Guns

[Shabbernigdo]

If I can make a comment regarding firearms, as was the original topic...

I have mixed feelings regarding the possession of firearms. One one hand, I believe that there is no reason for civilians to own fully automatic weapons, but I do support ownership of pistols/revolvers/long guns, for sport shooting and personal defense. 

( There is no real need for a civilian to have fully automatic weapons. Its a want. But if we all only went and bought just what we need it would be a very boring life. )

In the end, what I really hate is the cowboy gun owners.  The one's who flaunt their right to carry, bringing oversize revolvers to gatherings, demanding that they be allowed to carry wherever they choose, and such. 

Yeah i agree the ones who like to flash there gun at the drop of a hat or they wont shut up about how awsome there gun is do get rather iritating.
Bringin large revolvers to meetings i dont really see a problem with specially if its an arms gathering.
As for demanding to carry any where they want as long as its legal in there area i dont see a problem with this either. If there in the legal right and some one is giving them crap because they choose to carry then i dont see a problem with them giving the person / busness hell.

[Furlong]

If I can make a comment regarding firearms, as was the original topic...

I have mixed feelings regarding the possession of firearms. One one hand, I believe that there is no reason for civilians to own fully automatic weapons, but I do support ownership of pistols/revolvers/long guns, for sport shooting and personal defense. 

( There is no real need for a civilian to have fully automatic weapons. Its a want. But if we all only went and bought just what we need it would be a very boring life. )

In the end, what I really hate is the cowboy gun owners.  The one's who flaunt their right to carry, bringing oversize revolvers to gatherings, demanding that they be allowed to carry wherever they choose, and such. 

Yeah i agree the ones who like to flash there gun at the drop of a hat or they wont shut up about how awsome there gun is do get rather iritating.
Bringin large revolvers to meetings i dont really see a problem with specially if its an arms gathering.
As for demanding to carry any where they want as long as its legal in there area i dont see a problem with this either. If there in the legal right and some one is giving them crap because they choose to carry then i dont see a problem with them giving the person / busness hell.

That's the thing though, most private businesses can make the decision to not allow weapons on premises, and the customer needs to abide by those rules.  Gun conventions obviously are an except in to my not liking guns in large gatherings rule.  But what about a Sci-Fi/Anime/Furry Convention? 

[Shabbernigdo]

But what about a Sci-Fi/Anime/Furry Convention?

ide rather they allow it. I carry any time i leave my house and insted of tryin to hide my perfectly legal firearm like some hoodlum ide like to be able to carry it on my person.  i know most of not all cons have plenty of secuity but they cant be everywhere all the time and it gives me pice of mind knowing if the **** hit the fan i would have the means to defend my self and not have to put my life in some one elses hands.

as for the private property thing i do see your point but depending on the buisness its not always there call if they can or cant allow firarms. Its the corporations.
For example the walmart near where i live pretty much escorted me out the door because i was open carying and they told me it was policy to not allow civilians to carry fire arms in the store. They were wrong. According to walmart coporate office walmart goes by the local laws and if they allow open carry in that area then the walmart store in that area does as well.

Now if its a small mom and pop buisness and they dont allow guns in the store then the gun owner should remove his / her firearm or find another store to do buisness with.

[Rocket T. Coyote]

It can be noted that fully-automatic weapons are seldom used to commit crimes. Bonnie & Clyde got the Browning BARs they used in their famous crime spree by first stealing them from a National Guard armory. I obtained a video, Machine Gun Magic, which shows  automatic weapons in private hands being demonstrated. Cleary an exciting program.
The procedure for obtaining such a gun is also outlined--Fill out the proper forms, Obtain a letter of approval from your police chief/sheriff, and pay a $200 fee. If getting law enforcement approval is a roadblock, then form a corporation. Such guns aren't cheap and owners can expect a visit from a government official to assure that the gun is stored properly.
Personally, I'm not sure I'd want a GE Minigun, but there are some in private hands. As long as they're used responsibly, ownership shouldn't be an issue.

