|
|
|
|
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/20/2009 4:44:05 PM | Legislating weapons off the street would no more take guns off the street, than legislating illegal drugs took cocaine off the street. People have the mindset that passing a law will magically eliminate all guns. All it will do is open a lucrative black market thereby creating more crime in the process.
Another myth that people have, is that American soldiers would fight against and be instrumental in taking guns from the citizenry. I can just imagine some soldier getting ready to shoot his Dad because he refuses to give up his 38. It would never happen. Another made for TV Movie, but far from reality.
People talk about our Military using superior fire-power against the American people, who might refuse to give up their guns as though those same soldiers are not American citizens. The majority of the guns on the street are not even registered, so it would be the proverbial 'needle in a haystack' in them seeking to retrieve weapons.
Here's a question to help you get an idea "How many illegal aliens have entered the U.S. in the last 30 years with a weapon? As a driver I can tell you plainly, that thousands of trucks cross the boarder on a daily basis, and I've yet to see those agents ever make one truck driver open his truck..It's a joke at the boarder, and everyone knows it. The majority of illegal goods (Drugs, guns, merchandise, and people) come over comfortably in the back of a 53' foot trailer.
Keep it real. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/20/2009 8:53:59 PM | In close quarters (mugging) one is better off with a knife or bike lock than a gun. Actually in the case of a mugging one is better off surrendering one's wallet (if that's all they want)
Perhaps stun grenades would be best.
Could be that non-firearm type weapons are better suited for violent street assaults / muggings such as the ones we've been having here. I guess that makes sense in a way. After all, the victims have all been taken by surprise by three to four assailants. It takes time to draw a gun out, c**k it, aim it , etc, I would think.
As for stun-type weapons, actually believe it or not I looked it up; here in Chicago , stun guns are also illegal to carry on your person just like a regular firearm... Not sure if it's a felony like a gun-carrying charge would be, but it's definitely a misdemeanor weapons charge of some sort (probably akin to carrying a switchblade knife or brass knuckles, etc.).
I like what they TRIED to do in the UK. They banned guns, regular cops did not carry them and neither did the average Joe (no longer the case England is now apparently full of guns... but it work for a while). Of course the UK is a super big brother type of society with massive surveillance. Forget what I said I don't like that much. Knife violence I heard though was pretty high... but then again alcohol and violence, people will use what they have.
I agree, I don't like the heavy surveillance in England AT ALL; they can have England , IMO. There may be more stabbings, yes, or more guns back on the streets there today but, after all, they certainly haven't had anything akin to a Columbine or a VTech or, any of the other situations one can name that happened here where a random nutcase walks in , opens fire on everything he can, then kills himself. Or even any citizen that's so armed to the teeth , like those bank robbers in LA that time, or that neo-Nazi kid (Poplawski I think the name was) who killed four or five cops responding to his house, and held them all at bay for hours with assault weaponry.
That kind of thing all seems to be a uniquely American phenomenon for the most part, excepting perhaps a couple of very isolated instances in Europe (I think I recall something in Finland, was it, involving a gun? Last year , or so? Not sure though). I'm not 'blaming guns' (not solely blaming them at least), nor do I advocate 'banning' them (as though that would even be possible in a country this big) but, short of Mexico with the drug wars now, parts of the Middle East (mainly Iraq....), or south Asia (Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc), where else does one really see this much heavy firepower and this much gun violence on a daily basis? | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/20/2009 9:18:51 PM |
I own two pistols, a 9mm semi-automatic and a .454 casull revolver.
Holy Crap. Tell me about the Casull. WTF do you shoot with that! Buffalo?
I do actually like guns. But am too experienced with common human nature to afford their deregulation or complacent regulation. Most people are f*cking morons, they do get pissed and even more stupid than they started, and should never be allowed anywhere near a firearm, no matter how much they wave their arms about it.
And really, if you think you need one, that is the single biggest reason that you should never have one.
I would carry a firearm if I could. I'm all for me having one. But I don't need it and can give that away if it means the vast bulk of people, who definitely shouldn't get their hands on them, find it a little harder to do so legally.
Sure it sounds a little arrogant to say but nevertheless my attitude is this, if I really need a gun in a given situation I'll take it, probably unsuccsessfully but there you go. And if I get killed trying to then that works too because I won't need one then, will I? But then I'm a well trained combatant too, as the feller with the knife was saying.
