Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > Gun Control


Posted by: Nova Scotian 05-May-2006, 09:02 AM
I myself am for it and I'll tell you why. First it's my right in the 2nd ammendment of the constitution. 2nd I know I'm safe. I've educated my self with it as well as my family and never have had to use it. 3rd, I know I have the upper hand or an equal hand if it comes time to use it. NO. The 2nd ammendment is not speaking of the national guard when it means Militia. Was the national guard around when the constitution was first written? Why is it the the city in the USA ,Washington DC, has the highest crime rate and they have probably the strictest gun laws? Why is it in New York, that the mom and pop store owner who are the most vulernable to getting shot by a robber not allowed to have a legal consealed hand gun but the senior editor of the New York times with a 6 didgit income allowed to "pack heat"? Does everyone remember how international touriest in Miami were getting car jacked and and sometimes killed? Well did you know that these theives were interviewed and they said that the reason they targeted tourest was because they knew for sure they WERE NOT ARMED with a gun as Florida has a very easy going gun law. Yes these crooks even memorized the international flight scheduals and knew where to be. There are many people still alive today because they took advantage of the right to bare arms. I personally know someone who had to use their conceiled gun and to this day don't like to talk about it because it makes them sick but they thank God because if they didn't have the Gun they'd be dead and so would 2 others. The gunman had all ready killed one person and even said to the other 3 you are next when this aquaintance of mine open fired on this mad man and killed him. Now I know that the madman had a gun as well. But as the saying goes, if we restrict the common law biteing citizen from the right to carry a gun, the criminals will still be able to get the guns a lot eaiser.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 05-May-2006, 09:19 AM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 05-May-2006, 10:02 AM)
I myself am not for it and I'll tell you why. First it's my right in the 2nd ammendment of the constitution. 2nd I know I'm safe. I've educated my self with it as well as my family and never have had to use it. 3rd, I know I have the upper hand or an equal hand if it comes time to use it. NO. The 2nd ammendment is not speaking of the national guard when it means Militia. Was the national guard around when the constitution was first written? Why is it the the city in the USA ,Washington DC, has the highest crime rate and they have probably the strictest gun laws? Why is it in New York, that the mom and pop store owner who are the most vulernable to getting shot by a robber not allowed to have a legal consealed hand gun but the senior editor of the New York times with a 6 didgit income allowed to "pack heat"? Does everyone remember how international touriest in Miami were getting car jacked and and sometimes killed? Well did you know that these theives were interviewed and they said that the reason they targeted tourest was because they knew for sure they WERE NOT ARMED with a gun as Florida has a very easy going gun law. Yes these crooks even memorized the international flight scheduals and knew where to be. There are many people still alive today because they took advantage of the right to bare arms. I personally know someone who had to use their conceiled gun and to this day don't like to talk about it because it makes them sick but they thank God because if they didn't have the Gun they'd be dead and so would 2 others. The gunman had all ready killed one person and even said to the other 3 you are next when this aquaintance of mine open fired on this mad man and killed him. Now I know that the madman had a gun as well. But as the saying goes, if we restrict the common law biteing citizen from the right to carry a gun, the criminals will still be able to get the guns a lot eaiser.

No I'm actually not for gun control. I said I'm for it in the beginning of the topic but that was wrong



Posted by: Swanny 05-May-2006, 10:10 AM
I practice gun control all the time. I have a 100 yard shooting range right off my deck that is used on at least a weekly basis.

Swanny

Posted by: Irish Stepper 05-May-2006, 11:12 AM
I think gun control is a waste of time. It only restricts the law-abiding citizens from owning guns, because they don't want to break the law. Criminals aren't going to bat an eye at gun control laws, because they obviously don't care if they break the law anyway!

