Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > for the gun control people [CLOSED      Home login  
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 26
view profile
for the gun control peoplePage 2 of 19    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
RSwindol says "I will say that if a gun is ever used for self defense,then a law has been broken."

Defending yourself,or your family, from an intruder in your own home is breaking the law? On what planet?

I never said that the person using the gun in self defense was the one breaking the law. I simply said that if a gun is every used in self defense, then a law has been broken. As far as your example of defending yourself or your family from an intruder goes...the intruder would be breaking the law.

The reason that I point this out is because you claim that the reason you do not hear about the successful use of a gun in an act of self defense is because it was a "non crime". But I am hear to tell you that if a gun is ever pulled in self defense, it is a fairly safe bet that a crime has been committed. Otherwise, why would the gun be pulled? Unless you are in the habit of just pulling guns on people for no reason. At which point I would say that a crime was still YOU.

Some cops never use their weapon in their entire career.

Now remember, we are not talking about necessarily shooting the gun. You statistic also stated that many times the guns were never fired. You would be hard pressed to find a career cop who never had to at least pull his gun out in defense.

Which would mean that some cops are using theirs way too much,don't you think?

Hey, some cops are on drug raid teams and use their guns on a weekly basis. Once again, this doesn't mean the guns were discharged.

Think about that the next time you're telling your daughter to yell "FIRE!" as someone is trying to throw her into a van.

The reason a woman should yell "Fire" when she is being attacked is because statistics show that people are more apt to respond to the word "Fire" than they are to "Help". Any current personal security consultant should know these tips.

And, why should store clerks be allowed to carry but not you or me? You may not feel as though your life is worth saving, but I'm not done with mine.

Ahh, the assumptions that gun owners make. You may want to read twice before posting a response. When did I ever say that law abiding citizens like you or I should not be allowed to carry guns? NEVER!!! I think you missed my entire point. Gun control is not about taking guns away from law abiding, able minded citizens. It's about preventing criminals and unstable individuals from obtaining them.
Joined: 4/1/2008
Msg: 27
for the gun control people
Posted: 6/11/2008 6:17:53 AM

I think you missed my entire point. Gun control is not about taking guns away from law abiding, able minded citizens. It's about preventing criminals and unstable individuals from obtaining them.

Gun control in my country is taking away handguns, which helps nothing.
Joined: 9/4/2005
Msg: 28
view profile
for the gun control people
Posted: 6/11/2008 9:57:23 AM
The QUOTE above makes alot of sense. Gun control is NOT taking guns away from qualified people. People can use them for target shooting, self protection or hunting. Those uses are legitimate and should be allowed. Heck, I love venison (yum!)

Seriously, someone who used a gun to protect his home and family in self defense should not be put on trial for doing so. Such an experience would be traumatic enough without the aggravation of being put on trial.

DW of Smith & Wesson country and proud of it!!
Joined: 11/15/2007
Msg: 29
for the gun control people
Posted: 6/11/2008 9:59:14 AM
Galway girl - having a CCW means that if a bad guy gets the drop on you and takes yer wallet, you can pull it from hiding and shoot him in the back when he turns to run away. On the other hand, having a concealed weapon in the home is quite handy for getting rid of pesky burglars...just ask Joe Horn of Texas.

Of course, Size is actually what deters criminals...a recent survey amoung prisoners shows that they avoid targetting people who are taller/looked stronger than themselves Even When the Robber had a Gun!! 96% said they actively avoided confrontations with larger/stronger individuals...go figure.

Until we can afford to put a Bobby on every corner and somehow manage to dispose of the 42 guns per person in the world (not counting those that will be manufactured this year...) at present, crime's not going to stop. Because then you'd have to deal with all the sword/knife/axe wielding 6'foot-plus bungholes that couldn't be stopped unless you had a gun.

It isn't the most wonderful system, but arming EVERY man & woman over the age of 18 is really the only solution. It would increase homicides slightly, but just imagine how much more polite folks would be then?? And as the past has already shown, in a town where everyone is armed, every crime BUT homicide goes down precipitously.

Actually, in one city in the US, they require every male over 18 to have a weapon...their crime rate is VERY, VERY, LOW. And homicides, strangely, didn't increase at all for the last 4 years. it just made everyone much, much NICER.
Joined: 3/13/2006
Msg: 30
view profile
for the gun control people
Posted: 6/11/2008 4:01:12 PM
july morning if your attempting to insinuate that there are more guns in new york city then the whole state of vermont there maybe a little problem with your reasoning skills. Especially considering the restrictive gun laws in that city. not to mention that in washington D.C. a law abiding citizen is not allowed to own a firearm not even a police officer is allowed to bring a weapon home without the chiefs permission.