And as for the non-lethality claim for firearms, geez if you're going to use it in personal defence and I don't just mean trumped up bullsh*t but a real blue then you have to go for centre of mass because someone like me is going to take it off your hands. And hitting centre of mass has a pretty good chance of lethality within the first two rounds with any large calibre firearm, as local police shooting reports clearly indicate (ie. Australian police are specifically trained to always aim at centre of mass, and are virtually always lethal with very few exceptions, typically resulting in the officer quitting and gaining counselling...btw Vic Police for example use the locally produced .38" +P ammunition and old S&W six shooters, roughly halfway between a Special and Magnum round...the .40" S&W w/ten rd box was toyed with for a bit in the 90s and then they reverted due to existing public fears of lethality in policing force).
I have been threatened with guns btw, and found by experience the situation is still very much psychological. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/20/2009 9:44:21 PM | Can also relate a story told to us when I was doing a stint in security, warning us about when to pull and when to think. Our supervisor periodically went over the 'States to update training (counter terrorism etc.) with the Secret Service (our company sent people to Iraq and guarded Oz pollies on overseas trips, I did one job guarding pollies at the races and stuff, working with his armed guard as a second tier CC in plain clothes).
One of the training examples given is the story of two cops attending a school break in, just an alarm attendance, actual recent incident. They go into the class room that was tripped, lots of computers and stuff in there, and find an intruder armed with a combat knife on the other side of the room, I dunno, using it to cut cables and steal the computers I guess. One cop goes for his gun, the second cop backtracks out of the room quick smart. He's the one that lived.
The knife wielding assailant panicked when he saw a cop going for his gun and went straight for him, covered the distance in a couple of leaps and buried the knife in his chest before the gun was levelled.
The other cop outside was on the radio and if memory serves shot the assailant, but his partner also died.
The point was his training, which he observed was to always rely on the radio more than his gun, and wherever possible get distance, use the radio, and consider the weapon a last resort.
So his instinct was to run, where his dead partner went for his sidearm first.
True story. Even cops ideally don't use a gun. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/20/2009 9:49:51 PM | | the biggest reason i carry a gun?......because cops are too heavy to carry around | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/20/2009 9:55:48 PM | As far as 9/11 goes, I'd rather die fighting with a chance to live than to die sitting in my seat with no chance at all. The people weren't expecting anything to happen, but when something comes up you've got to deal with it. You don't just sit back and do nothing. The terrorist had boxcutters. Yes someone would most likely get cut. I'd for one would rather get stitches than die.
A 3 or 4 on 1 attack, even without weapons, could be justified for deadly force in the state of FL. Multiple unarmed people can still cause a lot of harm or even kill someone. Most self defense shooting happen inside of 7yds. I can draw and put two rounds on target at 15yds a hair over a 2nd (granted thats from a duty holster). Most modern guns are carried so that they're immediately ready to shoot, or the safety is taken off while its being drawn. There shouldn't be regulations on the type that can be owned, because a lot of people own guns because they enjoy shooting or collecting them. Full auto's have been heavily regulated for years, but still get used in crimes, so that shows you that regulations doesn't stop it from happening. Most of you don't seem to understand the 2nd amendment. Its actually pretty sad | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/20/2009 10:00:21 PM |
One of the training examples given is the story of two cops attending a school break in, just an alarm attendance, actual recent incident. They go into the class room that was tripped, lots of computers and stuff in there, and find an intruder armed with a combat knife on the other side of the room, I dunno, using it to cut cables and steal the computers I guess. One cop goes for his gun, the second cop backtracks out of the room quick smart. He's the one that lived.
The knife wielding assailant panicked when he saw a cop going for his gun and went straight for him, covered the distance in a couple of leaps and buried the knife in his chest before the gun was levelled.
The other cop outside was on the radio and if memory serves shot the assailant, but his partner also died.
The point was his training, which he observed was to always rely on the radio more than his gun, and wherever possible get distance, use the radio, and consider the weapon a last resort.
So his instinct was to run, where his dead partner went for his sidearm first.
True story. Even cops ideally don't use a gun.
Most likely the criminal was inside of the officers reactionary gap (7yds). Ideally, when the criminal charged the officer would back way while drawing and point shoot the criminal. I'm curious as to the level of training this officer had and his mindset on using his gun. Just because he was going for it doesn't mean that he had the mindset to use it. That makes a huge difference | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/21/2009 8:45:06 AM |
A 3 or 4 on 1 attack, even without weapons, could be justified for deadly force in the state of FL.
