical extremes. We rarely hear from the "middle", and laws that are made usually reflect some weird unbalanced agreement between the extremes that they see as "the middle" when it is usally about as far away as it can be without being totally obvious to everyone.

You keep talking about gun owners and gun clubs, responsible owners. But there are many irresponsible gun owners out there as well! Just like good-cop bad-cop it does not take much to ruin a reputation, or to cause a lot of damage when dealing with something like this.


As for federal vs. state, I am comparing the seperation that was achieved back when this nation was originally formed. When we were a bunch of states that were united, not a nation called the united states. Hell, there was not even a federal tax until the world wars (I will have to check on that). Money was obtained in other means.

But as time progressed, the federal government has gotten bigger and bigger, and while they do not exercise military power on the states, the tax burden they levy on the citizens far outpaces the burden applied by the states themselves.

Now the state reserves are at the beck and call of thenation. The tornado in Kansas is a good example, where they say they have "80%" of their equipment available, but do not say what equipment and who will be there to use it to clean up the mess!

But that is a different subject.

The whole reason for the 2nd amendment was to try to achieve a balance of power between state, local and federal. And in times when the most advanced weapons were muskets and cannons, it works pretty well.

But nowadays we have to look toward other things to try to secure this balance, and not hold the 2nd in a light it was never written in.

You seriously need a life...

BTW i lived by Los Angeles for 25 years. I have been to NY multiple times. I could have gone down and gotten a gun from any thug on the street for the right $$$. Hell i could drive down to TJ (Mexico) right now and buy 2 shotguns and a pistol for under $200 without a permit. That's where my brother got his guns.

Yeah, like I am going to read any further after the start to either of your threads.

Guns can be used for anything. You can fukking make pottery with them if you want, and not only that, people in NYC are raving lunatics because you saw something in LA.

Whatever. I have work to do.

I thought they were ONLY for killing people.

Gee, you did not pick up on my sarcasm?

I am sorry, I did not realize you were autistic. I will try to make it easier for you to understand next time.

BTW, I would reccomend that the next time you do any home improvement, use a loaded handgun instead of a hammer. I hear it works wonders.