The point the previous poster was making was that the ability of the average LAW ABIDING person to purchase, if they choose, a firearm in the state of vermont has had the affect of reducing crime in that state contrary to what the gun control people belived would happen. Now in places like washington D.C. and NYC that have severly restrictive gun laws where the average LAW ABIDING person cannot purchase or own a firearm the crime rate is extrememly high.

Galwaygirl is correct on the 20 ft rule, in every combat pistol course and defensive tactics course I have been through, and in the acadamey you are taught that if a suspect with a knife or other weapon is at or within 20 ft do not try to draw your weapon instead go to hand to hand or use your PR or ASP. Thats for an officer using a standard side carry retention holster, we are not talking about breakaway or speed draw holsters. IPSC courses I have taken dealt with ways to combat the 20 ft rule, but that was IPSC and not POST certification.
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 31
view profile
for the gun control people
Posted: 6/11/2008 4:43:27 PM
btw, Are you in the personal security business, since you seem to know what "current" consultants should know.

I'm not in the personal security business per se, but I am a licensed Private Investigator. It's not my primary job, but it makes me a few extra bucks on the side and I also go to a few seminars a year based on the investigation field. Personal security is always a priority while in the field. Yelling "Fire" instead of "Help" is something that I learned at one early last year.

Here is something that you may find interesting. This data is a bit old because statistics and reports like these are hard to come by. But it still makes sense.

* Persons who have used firearms to settle disputes often believe that they prevented assault. In fact, it is often impossible to tell whether or not an assault would have actually taken place had the gun not been used. In fact, in a survey of prison inmates, 63% of those who fired guns during their crimes described their actions as self defense.
*****This one-sided perception alone is enough to drastically skew statistics******

* National Crime Victimization Survey (A crime victimization statistics leader) interviewers only ask about self defense when a respondent actually reports a crime.
*****So For all of the people out there who pull a gun on their attacker and end up getting killed in doing so, there is no data. Only people who survived the attack are surveyed. This too skews the data to make it seem as if there is little risk in retaliating with a firearm.******

*The National Crime Victimization Survey estimates implies that firearms should not be disregarded as a defense against crime. Yet the results also show that defensive gun use is infrequent compared to incidence of crime. Altogether their results suggest that criminals face little threat from armed victims.
******The are multiple reasons for this, but the main reason would be that the assailant typically has the element of surprise on his side.******

Also, as I said before, my stats are for the use of firearms for defense by civilians,not cops

Can you provide me a link to these stats? Because The National Crime Victimization Survey not only collects data from civilians, but also from police officers, so if the stats that you were providing me happened to come from this popular Survey organization, then I doubt that it was excluding police officers unless specifically expressed otherwise.

Again, I am not saying that people like you and I should not be allowed to carry guns. But I happen to believe that people are fooling themselves if they truly believe that they are much more safe by carrying a gun.

An armed attacker is much more likely to use his weapon once he finds out that you have one too. Once he realizes that he has lost the upper hand, he will become desperate and even more irrational.
Joined: 3/13/2006
Msg: 32
view profile
for the gun control people
Posted: 6/11/2008 8:54:03 PM
July morning the whole point is that if the government outlawed guns then yes no LAW ABIDING citizen would have a gun. However criminals would still have guns because they dont abide by the law in the first place. It is a wonderful dream that if a law was passed that all would abide by it, hell if that were the case there would be no crime and no need for guns in the first place. But that is sadly not the case.

The only arguments I grasp at are the ones that you yourself try to use. you didnt state per capita you asked for a flat number of how many guns. Its not my fault that you framed the question incorrectly.

You also still didnt answer the question of washington D.C. where no private civilian may own a firearm. Yet the crime rate is still very high. only criminals there have guns and the police, and some police cant take thier weapon off duty.

You have yet to actually counter any argument its sad really. You framed a question in one way you were answered and then add a new cavet to the question like it was your intention the whole time. You then flippently suggest that some one should kill themselves. I truly dont understand if your trying to be funny or are just bent. I am leaning toward a measure of both.
Joined: 1/9/2008
Msg: 33
for the gun control people
Posted: 6/11/2008 9:28:01 PM
It's actually pretty simple for those that say only criminals will have guns if they are "banned".
Most guns that are obtained by criminals are stolen from legal owners... if people are not allowed to legally own them then.... umm where are they gonna come from?

Most of Canadas illegal guns come from the US...