_{As for self defense: It's important to bear in mind that when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.}

[Furlong]

 Shabbernigdo, I'd like to then ask you a question.  Are you honestly that much afraid for your safety that you feel a need to carry a firearm in WalMart?  It's not exactly an area known for violent crime, after all. 

This isn't the wild west anymore people, we don't need to defend our towns from the black hat gang anymore. 

And again, I don't have an issue with responsible gun ownership, for self defense of your home, and such.

[Shabbernigdo]

Shabbernigdo, I'd like to then ask you a question.  Are you honestly that much afraid for your safety that you feel a need to carry a firearm in WalMart?  It's not exactly an area known for violent crime, after all. 

This isn't the wild west anymore people, we don't need to defend our towns from the black hat gang anymore. 

And again, I don't have an issue with responsible gun ownership, for self defense of your home, and such.

Its not for fear its a just incase. The same reason people have first aid kits in there car. Just another form of insurance as i see it. No walmart isint know for violent crimes but agian neither is Krogers yet both brother and my dad where involved in roberys there during the middle of the day.

There are a lot of places that are not know for violent crimes but they do happen. college / malls / stores. Even if theres a one in a million chance you will every use it for self defence why not have it just in case. Even if you never draw you weapon. If an unsavory type knows you are able to defend your self or are not going be an easy mark they are more then likely gonna go find some one who dosent look like they can put up a fight / easy target.

Your right this isint the wild west any more a lot of the people are much worse now days and as i see it its only getting worse. A lot of people these days seem to be lacking a lot of morals or any form of common sence.

[Fen-Fen]

Pretty much my philosophy with guns in open areas is that it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. I am very much reminded of that recent shooting that took place in a school board meeting in Florida. A man came in after a vendetta against the school board for firing his wife and spray painted the letter "V" on the wall. He then took out his gun and shot at the school board president. If it were not for the guardsman keeping his gun in his car, the president would have probably been injured or worse.

It can happen anywhere. Restaurants, schools, churches, and pretty much any place can have this happen. Like I said before, I just cannot go downtown without my friend who conceal carries his .38 or .45 caliber firearm. Too many muggings, rapes, and shootings occur down there and while I am on the chubby side, I cannot fight against a man in all cases. I should have a right to protect myself in an area I feel unsafe in.

[Sk Skunk]

I'm not a fan of open carry, but there is a time and place for it. In many places it is allowed, and if someone wants to exercise their rights, they can. I am against open carry as a form of protest. Guns are a tool to be respected. Not something to be used to push an agenda. But that's me. At least so far, we can still make our statements in a more passive way. The whole freedom of speech thing. If that changes, we can then revert to the next amendment.

There is also the argument that concealed carry is safer than open. If I was intent to do harm, I would be more worried about the guns I cannot see. A whacked out bad guy might not be sensible enough to avoid or even temped to take the weapon. Police do train for this scenario, and it still happens. An old friend was a volunteer to his police department to train officers by playing the bad guy. He did this with great enthusiasm, and was able to take weapons, until the cops caught on to what he was doing. Of all the people I know that open carry, none have ever trained for this.

As a total aside, I really want to live fire a machine gun.

[Mr. Apple]

I personally love guns. They are my second hobby, and would be my first if they weren't as much of a taboo as they currently are. I go with what my dad says. An armed society... is a polite society. The only thing keeping society using guns for good is the fear of guns themselves leading to people not knowing how to use them, and when to use them. For defense purposes though, I would rather a taser. I would hate to have to kill somebody but I don't think guns should be controlled the way they are.

[Furlong]

I personally love guns. They are my second hobby, and would be my first if they weren't as much of a taboo as they currently are. I go with what my dad says. An armed society... is a polite society. The only thing keeping society using guns for good is the fear of guns themselves leading to people not knowing how to use them, and when to use them. For defense purposes though, I would rather a taser. I would hate to have to kill somebody but I don't think guns should be controlled the way they are.