My father had 2 bumper stickers on the doors of our house when I was growing up. The back door one said, "this house protected by Smith and Wesson" and the front door said, "Never mind the dog...Beware of the owner". We never had anyone try to break into our home, or even steal anything off of our property! Then again this was in Ohio, and they're pretty cool about gun laws. They've even recently introduced the ability to get concealed carry permits. I currently live in Maryland now, and you can't get a concealed carry permit unless you're a cop, retired cop, or need one for your job. They're even talking about getting rid of the ability for the retired police to get the permit! I hate Maryland's gun laws... sad.gif

Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 05-May-2006, 02:34 PM
Ya'll pretty much said it all. Every law abiding citizen should have the right to be as well prepared as the average criminal.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 05-May-2006, 02:54 PM
QUOTE (Swanny @ 05-May-2006, 11:10 AM)
I practice gun control all the time. I have a 100 yard shooting range right off my deck that is used on at least a weekly basis.

Swanny

Way to Go!!!!

Posted by: Nova Scotian 05-May-2006, 02:55 PM
QUOTE (Irish Stepper @ 05-May-2006, 12:12 PM)
I think gun control is a waste of time. It only restricts the law-abiding citizens from owning guns, because they don't want to break the law. Criminals aren't going to bat an eye at gun control laws, because they obviously don't care if they break the law anyway!

My father had 2 bumper stickers on the doors of our house when I was growing up. The back door one said, "this house protected by Smith and Wesson" and the front door said, "Never mind the dog...Beware of the owner". We never had anyone try to break into our home, or even steal anything off of our property! Then again this was in Ohio, and they're pretty cool about gun laws. They've even recently introduced the ability to get concealed carry permits. I currently live in Maryland now, and you can't get a concealed carry permit unless you're a cop, retired cop, or need one for your job. They're even talking about getting rid of the ability for the retired police to get the permit! I hate Maryland's gun laws... sad.gif

You are sooo right!!!!

Posted by: crazykiltedcelt 05-May-2006, 03:29 PM
gun control is a MUST..... without it I'l never hit my target. thumbs_up.gif thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: Shadows 05-May-2006, 03:46 PM
I wrote this letter to my representitivs after the Columbine incident several years ago. It states my opinion.

Dear esteemed senator:
I write this letter to speak my mind. I am appalled at the violence that is happening in our nations schools. I question the direction that the youth of our country are taking. I also am appalled that the people of this great country can stand still for more gun laws. Our right to bear arms is being eroded by these laws. How can anyone stand for a national registration of all firearms ( this lets the government know just where to go to collect weapons if it feels threatened; I think that we should view Bosnia and other areas that have had upheavals and killings for the sake of a country as an example of what could happen if these rights are gone). I am the father of 6 children four of which are in their teens. They have been taught respect for life and the safe handling of fire arms.
I question more the violence on the television ( where someone dead one night is back the next) and I also want to know how many of these kids that are committing this violence have their own T.V.s and play violent games on their Nintendo's and play stations!? Where is the control here!!! How many of these kids do not have parents at home when they need them to be?
How many were raised by a day care provider and not their own parents. I do not want to hear the excuse that it takes two incomes to live today; my wife and I have raised 6 kids with just me working until the last 4 years and my oldest just graduated college this spring. I am not rich or upper class in fact I earn a lower middle class income. YOU JUST HAVE TO SET YOUR PRIORITIES; and OUR CHILDREN SHOULD BE 1ST!!! We do not eat out but maybe twice a year, we do not go to the movies once a month, we do not drive a new car every 3 years; but we are there when our kids need us !
Let us set up a system where parents can and should be responsible for their own. Not a system where no one is responsible. If this means changing lifestyles, let us make it easier to do. If this means one parent staying at home to raise the kids, make it easier. These are the things that have changed from the generations of the past. Make it illegal to put parent responsibility on the schools and daycare providers. Make it illegal to publish violent games, make it illegal for people not to take responsibility for themselves and their own!!!!
BUT
Do not make it illegal or difficult for me to own, use, teach my children to use or purchase the only thing that can and has protected this great country of ours from tyranny and given us the liberty we so much pride ourselves on!
I take a saying from the past " If it is a crime to own firearms, then only criminals will own them.
Let us learn from the past and make the necessary adjustments to our life styles to raise caring and responsible kids and adults not more limiting and freedom robbing laws.
I hope and wish that you will share this letter with those that make these laws and with the nation.

Posted by: MacEoghainn 05-May-2006, 04:19 PM
QUOTE (Shadows @ 05-May-2006, 05:46 PM)
I wrote this letter to my representitivs after the Columbine incident several years ago. It states my opinion.