Think long term.

Importing guns from other countries just is not profitable.

Besides... no one has ever suggested banning guns... just restricting them.

If we are just gonna make up stats (as most of you have done) then 90% of americans have no NEED for a gun... grow up
Joined: 3/13/2006
Msg: 34
view profile
for the gun control people
Posted: 6/11/2008 10:10:05 PM
The problem is those that think that banning all guns will some how magically make all crime disolve. Like there wasnt mass killings and crime before firearms. I have no problems with the current laws in effect restricting gun ownership, I just dont think there has to be more restrictions. We just need to enforce the restrictions currently in place. A criminal will find a way to get a gun even if they have to make one. It isnt hard anyone can do it, if you think criminals lack the imagination ask a convict how to make a shiv from a regular plastic trash bag that can pierce through a metal filing cabnet. You are correct in one respect some one does need to grow up.
Joined: 11/28/2005
Msg: 35
for the gun control people
Posted: 6/12/2008 3:11:35 AM

Are there fewer firearms in NYC, Baltimore, Washingtod DC, Chicago, Vermont, etc.?

You did not address the issue of the number of guns, only the ease of their availability for purchasing and carrying around.

You did not say anything about their numbers.

Your points are null and void, from the point of view of answering my statement and trying to prove it wrong. Sorry.

nyc has very strict gun regulation. you literally can't own one unless you're a government employee. that is about as much gun control as any city will ever have... and there are many gun related crimes. does gun control stop gun related crime? hardly. if you want to talk about numbers, there you go. your 0 guns per 1000 people argument makes absolutely no sense, because you are talking about regulated firearms, not unregulated. the problem that people seem to have is assuming that regulating firearms takes the firearms out of the hands of criminals, because they always forget to consider the illegal weapons that aren't being regulated. the restrictions on the everyday citizen are high, and as long as they are enforced, guns won't be sold legally to criminals. that doesn't stop criminals from buying firearms from other criminals....and we want the government to try to prevent it? they can't control drugs, why would we assume they could control guns?

numbers aside.. (what numbers we're really talking about, i don't know..), i stand by my assumption that gun violence is just another form of violence, and it can't be stopped with laws and regulations, since violence itself is illegal. the biggest way to combat violence is education. one example of ass backwards politics is that in nys, the unemployment office can force you to stop going to college if a job presents itself, no matter what kind of job it is. talk about teaching blind men to fish...or however that goes. if you really look at the stupid regulations that this country has instituted, it really makes you wonder if more regulation is needed.

so what, we ban guns across the board in the usa. let's paint a picture. so what you're really saying is that now every law abiding citizen doesn't have a gun. how has this exactly taken the guns out of the hands of criminals? do the police go through the streets, searching everybody, including their homes, cars, etc.. how many rights are we willing to give up for this ban exactly. so what, you take the legal guns.. those guns aren't the ones causing the problems in the first place. but whatever. where was i... oh yeah, and the price of firearms just went up (supply and demand, because now that nobody has them, everybody wants them), and now there's this huge surplus of weapons sitting around in various places...and believe me, where there's government, there's corruption. so those weapons flood the streets (or in a fairy tale world, they don't..., but for argument's sake, they do), lacking their serial numbers, into the hands of anybody with the cash. luckily, the dea has done such a great job in preventing drug trafficing that for criminals to afford the new higher price of weapons, they merely have to sell a few more bags of crack a day for a week. even if every legally obtained gun gets melted down into a little metallic flower, i don't see how any of this took the illegal weapons off the streets. sure, people will be less likely to throw the gun into a river after committing a murder, but as we saw with australia, violent crime will just rise.

people are so hellbent on a socialist government, but when we get there.. they're all going to be ****ing. canada's great, right? how much do you guys pay in taxes? how long does it take to see a specialist when you're sick? sure, you have less crime.. but you have less people, and less illegal immigration. while i won't blame all of our problems on the illegals, i will say that ms13 definitely knows how to kill people around here. and guess what. they use knives usually. lack of education breeds poverty, poverty breeds crime... illegal immigrants are generally uneducated and poor. i can't wait for that highway from mexico to canada to be built.... maybe they'll just keep driving through. this is a completely different debate though, so feel free to not respond.
Joined: 11/28/2005
Msg: 36
for the gun control people
Posted: 6/12/2008 3:36:03 AM
oh, and while we're talking numbers, here's some random statistics that i thought were amusing.