Yeah I know, that may be. But that's FL. Might be justifiable in a court in TX also. But you might as well be talking about a different country when it comes to firearms laws, if compared to Chicago, NYC, and other 'northern' big city areas. It's just a different kind of culture I guess, in a way. Around here, it has been my experience that regular people just do not carry or even try to carry. I never see that around here. The laws are too prohibitive of it to even try around here.
I had a gun for awhile, which I just kept at home and brought to a range for fun shooting, and they do technically have it on the books here I guess where you can carry it in a 'fanny-pack', for example (they advised never use a holster) but, it must be unloaded and the ammo must not even be near it I believe. BUT.... they also advised me at the gun store, if I was going to do this (which I truthfully wasn't anyway), to carry a photocopy of the law ON me in the case right next to the gun! Most cops around here won't even know about it, he told me, and they will promptly go into full battle mode and arrest you as soon as they see you are carrying at all, without even asking if it's loaded or not. It's , 'put your hands in the air where I can see them', right away around here, as soon as you tell them you've got your gun on you; you don't get much chance to explain anything. Then they'll kind of 'sort it out' I guess from there.
You'll get taken in, and you have to have your FOID, your registration for the piece of course, and it has to have been unloaded and not have the ammo within reach. And hopefully you will be released after that without a felony gun charge. That's my understanding of what passes for a 'carry law' in IL. To me that made me nervous. I didn't even want to try to carry it at all, because frankly I don't want to be getting arrested and hauled in on every traffic stop.
The gun violence one hears of comes primarily from street gang-related or other criminal-related activities, but the common people just don't seem to have a mindset of wanting to walk around armed. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/21/2009 8:54:19 AM | | its always eazier to blame the gun its self then the person who uses it. the way i see it is, most people that own guns and reg. them are not the ones commiting crimes. therefor why should them people give up there rights. drugs are illegal in this country as well, that hasnt slowed them down has it? point is that even if u outlawed guns, it wouldnt get rid of them, anybody remeber prohibition, didnt seem to stop people from drinking did it? | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/21/2009 9:01:43 AM |
Holy Crap. Tell me about the Casull. WTF do you shoot with that! Buffalo?
I use it to defend my yard from rogue squirrels :3
Seriously though, I enjoy target shooting and the .454 is a caliber I enjoy. Its also nice to see the immasculation of the other range goers when I take stance and start firing a weapon with an 8 inch barrel.
I got the 9mm as a cheaper option for range shooting. The 9mm fires pennies, the .454 fires paychecks. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/21/2009 10:47:57 AM | | I will let this forum worry about legalities. In a self-defence scenario will do what I have to do to survive and let you all MMQB me later. See, because the thing is this. I have a mindset that NOTHING is going to stop me from seeing tomorrow if I can help it, and I don't care what the law says in reguards to that. It can go pound sand and I will deal with it when the time comes, but I am not going to adopt a less than ideal position on something that will lower my survival chance in a situation just because a jury may not feel warm and fuzzy about it. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/21/2009 11:00:32 AM | In response to Dino:
Thats because down here wer still have some commonsense that laws don't stop criminals. I don't know what good carrying an unloaded gun does. Also don't know why they advised you not to carry in a holster. Talking with different people around the country, there's two main giveaways thats someones carrying. A fannypack (unless you can tell they're a tourist) or a vest (unless you can tell they're a photographer).
As far as being stopped, if you're within the law and show proof of it, then you've got a good case agaisnt the officer and the city if they try to arrest you. Some states require you to notify LE that you're carrying if you interact with them. FL isn't one of them, but I'll do so just as a courtesy. I've only been stopped once since I started carrying. The officer asked where it was at, retrieved it, went about the traffic stop (had a taillight out, but I was borrowing the vechicle), and returned the firearm unloaded. It was no big deal, nor should it be. Down here, if has the potential to become a show and tell. I'm glad you realize that the gun problem is with the criminals and not from your average citizen. Again, talking to different people from around the nation, you'd probably be surprized by the number of people out west or up north that go through the hopes to carry or wish that they could
JWB: I'm sure you're familiar with the saying "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/21/2009 12:07:46 PM | JWB: I'm sure you're familiar with the saying "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."