Dear esteemed senator:
I write this letter to speak my mind. I am appalled at the violence that is happening in our nations schools. I question the direction that the youth of our country are taking. I also am appalled that the people of this great country can stand still for more gun laws. Our right to bear arms is being eroded by these laws. How can anyone stand for a national registration of all firearms ( this lets the government know just where to go to collect weapons if it feels threatened; I think that we should view Bosnia and other areas that have had upheavals and killings for the sake of a country as an example of what could happen if these rights are gone). I am the father of 6 children four of which are in their teens. They have been taught respect for life and the safe handling of fire arms.
I question more the violence on the television ( where someone dead one night is back the next) and I also want to know how many of these kids that are committing this violence have their own T.V.s and play violent games on their Nintendo's and play stations!? Where is the control here!!! How many of these kids do not have parents at home when they need them to be?
How many were raised by a day care provider and not their own parents. I do not want to hear the excuse that it takes two incomes to live today; my wife and I have raised 6 kids with just me working until the last 4 years and my oldest just graduated college this spring. I am not rich or upper class in fact I earn a lower middle class income. YOU JUST HAVE TO SET YOUR PRIORITIES; and OUR CHILDREN SHOULD BE 1ST!!! We do not eat out but maybe twice a year, we do not go to the movies once a month, we do not drive a new car every 3 years; but we are there when our kids need us !
Let us set up a system where parents can and should be responsible for their own. Not a system where no one is responsible. If this means changing lifestyles, let us make it easier to do. If this means one parent staying at home to raise the kids, make it easier. These are the things that have changed from the generations of the past. Make it illegal to put parent responsibility on the schools and daycare providers. Make it illegal to publish violent games, make it illegal for people not to take responsibility for themselves and their own!!!!
BUT
Do not make it illegal or difficult for me to own, use, teach my children to use or purchase the only thing that can and has protected this great country of ours from tyranny and given us the liberty we so much pride ourselves on!
I take a saying from the past " If it is a crime to own firearms, then only criminals will own them.
Let us learn from the past and make the necessary adjustments to our life styles to raise caring and responsible kids and adults not more limiting and freedom robbing laws.
I hope and wish that you will share this letter with those that make these laws and with the nation.

I'm not sure what is going on (somebody may want to check my medication! wink.gif ), but once again I'm in 100% agreement with Brother Shadows! thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: Dogshirt 05-May-2006, 06:41 PM
Here in Washington (THE state) I can and do drive with a gun on my front seat, or have anything NOT fully auto in my home. Seattle on the other hand is trying DAILY to take the guns out of the hands of not only the crooks, but me as well. In my rual county the kids even take guns to school for hunting before and after class (Not supossed to, but the Principal has a bit of a blind eye! He asked my son if he would pull a blanket over it so the rent-a-cop would stop complaining!)
Now Nova Scotian my friend, it seems that we have finally found common ground.
"The bastards can have my guns when they pry them out of my cold dead hands. And I've taken as many with me as I can!!"
Gun control is BOTH hands on that pistol (And don't hold it sideways like you see the fools do on TV!)


beer_mug.gif



Posted by: Nova Scotian 05-May-2006, 08:57 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 05-May-2006, 07:41 PM)
Here in Washington (THE state) I can and do drive with a gun on my front seat, or have anything NOT fully auto in my home. Seattle on the other hand is trying DAILY to take the guns out of the hands of not only the crooks, but me as well. In my rual county the kids even take guns to school for hunting before and after class (Not supossed to, but the Principal has a bit of a blind eye! He asked my son if he would pull a blanket over it so the rent-a-cop would stop complaining!)
Now Nova Scotian my friend, it seems that we have finally found common ground.
"The bastards can have my guns when they pry them out of my cold dead hands. And I've taken as many with me as I can!!"
Gun control is BOTH hands on that pistol (And don't hold it sideways like you see the fools do on TV!)


beer_mug.gif

Hey, we've always had at least 3 things in common I'm sure we can agree on, 1. we are both fellow men. 2. We're both Americans. 3. Most importantly, we're both Gordons.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 05-May-2006, 09:11 PM
QUOTE (Shadows @ 05-May-2006, 04:46 PM)
I wrote this letter to my representitivs after the Columbine incident several years ago. It states my opinion.