there are virtually no cases where a person was armed, and their gun was taken and used against them. 98% of attempted rapes fail against women who are armed. though, the founder of handgun control inc once said that women should just give the attacker what they want, and not try to use a weapon. american gun owners use their guns almost 2 and a half million times per year to ward off criminal attackers. most of the time, the guns aren't even fired, but the presence is more than enough to prevent an attack.

oh, and here's a breakdown of the current federal gun regulations:

Prevent possession of a firearm or ammunition by anyone who:
-Has been convicted of a felony
-Uses or is addicted to illegal drugs
-Has been adjudicated mentally ill or committed to a mental institution
-Is an illegal alien or in the country under a nonimmigrant visa
-Was dishonorably discharged from the military
-Has renounced U.S. citizenship
-Is a fugitive from justice
-Has been convicted of domestic violence or is under a restraining order related to domestic violence

what more do we need? if your social ends with any number between 23 and 32? or random denials of permits for no apparent reason?
Joined: 11/15/2007
Msg: 37
for the gun control people
Posted: 6/12/2008 7:26:58 AM
July, you crack me up. Nice red herring arguments, though.

Do you have any idea how long it would TAKE for ALL the guns to be collected?? We're talking DECADES here. There are 22 guns per person for every person in the World currently in circulation. That's not even counting those made This Year. the US average is 42 guns per person.

Canadians have guns. They also have very strict licensing rules. There also are not very many Canadians per capita other than in large cities like Toronto. So, much like Rural areas in the US, there isn't much crime. I'll also state that Canadian on the whole over the last 200 years have been a very polite people. New Yorkers & other "big city" americans, on the other hand...well, politeness really doesn't exist there. And one other thing...most of Canada is colder than Hades for about 6 months of the year...what fool in their right mind is going to stand in an alley and wait in sub-zero temps for HOURS to find a victim?? Not too many, eh? Canada is a totally different world in comparison to the US.

School shootings have been happening in other countries Before and After Columbine. Ever hear of the Beslan School shooting?? How about the Mercaz HaRav Massacre?? The Dunblane Massacre in Scotland?? C'mon, do your homework. Just because you are a rabid anti-gunner does not mean that you cannot put forth proper logical arguments.

One other thing...any moron can make a gun in a short amount of time from takes a slightly smarter one to make you will NEVER get rid of all guns, but even if you do , there will be those who will build NEW ones illegally for criminal purposes. All it takes is a drill, a 4x4, a rubber band, and a nail...bulky, but workable. Or a piece of pipe, an end cap, a drill, a fuse, and a matchlock. Guns & ammo are EASY to cannot ever get rid of them even if you closed down every firearm manufacturer in the world.

Bear in mind also that blackpowder weapons are not required to be registered by US nor Canadian Law. There are literally millions of them out there and there are NO files on who owns them at all. And let us not forget Flare Pistols while we are at it...

No Guns-No related Gun Crimes?? MEADOW MUFFINS!! The 1988 Firearms Act in the UK banned all centerfire rifles and all shotguns that held more than two rounds, not to mention handguns, but oddly the violent gun crime rate is quote the Rt Hon Dominic Grieve, "The strangest irony is that, ever since the trend that is now culminating in the destruction of shooting clubs began, the level of violence with handguns and all forms of weaponry has been rising. I believe that the two are linked. The more we get down to selfish, individualistic forms of society. They are tolerated, because the House has never addressed the problem of how the culture of violence is foisted on our society. It has nothing whatever to do with gun clubs. I am utterly convinced that it will have no bearing whatever on reducing the incidence of violence through the use of handguns. On the contrary; I am convinced that it will do the reverse. By destroying shooting clubs, which have served this country well by channelling that recreation and enthusiasm, we shall create more problems for ourselves. We disregard that at our peril." Even the BRITS realize that gun bans don't work.

Switzerland requires EVERY male citizen to own a an awfully low violent crime rate, don't they?? In fact, it's LOWER than any other country per capita. Gee, ya think they MIGHT be on to something there??

The US can NEVER really be compared to Canada, or for that matter, the vast majority of countries simply because of the way we were formed, the way we have built the country from "Sea to shining sea", and the general ornryness of the people therein. We cherish our freedoms, even if it means that sometimes those freedoms bite us in the butt. For example, only in the US would we RE-introduce Grizzley Bears (which eat about 3 people a year)...sure, lets add MORE ways to die/get horribly maimed to our country. Like we don't have enough SUV's doing that already.