I'm curious, you say that the only thing keeping guns from being user for good is a fear of them. I would ask you, then, what good can a gun do?  It is a tool with one purpose only, and that is ending another life, either for hunting or for killing. 

Guns also give a false sense of security.  Like many people who own cars with four wheel drive, a person who is carrying a gun is more likely to do something foolish, like intervene in a situation that they should not be getting involved in, and getting people killed. 

[Mr. Apple]

I personally love guns. They are my second hobby, and would be my first if they weren't as much of a taboo as they currently are. I go with what my dad says. An armed society... is a polite society. The only thing keeping society using guns for good is the fear of guns themselves leading to people not knowing how to use them, and when to use them. For defense purposes though, I would rather a taser. I would hate to have to kill somebody but I don't think guns should be controlled the way they are.

I'm curious, you say that the only thing keeping guns from being user for good is a fear of them. I would ask you, then, what good can a gun do?  It is a tool with one purpose only, and that is ending another life, either for hunting or for killing. 

Guns also give a false sense of security.  Like many people who own cars with four wheel drive, a person who is carrying a gun is more likely to do something foolish, like intervene in a situation that they should not be getting involved in, and getting people killed. 

Yes. The fear and "taboo" sense around weapons and firearms is preventing their use for good. Less and less people are teaching their children about firearms, and how to operate them safely and effectively. At least this is my theory.
Yes, the only thing that guns were specifically designed to do was to be weapons. This leads to a sad, but true fact: Sometimes, you NEED to take a life. No matter how rare the instance may be, there times when if a life is not taken, then more lives will be. Just look at the Virginia tech shooting that happened a while ago. Had that person been put down on the spot, then he wouldn't have murdered all those innocent people. I can see where your coming from, and I agree that people do do foolish and stupid things with guns, but walls are put up to keep the lazy people from climbing over. If there is a ban on all guns of all kinds, then the only people who will have them would be the people who want to kill someone so much that they will find a way. And if they can't, they will always use the next best thing.

[Fen-Fen]

I personally love guns. They are my second hobby, and would be my first if they weren't as much of a taboo as they currently are. I go with what my dad says. An armed society... is a polite society. The only thing keeping society using guns for good is the fear of guns themselves leading to people not knowing how to use them, and when to use them. For defense purposes though, I would rather a taser. I would hate to have to kill somebody but I don't think guns should be controlled the way they are.

I'm curious, you say that the only thing keeping guns from being user for good is a fear of them. I would ask you, then, what good can a gun do?  It is a tool with one purpose only, and that is ending another life, either for hunting or for killing. 

Guns also give a false sense of security.  Like many people who own cars with four wheel drive, a person who is carrying a gun is more likely to do something foolish, like intervene in a situation that they should not be getting involved in, and getting people killed. 

Unfortunately there may come a time where you need to take another person's life. Depending on what you carry and how far you are away from the person you may not necessarily take the person's life. Not all calibers can drop a man, but can do some damage. I also believe that if somebody is "man" enough to potentially take my life or cause severe harm to me then they are "man" enough to accept the same kind of punishment. More than likely, you'll feel worse about harming them than they are about harming you for whatever gain they may get from it.

I personally don't feel that the security is false at all. Worst case scenario happens, I have something that can protect me guaranteed. The police will take minutes to get to your home if something bad happens when everything can go downhill in a matter of SECONDS. There are also vast differences in your comparison of firearm-related deaths and vehicular-related deaths, Furlong. Per a 100,000 population, only 2.52% were involved in a firearm-related death while 14.8% were killed in vehicular-related accidents. It's also a lot easier for a criminal to get a car than it is to get a gun. Heck, it's easier for anybody to get a car than a gun if you do it through legal avenues.

[Rocket T. Coyote]

When the CCW laws were reformed here, the naysayers threw about all sorts of claims that one couldn't be stopped from bringing a gun to school, church, tavern, sports events: that blood would run in the streets, etc. Yet here we are several years after reform and none of those wild claims came to pass. CCW students are trained to avoid dangerous situations, but also to shoot at the center of mass and to keep shooting until the attack stops. The courses are quite popular here.