Correct, and I don't care what the verdict is at taht moment, because if I kill someone it is to prevent myself from being killed, and even if I get the chair because some thug loving communist jury is selected, I still lived longer than I would have had I not done what I did. Obviously I would try to make it a good shoot, but survival would be #1. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/22/2009 11:40:07 AM |
and even if I get the chair because some thug loving communist jury is selected,
just what millennium are you living in? communist jury? Joe McCarthy is dead and gone or haven't you gotten the news? | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/22/2009 1:15:11 PM | I don't like the heavy surveillance in England AT ALL; they can have England , IMO. There may be more stabbings, yes, or more guns back on the streets there today but, after all, they certainly haven't had anything akin to a Columbine or a VTech or, any of the other situations one can name that happened here where a random nutcase walks in , opens fire on everything he can, then kills himself.
Well yes, we have actually. Dunblane Primary School in March 1996 when sixteen children and one adult were killed by Thomas Hamilton before he committed suicide. That is what brought about the gun regulation that we have in the UK now. Once was enough for us!
Heavy surveillance? If all that means is that we have the highest number of CCTV systems in Europe (possibly in the world), so what? If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear. The CCTV works both ways, it makes us safer on our streets and it makes catching criminals much easier.
Yes, we have issues sometimes in the way it can be used. Some councils have gone way beyond the guidelines and used it to fine people who's dog has pooped on the pavement ('sidewalk' as most Americans would call it).... that's just ridiculous, but then .....don't let your dog poop wherever it wants!! 
I'm delighted that I live in a country where I have got to the grand old age of 59 and have never seen a handgun and only ever handled a rifle once (and that was at a regulated gun club), and can walk the streets knowing that there is a 1 in 5,000 chance that someone is 'carrying'.
In 2007 - 2008 there were just 53 killings by guns in the UK. That means there's roughly a 1 in 1,150,000 chance of me being murdered by a gun toting idiot. In America that falls to roughly a 1 in 10,000 chance. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/22/2009 10:18:48 PM | | I find all of this rediculous. It is like saying you would enjoy a society where cars were illegal because then you wouldn't worry about someone running you over. I want cars, I want guns, and I am glad I live in a country where I can still have both. You don't like guns? Fine by me, don't mess with 'em. However, don't tell me what I can or cannot do either. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/22/2009 10:41:22 PM | I find all of this rediculous.
Fear and paranoia are not usually rational or useful emotions if you let them rule your life. Of course it's ridiculous. I'm afraid of everything so let's outlaw everything so I can feel all safe and secure. Irrational fear of guns is at the heart of all anti-gun arguments.
If you manage to outlaw and do away with all guns, knives, bats, sharp sticks and pokers of any type...then they would want all boxing and martial arts classes stopped because they would be then afraid that someone might beat them up. :) Next they would want all rocks replaced with nerf rocks because you know...someone might throw one at somebody. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/23/2009 1:52:04 AM | Dunblaine occured because the UK cops & courts couldn't seem to lock up a child molester & keep him locked up. Lousy investigation tactics contributed to that one. Tell me, has investigation of child molestation cases improved in the UK since then??
Brits might have less of a chance of getting shot by a gun, but you definitely have a higher chance of being knifed or blown up by high explosives...the Brits don't seem to have much of a handle on that yet. They just barely seem to have the IRA under wraps and then the Radical Muslims come in and start exploding bombs in their place...
Add to that that England is an Island the approximate size of New York State...with about the same population. It's no wonder that the crime rates between the two are fairly close, but comparing a tiny little island country with the USA is hardly possible. it's like comparing Pitcairn Island to Ireland. Not really relevant.
One out of the four planes didn't hit it's target on 9/11. That one crashed into a field because the people on board heroically fought with the terrorists and prevented them from striking any more of our national treasures. On that flight...there were enough Real Men and less sheeple.
Be Prepared. Contemplate SHTF situations and have a plan for survival.
Know your escape routes. Know how to fight in close quarters and long-range.
Vote for a fast track for the death penalty...it cuts down on recidivism.
Try not to live in big cities and avoid them like the plague...too many idiots and not enough bullets. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/23/2009 4:16:14 AM |
You don't like guns? Fine by me, don't mess with 'em. However, don't tell me what I can or cannot do either.