Furthur, we're still going to need our guns to shoot those stinkin drug runners that are crossing our border daily. As long as there are drug runners headed our way with cocaine strapped to their backs, we're going to need guns. We face incursions by heavily armed smugglers multiple times a day, not to even mention the heavily armed DRUG USERS Canucks don't really have that problem...and you Canucks also don't have a clue what goes on down here. So SHADDAP AND SIT DOWN.
Joined: 11/28/2005
Msg: 38
for the gun control people
Posted: 6/12/2008 12:28:12 PM
i love the assumption that every country in the world would get weapons if they were to have weapons. canada doesn't have a gun problem, yet its criminals get their guns from the us? isn't that a problem? and they get them from the us because its logically the place to get guns, considering they're legal here, and we're kinda right under you guys. its not our fault that your borders still suck and you can't keep the guns off your own streets. do school shootings happen in in other countries? yes.

Have you ever heard of school kids shooting each other down in any other country? This is the disgrace of your society, and perfectly preventable by banning guns.

March 13, 1996
Dunblane, Scotland
16 children and one teacher killed at Dunblane Primary School by Thomas Hamilton, who then killed himself. 10 others wounded in attack.

March 1997
Sanaa, Yemen
Eight people (six students and two others) at two schools killed by Mohammad Ahman al-Naziri.

April 28, 1999
Taber, Alberta, Canada
Six students injured at Heritage High School by Thomas Solomon, 15, who was reportedly depressed after breaking up with his girlfriend.

Dec. 7, 1999
Veghel, Netherlands
Six students injured at Heritage High School by Thomas Solomon, 15, who was reportedly depressed after breaking up with his girlfriend.

March 2000
Branneburg, Germany
One teacher killed by a 15-year-old student, who then shot himself. The shooter has been in a coma ever since.

April 26, 2002
Erfurt, Germany
13 teachers, two students, and one policeman killed, ten wounded by Robert Steinhaeuser, 19, at the Johann Gutenberg secondary school. Steinhaeuser then killed himself.

April 29, 2002
Vlasenica, Bosnia-Herzegovina
One teacher killed, one wounded by Dragoslav Petkovic, 17, who then killed himself.

October 28, 2002
Tucson, Ariz.
Robert S. Flores Jr., 41, a student at the nursing school at the University of Arizona, shot and killed three female professors and then himself.

Sept. 28, 2004
Carmen de Patagones, Argentina
Jeff Weise, 16, killed grandfather and companion, then arrived at school where he killed a teacher, a security guard, 5 students, and finally himself, leaving a total of 10 dead.

Sept. 13, 2006
Montreal, Canada
Kimveer Gill, 25, opened fire with a semiautomatic weapon at Dawson College. Anastasia De Sousa, 18, died and more than a dozen students and faculty were wounded before Gill killed himself.

Nov. 7, 2007
Tuusula, Finland
An 18-year-old student in southern Finland shot and killed five boys, two girls, and the female principal at Jokela High School. At least 10 others were injured. The gunman shot himself and died from his wounds in the hospital.

and yes, canada is also in there. don't tell me that other countries don't have the problems that this country does. you're just making up stories to further your argument, and its getting rediculous. have you ever left your country? lol, you act like you believe the american liberal media or something. trust me, the liberals are just good at spin, but the internet uncovers their lies. i've stated nothing but facts, and you've stated nothing but fiction and assumption. you think its going to take a while to take the guns off the streets if they were made illegal.... i say that if the guns aren't coming from one place, they'll come from another. the reason why so many illegal weapons come from "straw purchases" in our own country is merely because its the most logical place to get firearms. that doesn't mean that the criminals won't find otherways to get the guns, it just means that as of right now, they don't need to. just like canadian criminals get their guns from the us. they'll get them from other places if they can't from here, don't worry.

oh yeah, and about other countries not getting illegal weapons.... oh my god. what happened when the soviet union collapsed after the cold war? they had so many fucking guns they were doing air drops with them. i know this because my dad lived in cyprus at the time, and the turkish invaded, and they were giving them to the greeks, because they had no use for them. hell, they were even shipping TANKS for FREE. you want to talk about europe? there you go. russia. giving guns away. it happens.
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 39
view profile
for the gun control people
Posted: 6/12/2008 3:18:35 PM
The point I had hoped to express,and apparently did a poor job of, is that society as a whole is better off when it's citizens are allowed to exercise their right to self defense, and the best self defense is one you never need.

You didn't do a poor job at expressing yourself at all. I fully agree with you that citizens should be allowed to protect themselves. The only 2 problems that I see are these:

1. People are given the impression that the BEST option for self defense is firearms. This is not necessarily true even thought it is usually perceived as fact. There are many disadvantages regarding firearm defense if someone isn't properly trained (which the average person isn't).