Here in MI, one may not enter a church, school, post office, bar, large sports arena, and any place posted against CCW. So there are still plenty of safe workplaces for robbers and other baddies.

[Shabbernigdo]

So there are still plenty of safe workplaces for robbers and other baddies.

Lol

[Mr. Apple]

When the CCW laws were reformed here, the naysayers threw about all sorts of claims that one couldn't be stopped from bringing a gun to school, church, tavern, sports events: that blood would run in the streets, etc. Yet here we are several years after reform and none of those wild claims came to pass. CCW students are trained to avoid dangerous situations, but also to shoot at the center of mass and to keep shooting until the attack stops. The courses are quite popular here.

Here in MI, one may not enter a church, school, post office, bar, large sports arena, and any place posted against CCW. So there are still plenty of safe workplaces for robbers and other baddies.

My dad went to the CCW class. The only problem is that it takes a gawd awful time to get the permit so he got discouraged. This kind of stuff is just stupid. Im from MI too BTW

[Rocket T. Coyote]

The class I took lasted a weekend. Then there was the fingerprinting at the sheriff's department, passport-quality photos, then  the permit board at the county building, plus $120. Renewing the permit means reviewing a 3-hour video, plus another $120 and new photos. One advantage to the permit is the ability to purchase pistols without first obtaining a permit to purchase from the police dept. So if you are in another part of the state and see a good deal on a sidearm, then you may buy it then and there.

The range time was the fun part of the course.  It helps to have a gun you are familiar with and can shoot well--and quickly.

_{Sometimes I wish they still issued the restricted CCW. "Hunting and Target Practice Only." Easier to obtain under the old system and far cheaper. No training was required for the full CCW either, and you could carry anywhere. But to obtain that full-fledged CCW, you almost had to know someone in the system.}  

[Shabbernigdo]

The class I took lasted a weekend. Then there was the fingerprinting at the sheriff's department, passport-quality photos, then  the permit board at the county building, plus $120. Renewing the permit means reviewing a 3-hour video, plus another $120 and new photos. One advantage to the permit is the ability to purchase pistols without first obtaining a permit to purchase from the police dept. So if you are in another part of the state and see a good deal on a sidearm, then you may buy it then and there.

The range time was the fun part of the course.  It helps to have a gun you are familiar with and can shoot well--and quickly.

_{Sometimes I wish they still issued the restricted CCW. "Hunting and Target Practice Only." Easier to obtain under the old system and far cheaper. No training was required for the full CCW either, and you could carry anywhere. But to obtain that full-fledged CCW, you almost had to know someone in the system.}  

geez. all i had to do was pay 60$ for an 8 hour class ( 4 hours of range time and 4 hours of class ) then get my finger prints and pick up my license and i was done.

[Rocket T. Coyote]

We were also told to only use factory-loaded ammo--for reliability, and liability--the ammo maker has deeper pockets than you when the deceased perp's family tries to sue. At Gunsite they say that every bullet comes with a lawyer attached.

[Varg the wanderer]

Americans are too damn trigger happy about guns.  Guns for this. Guns for that. Assault rifles, Semi-automatics, pistols, etc., etc., etc. How much is too much? How many guns does the average citizen need anyway for home protection? It really is crazy in this country the way people need and use guns. I understand the Constitution gave us the right to bear arms. But some people take it way too far.

Nuff said. 

Except that the second amendment was not so that people would have a way to hunt and personal self defense. It was so that the people would have a way to defend themselves as a militia, because the United Stated has no standing army at the time. Still, it earned us a reputation, at the beginning of the second world war Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto Advised "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
    STILL, we fail to recognize the MAIN purpose of the second amendment; and that is to give the people  a means to fight their OWN GOVERNMENT should it fall to tyranny. Many forget that the first shots fired in the revolutionary war were those agains the british soldiers who had come to confiscate the weapons of the people so they couldn't fight back. Give me a foil hat, but I believe in the saying "Buy it Cheap and Stack it Deep". Those with power will not willingly give it up. Give someone too much power and even the constitution and any number of elections won't even oust them.