If you would care to point out just where in my posting I tried to tell you what you can and can't do I'll happily acknowledge that fact. In the meantime read what is written, don't read between the lines. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/23/2009 7:14:35 AM | | I love when people just make up their own statistics. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/23/2009 8:25:51 AM |
Brits might have less of a chance of getting shot by a gun, but you definitely have a higher chance of being knifed or blown up by high explosives...
way to make up some statistics there. nothing like some creative numbers to back up a lot of hooey.
here are some real statistics.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
try reality for a while. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/23/2009 9:40:21 AM | Like I said before this is really just a bipartisan argument. And I'd rather have the free choice to carry a gun myself, but it's my responsibility to the community, thereby my own social environments which cause me to come down on the side of strict gun control regulations. Very strict ones.
imho the problem with cursory regulation is you wind up with people who really ought to be able to carry, can't and people who never should be allowed, can. That's how centralised rules work and in this case I think it's a matter of the kids at the back of the class mucking up, so the whole class gets held back after school as far as discipline goes. But on a more pragmatic level, there are just some people for no clearly established reasoning as at a given time, simply should not be allowed to carry, it's a relatively large proportion of any population (entire demographics), and under the US system they simply can.
I'd feel safer if there was something like an IQ restriction, for example. But that's a little controversial so just go for the blanket ban and leave guns for cops and crims.
Face it, the only justification for carrying in any built up area is for policing purposes (ie. enforcing self defence laws or other protection laws) and the simple fact is private citizens just aren't adequately or professionally trained in law enforcement.
And again, citing the 2nd Ammendment is argumentative at best, the courts keep backtracking and reversing their position on this. The text is for state militias to prevent federal dictatorship in the event of a malaevolant national leadership (strictly speaking formal state paramilitaries to prevent a monarchy forming) and relates to a specific political period, it is very argumentative to interpret this as personal protection from crime today, no less than representative in the extreme and cannot be clearly demonstrated to be the intention of the document. It is definitely not what the document is discussing, and the argument for it is being representative, many would say completely irrelevant.
Crime is political you say, but no it is about law enforcement. The environment of crime is political.
Want fewer people attacking you in your homes, your cars with threats to kill? Fix your sociology and wealth distribution. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/23/2009 10:21:07 AM |
Face it, the only justification for carrying in any built up area is for policing purposes (ie. enforcing self defence laws or other protection laws) and the simple fact is private citizens just aren't adequately or professionally trained in law enforcement /quote]
Actually many citizens who take it seriously train just as much, if not more, than your average LEO. As an LEO you only have to requalify once or twice a year in most places. Your average citizen who carries on a regular bases trains much more than that, and has possibly taken advanced courses in it | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/23/2009 10:58:15 AM |
Face it, the only justification for carrying in any built up area is for policing purposes (ie. enforcing self defence laws or other protection laws) and the simple fact is private citizens just aren't adequately or professionally trained in law enforcement.
How odd that technically a police officer is not responsible for your safety. They are not body guards. They can only take action when a crime is commited or being committed. By the time a cop takes action, it won't really matter anymore.
Yes, most citizens are not trained to enforce the laws, I agree, most of us don't even know all of the laws on the books. That would require a law or at the very least CJ degree. However, when it comes to using a firearm, most cops are horridly under-trained and I have had to remedy quite a few bad habits at the range. Most brag about shooting "once every 3 months". Pathetic. I think LE should fire 100 rounds a week, bare minimum, even with the increase in ammo prices. 50 rounds every 3 months is horrid. Back before I was immersed in getting my degree, I would go through 2-300 rounds a week on average. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 8/23/2009 4:18:18 PM | The average CCW licensee in Florida tends to be a better shot & more learned on Florida gun laws than the average LEO. Especially those who are members of IDPA & IPSC target shooting clubs.
I took the time to order a CCW badge & ID holder that fits on my belt when carrying concealed...it saves one all kinds of grief when you can simply hand your badge & license over to any questioning LEO's. Most of them know how good the course is...and also know that Florida CCW licensees are trained far better than the National average. So far, incidents with Florida CCW licensees have been above board since the program took effect...having knowledge of the specific laws tends to make one careful of how one approaches any possible firing solutions.
I also think the level of training that a person recieves in firearms should quite simply....be left up to themselves. Gov't screws up a LOT of things by getting involved. In fact, these folks that want Gov't health care should seriously look at how fawked up the VA is...if there's one thing NOBODY wants, it's Civilian Gov't intervention.
While I've been well trained, first by Family, then by Boy Scouts, then by the Military, and finally by the state of Florida (not even counting all the shooting sports I do like SASS, IDPA, IPSC & Appleseed)...but I honestly don't suggest that any of it ever be Manditory EXCEPT in the pursuit of a CCW license or job in Law Enforcement/Military. | |
|
|
| Page 33 of 37
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 |
|
Home
login 