2. We need to try all that we can to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, psychopaths, minors, and others. We are not even coming close to doing a sufficient job here. Yes it may add a little inconvenience and paperwork for those of us who are legal gun carrying citizens. But what is a little inconvenience when it comes to making our country more safe? Isn't that the reason that we law abiding citizens buy the guns in the first place? For extra security?

The more easy it is for us to buy a gun, the more easy it is for criminals to get them too.
Joined: 11/15/2007
Msg: 40
for the gun control people
Posted: 6/13/2008 6:23:48 AM
Originally, all I had was my duty revolver (.357) which I replaced with a 9mm in the early 90's along with a single-shot shotgun (12 gauge) & a .22 rifle for hunting. After spending a little time with the Army I decided to join SASS (Cowboy Shooting) and got a brace of revolvers, a carbine, and a double-barrelled shotgun. After a few years of shooting I then purchased a myriad assortment of weapons from pawn shops...lots of High-Capacity stuff just so it'd never see the light of day in a druggie's hands again. Resold a bunch to RESPONSIBLE people, like cops, firefighters & EMT's after 9/11...might as well have the Right people armed with Tec-9's, eh? Plus I really don't need THAT many guns...I'm down to just enough to fit in the

Shooting sports are very enjoyable, especially the SASS & IDPA. Most of us get fifty times the amount of range time the average cop gets (average cop spends about two weeks a year at a range)...which is kinda sad. I can empty two single-action six-guns faster & more accurately than most cops can empty a Glock. Which leads to the Big Point...PROPERLY TRAINED GUN OWNING CIVILIANS ARE MORE CAPABLE OF DEFENSE THAN COPS. Want proof?? Just go to an IDPA match and watch local cops get outshot time & time again by CIVILIANS. I'll also point out that a LOT of SASS, IDPA, IPSC members are former & current military, retired cops, firefighters...generally responsible people. We're the ones who buy the big concrete-filled gun safes and stick them in our closets behind a brand-new steel door with a V-lock. We are the ones who will step forward into the breech when no one else will. We are the Joe Horns. And we are YOUR best final line of defense when the squishy hits the fan. there is no country in the world that wants to try to invade the US because we citizens are almost as well-armed (some better, hehehe) as our military...although those dang Mexicans are getting annoying on the invading part...we've got enough landscapers & fruitpickers now, thankyouverymuch.
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 41
view profile
for the gun control people
Posted: 6/14/2008 8:12:08 AM


I almost agree with that sentence. It should read "Properly trained gun owning civilians are more capable of defense than an AVERAGE cop". Because their are some officers who are like you and to take pleasure in range shooting outside of their job. In fact, there are a few cops in my home town who have formed a competitive shooting team.

It's like I said before, I am not worried about responsible people having guns. It's the irresponsible people that I am worried about. And the only way to help prevent the irresponsible people from getting them is to throw up a little more red tape. The responsible, legal people will still be able to get them, so they have nothing to worry about. But the irresponsible people will have a harder time. And that's never bad.
Joined: 11/15/2007
Msg: 42
for the gun control people
Posted: 6/14/2008 8:05:16 PM
10-20-life...that's Florida's's working nicely. Of course, it's assisted by the CCW program that is in force.

The irresponsible people have LESS of a hard time getting a weapon than a civilian who has no record. Reason for this is that the crook can trade/buy a stolen/passed around weapon cheaply...and there's no background check in the 'hood...just ask Dylan Klebold (columbine)...he never filled out firearms paperwork. Wonder what idiot sold him the Tec-9?

The paperwork and background check for firearms currently is quite sufficient...Even at Florida Gun Shows now if they don't have a CCW or FFL a seller must place the gun with a local dealer for the Waiting Period.

If all gun owners would use safes, there would be less stolen ones floating around...and I mean the GOOD safes, not the cheezy cheap aluminum ones. Compund that with a dog & an alarm system...not to mention a booby trap or two...hehehe...and crooks won't be touching your weapons anytime soon

The biggest problem that police officers currently face is the lack of shooting ranges to go to. Where I live one almost closed down due to noise complaints, but then the local LE's and the public raised the folks offended by the noise are selling their property and gun owners are buying it...(of course, any idiot that moves next door to a gun range knew what he was getting into in the first place...)...which keeps the ONLY range in the county open for biz. Which is good because I'd have just gone to the backside of a wooded lot for practice if it had closed. They think they had noise problems before?? HAH!
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 43
view profile
for the gun control people
Posted: 6/15/2008 6:04:44 AM

The irresponsible people have LESS of a hard time getting a weapon than a civilian who has no record. Reason for this is that the crook can trade/buy a stolen/passed around weapon cheaply...and there's no background check in the 'hood...just ask Dylan Klebold (columbine)...he never filled out firearms paperwork. Wonder what idiot sold him the Tec-9?