[Rocket T. Coyote]

At the time the Constitution was written, an individual could own warships. Congress could issue writs of marque to privateers to wreak havoc on the high seas. Imagine Bill Gates with a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier he could hire out to the government.

Until 1968, one could not only own tanks, mortars, bazookas, anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns--they could be shipped direct to the buyer. Now you need a destructive devices permit. Owning a semi-auto copy of a selective-fire military battle rifle pales by comparison IMHO.

[Serra Belvoule]

Recently on my trip to FC, I got on a cab and the driver added a comment on how if something like mexico's crime stuff were to happen in USA the population would take guns and do things themselves...
That thought scared me. People blindly taking "justice" on their own is a scary thought, IMHO. I mean, the actual possibility of am average person being able to go out and shoot whoever they think is right is something that shouldn't be able to happen.
Oh well

[Sk Skunk]

Have to say that if armed gangs were killing people in the streets, killing off or bribing the police force, military, I would certainly hope the citizens would stand up and fight for their protection. If armed citizens were using a national disaster as an excuse for roaming the streets to eliminate those that they don't like, they deserve the same fate as the gangs.

If the police or military can't/won't protect the people, who will, the UN? For me that is the heart and soul of the 2nd amendment. If needed, I can protect myself and the ones I care for.

[Fen-Fen]

Have to say that if armed gangs were killing people in the streets, killing off or bribing the police force, military, I would certainly hope the citizens would stand up and fight for their protection. If armed citizens were using a national disaster as an excuse for roaming the streets to eliminate those that they don't like, they deserve the same fate as the gangs.

If the police or military can't/won't protect the people, who will, the UN? For me that is the heart and soul of the 2nd amendment. If needed, I can protect myself and the ones I care for.

I really could not have said this any better myself. The 2nd amendment mentions the "militia" which at that time was really any able-bodied man who was able to defend his country.

Hopefully America won't come to that.

[Rocket T. Coyote]

Have to say that if armed gangs were killing people in the streets, killing off or bribing the police force, military, I would certainly hope the citizens would stand up and fight for their protection. If armed citizens were using a national disaster as an excuse for roaming the streets to eliminate those that they don't like, they deserve the same fate as the gangs.

If the police or military can't/won't protect the people, who will, the UN? For me that is the heart and soul of the 2nd amendment. If needed, I can protect myself and the ones I care for.

It almost came to that with the looting riots during the Rodney King trial. Merchants had to take to the rooftops with rifles and shotguns to protect their property. The police were elsewhere. The police have no obligation to protect the individual--that comes from a high court ruling IIRC.

[LZ3PH]

Advocacy for completely banning sales and purchase of firearms is unfounded, unreasonable, and unpopular, except among certain leftist minorities.
The essential issue of gun control is preventing the criminals and the insane from obtaining firearms while not preventing level-headed, law-biding citizens from purchasing firearms.
The controversy: how do we do that.

In the United States, the system of gun control is frighteningly asymmetric, ineffective, and overbearing. Criminals purchase weapons illegally with ease, while massive amounts of red tape often prevent law biding citizens from purchasing even a .22LR handgun. In some places dominated by certain leftist groups, firearms are almost completely legally unobtainable.

The most prevalent method by which the government attempts to distinguish between the criminals, the insane, and the law-biding is the background check. But how much of this intrusive practice should a law-biding citizen be subjected to in order to purchase a firearm? How can one be sure with any amount of screening that the government would accurately identify the criminals and the insane?

If we had more thorough background checks that would successfully identify the criminals and insane, the only result would be an expansion in the illegal firearms trade, and the invasion of the privacy of only the law-biding citizens.
But is there any alternative method by which we can single out the individuals who would abuse firearms?