Dear esteemed senator:
I write this letter to speak my mind. I am appalled at the violence that is happening in our nations schools. I question the direction that the youth of our country are taking. I also am appalled that the people of this great country can stand still for more gun laws. Our right to bear arms is being eroded by these laws. How can anyone stand for a national registration of all firearms ( this lets the government know just where to go to collect weapons if it feels threatened; I think that we should view Bosnia and other areas that have had upheavals and killings for the sake of a country as an example of what could happen if these rights are gone). I am the father of 6 children four of which are in their teens. They have been taught respect for life and the safe handling of fire arms.
I question more the violence on the television ( where someone dead one night is back the next) and I also want to know how many of these kids that are committing this violence have their own T.V.s and play violent games on their Nintendo's and play stations!? Where is the control here!!! How many of these kids do not have parents at home when they need them to be?
How many were raised by a day care provider and not their own parents. I do not want to hear the excuse that it takes two incomes to live today; my wife and I have raised 6 kids with just me working until the last 4 years and my oldest just graduated college this spring. I am not rich or upper class in fact I earn a lower middle class income. YOU JUST HAVE TO SET YOUR PRIORITIES; and OUR CHILDREN SHOULD BE 1ST!!! We do not eat out but maybe twice a year, we do not go to the movies once a month, we do not drive a new car every 3 years; but we are there when our kids need us !
Let us set up a system where parents can and should be responsible for their own. Not a system where no one is responsible. If this means changing lifestyles, let us make it easier to do. If this means one parent staying at home to raise the kids, make it easier. These are the things that have changed from the generations of the past. Make it illegal to put parent responsibility on the schools and daycare providers. Make it illegal to publish violent games, make it illegal for people not to take responsibility for themselves and their own!!!!
BUT
Do not make it illegal or difficult for me to own, use, teach my children to use or purchase the only thing that can and has protected this great country of ours from tyranny and given us the liberty we so much pride ourselves on!
I take a saying from the past " If it is a crime to own firearms, then only criminals will own them.
Let us learn from the past and make the necessary adjustments to our life styles to raise caring and responsible kids and adults not more limiting and freedom robbing laws.
I hope and wish that you will share this letter with those that make these laws and with the nation.

Amen to ya!

Posted by: CelticCoalition 08-May-2006, 01:20 PM
You know, I just have one quick thing to say.

I find it rather hypocritical and appaling to read a letter that talks about people taking responsibility for their actions and the lives of their children, standing firm behind the second amendment right to bear arms, and yet at the same time decides that violent video games are part of the problem and the publishing of these games should be banned.

How is that taking responsibility? It sounds to me like sacrificing a different scape goat to make people look away from gun control.

Now I'm against gun control, and I agree that people need to be held responsible for their actions. That is why I get so sick of people deciding that video games, movies, music, and books should be censored, controlled, banned, or made illegal. I'll tell you something, if you can't keep an eye on your kids enough to keep them away from this adult material, and you don't know enough about your kids to know what video games they are playing, movies they are watching, music they are listening to, or books they are reading, then you don't know if they own and use a gun without your knowledge.

If you are too lazy to educate your children about adult entertainment (and I mean violent as well as sexual in content) then you are just as guilty of poor parenting as the parents whose kids go off on bloody rampages.

If you want to blame video games, then it's just as easy to say that video games didn't put the gun in that kids hands. Most likely the parent did by not securing their firearms appropriately.

Posted by: Shadows 08-May-2006, 03:53 PM
You obviously did not get the whole jist of the letter friend, read it again.
It is the lack of supervision and nurturing ... not the games.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 08-May-2006, 04:40 PM
QUOTE (Shadows @ 05-May-2006, 03:46 PM)
I wrote this letter to my representitivs after the Columbine incident several years ago. It states my opinion.