That's just it. Background checks are sufficient only if you make everyone go through them. But I have a hard time considering a background check sufficient when you can get around them so easily. If you will notice in one of my early suggestion for gun control, I think we should make it mandatory for all firearm transactions to be overseen by a licensed dealer. If no licensed dealer is present, then it becomes an illegal transaction. By doing this, yes, responsible people will have more paperwork to do when buying from a friend or another individual. But it will also help prevent guns from entering the hands of criminals.
Joined: 11/15/2007
Msg: 44
for the gun control people
Posted: 6/15/2008 6:23:07 AM

You people have a logic that's just completely unreal. What on earth makes you think a crook would actually do the Legitimate Thing?? That's what makes them CROOKS. DUH!

B'sides, some concerned citizens are already buying guns from bad guys...just to get them off the streets. I trade 'em in on nice new toys for me to play with :) A .38, a 9mm, and a .45 got me a nice new rabbit-eared 12 ga Shotgun at a local gun shop. Why BUY new cowboy action guns when you can just trade for 'em & get bad guy's guns offa the street??
Joined: 11/15/2007
Msg: 45
for the gun control people
Posted: 6/15/2008 6:24:03 AM
Rules for a Gunfight
1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.

2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap - life is expensive.

3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.

4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly.

5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)

6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.

7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.

8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.

9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME. "All skill is in vain when an Angel blows the powder from the flintlock of your musket."

10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.

11. Always cheat, always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.

12. Have a plan.

13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.

14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.

15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.

16. Don't drop your guard.

17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.

18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them.)

19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.

20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.

21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.

23. Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

24. Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with anything smaller than "4".

25. You can't miss fast enough to win
Joined: 11/15/2007
Msg: 46
for the gun control people
Posted: 6/15/2008 9:20:46 PM
The people of Canada have a completely different lifestyle than those in the US...and with the tendancy of Canadians to be nice & polite, few are going to lean towards crime anyway...when you add in that Canada has a far smaller population of blacks & mexicans, you quickly realize that there are just plain FEWER CRIMINALS and fewer likely to become criminals.

Add in that's it's just too damned cold for 8 months of the year to BE a bad guy...and there you are.
Joined: 4/1/2008
Msg: 47
for the gun control people
Posted: 6/16/2008 1:01:23 AM
Canadas gun laws need updating since we are no longer in the 1800's. One big problem I have with our gun laws ins the classing of rifles an ar-15 as well as a lot of other long arms should be non restricted.
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 48
view profile
for the gun control people
Posted: 6/16/2008 3:24:22 PM
You people have a logic that's just completely unreal. What on earth makes you think a crook would actually do the Legitimate Thing?? That's what makes them CROOKS. DUH!

I agree with that logic 100%. Criminals look for ways to get around the system. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't at least TRY to make it harder for them.

Here is an example of what I am talking about: If a criminal buys a gun from a private seller, current laws tell us that no background check needs to be attained. Because of this, the private seller has no reason to not sell him the gun. As far as he is concerned, there are little if any repercussions if the gun is used in a crime. He can simply use the excuse that he didn't know that the buyer was a criminal.

Now, let's look at scenario number 2. If it is made mandatory for a licensed dealer to be at each firearm transaction, then you now have a responsible party member (other than the criminal buyer) with something to lose. At this point there would be a background check which would make it much more difficult for the criminal to get the gun. And if the buyer and seller decided to not abide by the law and continue with a transaction without the presence of a licensed dealer, then both parties can and will be held responsible. At this point in time, the seller can no longer use the excuse "I didn't know he was a criminal".

To say that gun control shouldn't be established since criminals aren't going to abide by it is like saying, Theft shouldn't be illegal since thieves are criminals and are therefore going to do it whether it's legal or not.

You people have a logic that's just completely unreal.

By leaving gaping holes and easily accessible bypasses around the law, you might as well be handing criminals guns.

Most gun owners say that they have guns for protection. But did you ever stop to think that if we would at least TRY to make it more difficult for the criminals to get the guns, that you may not NEED that protection so much? If you ask me, that is unrealistic logic.