Dear esteemed senator:
I write this letter to speak my mind. I am appalled at the violence that is happening in our nations schools. I question the direction that the youth of our country are taking. I also am appalled that the people of this great country can stand still for more gun laws. Our right to bear arms is being eroded by these laws. How can anyone stand for a national registration of all firearms ( this lets the government know just where to go to collect weapons if it feels threatened; I think that we should view Bosnia and other areas that have had upheavals and killings for the sake of a country as an example of what could happen if these rights are gone). I am the father of 6 children four of which are in their teens. They have been taught respect for life and the safe handling of fire arms.
I question more the violence on the television ( where someone dead one night is back the next) and I also want to know how many of these kids that are committing this violence have their own T.V.s and play violent games on their Nintendo's and play stations!? Where is the control here!!! How many of these kids do not have parents at home when they need them to be?
How many were raised by a day care provider and not their own parents. I do not want to hear the excuse that it takes two incomes to live today; my wife and I have raised 6 kids with just me working until the last 4 years and my oldest just graduated college this spring. I am not rich or upper class in fact I earn a lower middle class income. YOU JUST HAVE TO SET YOUR PRIORITIES; and OUR CHILDREN SHOULD BE 1ST!!! We do not eat out but maybe twice a year, we do not go to the movies once a month, we do not drive a new car every 3 years; but we are there when our kids need us !
Let us set up a system where parents can and should be responsible for their own. Not a system where no one is responsible. If this means changing lifestyles, let us make it easier to do. If this means one parent staying at home to raise the kids, make it easier. These are the things that have changed from the generations of the past. Make it illegal to put parent responsibility on the schools and daycare providers. Make it illegal to publish violent games, make it illegal for people not to take responsibility for themselves and their own!!!!
BUT
Do not make it illegal or difficult for me to own, use, teach my children to use or purchase the only thing that can and has protected this great country of ours from tyranny and given us the liberty we so much pride ourselves on!
I take a saying from the past " If it is a crime to own firearms, then only criminals will own them.
Let us learn from the past and make the necessary adjustments to our life styles to raise caring and responsible kids and adults not more limiting and freedom robbing laws.
I hope and wish that you will share this letter with those that make these laws and with the nation.

Make it illegal to put parent responsibility on the schools and daycare providers. Make it illegal to publish violent games, make it illegal for people not to take responsibility for themselves and their own!!!!

I copied this out of your letter, Shadows, after quoting it.

If I misunderstood this line, let me know. However, I think it's pretty clear that it asks for the publishing of violent games, I am assuming video games, to be made illegal. This was stated in the same sentence as asking for it to be made illegal for people not to take responsibility for themselves and their own.

Please explain how I misunderstood this.

Posted by: Shadows 08-May-2006, 04:53 PM
You , as most people do, take one phrase from a whole concept out of context and make it the issue.
I suggest you again read the whole letter.
If it is over your head then so be it, but my arguments are sound.
The absurity of more gun laws is equal to the unlikely hood such legalities mentioned being enacted.

Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 09-May-2006, 08:08 AM
Noticed this Gaelic proverb on the site today and thought it said it all very well.

Am fear nach gleidh na h–airm san t–sith, cha bhi iad aige ’n am a’ chogaidh.
He that keeps not his arms in time of peace will have none in time of war.


Posted by: CelticCoalition 09-May-2006, 08:11 AM
Since you don't choose to answer me directly and instead have decided to call me an idiot and laugh in my face I'll drop the issue. Whether this is simply due to a lack of ideas on the issue or lack of respect for my opinions, I don't know.

It's obvious to me that the idea of video game censorship isn't an issue taken seriously here.

Posted by: Swanny 09-May-2006, 09:54 AM
CC, why should video game censorship by taken seriously here if it is not taken seriously by congress? That pesky old first amendment tends to get in the way and the industry contributes so much money in taxes and bribes (aka "Campaign Contributions") that the topic is unlikely to ever generate much serious consideration.

It might worth a separate thread if you want to discuss it, though.

Swanny

Posted by: Dogshirt 09-May-2006, 06:40 PM
I belive that the responsibility for the video games lies with the PARENTS. If they did not let the kids buy them or play them this would not be an issue. But Billy wants it and whines for it and the dumb-ass parents cave in. THAT is the biggest problem with most kids these days, no one ever told them NO! before. Well guess what kiddies, it's not about what YOU want so shut up and get over it!