You might as well just throw your hand in the air and say "Well, since they are going to try to get them anyway, we might as well let them have them."
Joined: 3/13/2006
Msg: 49
view profile
for the gun control people
Posted: 6/16/2008 4:37:07 PM
rswindol that already takes place in most states. Such as california in order to sell a privately owned firearm someone with a federal firearms license has to hold the gun and the party purchasing it has to go through the ten day wait and background check. But as you know in california the criminals are still getting the guns. Now other states may have different laws with different results. Now you have to balance a states right to govern itself versus the federal governments wish to have uniformity across the board. But what some see as trying to streamline the laws for public safety others see the federal goverment trying to do away with a states right at self government. The federal government uses public safety for a varity of reasons but they all seem to chip away at state soverinty (sp?) and individual rights. Not too long ago any federal website you visited placed a tracking cookie on your computor and then bang now uncle sam knows what you view and do at all times. Facial recognition cameras on street corners. Randomized wire taps. While all of this may seem like conspiracy theory garbage this is stuff that is or has happened. The wire taps happened after sept 11 then they legalised it with the patriot act. they continued to do it on random people until there was a stink made about it on the news. The cookies where removed after a stink was made on the news. Then you had the FBI's computor called CARNIVOR which could snatch any email sent without your knowing about it and they could set it for key phrases. A huge stink was made about that one in time magazine.

The federal government is already chipping away at our rights. Why make it any easier for them under the pretense of making things safer. When its not going to do anything but hinder an honest person, and do nothing to deter a criminal. The laws in place are more then adequate they just need to be enforced. One of the things that you should be concerned about is ask your self this "Why did the federal government mandate background checks, waiting periods, diffenitions of prohibited persons, and the federal firearms dealer licensing requirements. But then fail to fund the system or streamline it so that the systems can communicate from state to state..?" Isnt that setting up the system for failure? Why would you want the system to fail? Unless you wanted there to be such a public outcry that eventually people would want all guns banned including those purchased legally.

Anyone hear the fable of the boiling frog? If you put a frog in boiling water it will just hop out because its too hot. But if you put the frog in tepid water then slowly raise the temperature it will stay in the pot until it boils to death. The moral of the story is that people are alot like that. If you take a man or womans rights away in one fell swoop you will have a revolution on your hands. But if you slowly whittle their rights away slowly and over time, throw in words like national security, public safety, and greater good, people will more then likely follow what is told to them like sheep.

Once you start letting the government take your rights away how do you make them stop?
Joined: 11/15/2007
Msg: 50
for the gun control people
Posted: 6/17/2008 9:23:36 AM
I hate to say it, but I don't think that everyone should be able to OWN an AR-15. For that matter one SHOULD be required to have at least a CCW or create a special weapons license to own anything that operates with a magazine that contains more than 10 rounds.

I also believe that all legitimate gun sales should be done through a dealer or Curio & Relic licensees for Antique weapons. C&R is FEDERAL and quite thorough.

I DO NOT believe that High-Capacity Weapons should be banned. There are legitimate uses...they're also few & far between.

I have no problem with EVERY pistol owner being required to have some form of license. For a should be able to recieve a Temporary Permit after passing a background check, for immediate protection, and maintain the current Brady Bill waiting period and require that they complete the CCW course or come up with a Defensive Pistol Course & License with regular class requirements for non-LE/military. Keep it state by state with national requirement.

For High-capacity weapons (pistol or rifle) a CCW at the MINIMUM. The requirements for CCW in Florida are more than sufficient to be a good national standard. Mayhaps create a High-Capacity license for rifles that does not include the ability to carry concealed, just to be able to own/use a high-capacity rifle like the AR-15, AK-47, etc...

For single-shot or lever-action rifles and single/double shotguns, a standard background check & a Brady Bill waiting period should be more than sufficient. Rarely does anyone need a hunting gun Immediately.

For all blackpowder weapons, Same as the single-shot restrictions. Currently in the US there are NO restrictions on who can purchase a blackpowder muzzleloader other than age.

of course, if we could actually TRUST our gov't to actually SECURE our borders...we MIGHT be able to trust them with that sort of legislation...but so far, our southern border is as pourous as a SPONGE...and there is absolutely NO reason to even bother with tighter restrictions on guns or drugs until the border problems are resolved. WHY?? Because they won't WORK until it's resolved, dork!

I wanna be able to shoot those danged druggies as fast as they run across the border...but even that is illegal Legalize regular citizens to patrol our borders with lethal force and you won't HAVE a border problem. You will have a cemetary problem... One pissed-off redneck per mile and the border will become very, very quiet, except for the occasional gunshot.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > for the gun control people [CLOSED