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: Irish Stepper 10-May-2006, 11:14 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 09-May-2006, 08:40 PM)
I belive that the responsibility for the video games lies with the PARENTS. If they did not let the kids buy them or play them this would not be an issue. But Billy wants it and whines for it and the dumb-ass parents cave in. THAT is the biggest problem with most kids these days, no one ever told them NO! before. Well guess what kiddies, it's not about what YOU want so shut up and get over it!


beer_mug.gif

That's how it works in my house. thumbs_up.gif And my kids respect me enough (at the moment) to not play those games at someone else's house either. I allow them to play some teen games (they're 8 and 9), but not until I check them out first! So until a teen game gets put on my "ok" list, they do NOT play it anywhere. They'll even come home from a friend's house and say, "Johnny has such and such game. It's a teen-rated game, can we play it?" I either find someone who has it and I go check it out personally, or I rent it and check it out myself before I allow it. But then again, I'm a parent that cares and keeps my nose ALL UP in my kids' business! laugh.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 11-May-2006, 07:51 AM
Not to change the subject, getting away from video game violence, do everyone here remember the movie from the 1970s, "Death Wish" with Charles Bronson? I think of that movie and think, did he really do anything illegal? No in sequel movies ti got stupid but in the original, he was right on the money. The only thing he did wrong was run away.

Now here's something ironic, here in Florida, the guy who's responsible for issueing concelled weapon permits name is Charles Bronson.

Posted by: oldraven 15-May-2006, 12:45 PM
Gun control, yes. The only reasons I need are the overwhelming statistics of violent gun crimes in Canada, or should I say the lack thereof. Gun registry? Hell no. It's a huge waste of time and taxpayers money, that has no positive effect on those statistics I pointed at before. The only people restricted and restrained by a registry are the law abiding citizens.

Posted by: Raven 15-May-2006, 01:29 PM
QUOTE (oldraven @ 15-May-2006, 01:45 PM)
Gun control, yes. The only reasons I need are the overwhelming statistics of violent gun crimes in Canada, or should I say the lack thereof. Gun registry? Hell no. It's a huge waste of time and taxpayers money, that has no positive effect on those statistics I pointed at before. The only people restricted and restrained by a registry are the law abiding citizens.

I would say that the police should certainly be considered in a lack of violent crime in Canada Adam (I haven't seen the statistics) But I have seen Cops - the Canadian version and they aren't near as nice to criminals up there smile.gif Tell it to the Crown!

Peace

Mikel

Posted by: oldraven 19-May-2006, 09:10 AM
Whatever works, right. wink.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 19-May-2006, 09:44 AM
QUOTE (oldraven @ 15-May-2006, 01:45 PM)
Gun control, yes. The only reasons I need are the overwhelming statistics of violent gun crimes in Canada, or should I say the lack thereof. Gun registry? Hell no. It's a huge waste of time and taxpayers money, that has no positive effect on those statistics I pointed at before. The only people restricted and restrained by a registry are the law abiding citizens.

Hey Raven.
Glad to hear from you again. You hit it right on taget Adam. Controling guns never controls the criminals from obtaining weapons. Just look at history. Controling guns are not to prevent crime but for political control.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 19-May-2006, 09:49 AM
QUOTE (oldraven @ 19-May-2006, 10:10 AM)
Whatever works, right. wink.gif

By the way, welcome back home to the "New Nation". I'll be up in Spencers Island at the end of August until mid September. The wife and the little one as well as myself are looking forward to it.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 04-Jun-2006, 01:55 PM
Just something I was thinking of. If you carry a gun, I say God forbid I EVER have to use it. But God forbid I'm ever in a sitituation where I needed it and didn't have it. Just a thought that I live by. But the far left seem to think anyone who owns a Gun is "a red neck" "a hill billy" "a barbarian" "a facias" However if these morons did their research they'll find that they are the ones for outlawing guns and that in and of itself is fascias. So WHO is really the fascias? Anyway I guess being a Celt is barbian enough so I take that title with honor.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 05-Jun-2006, 10:07 AM
My thing about guns is I don't trust people to own them. I'm sure everyone on here is responsible with their guns, but I just don't trust the general public to use a gun wisely.

Heck, cops shoot people they shoudln't and it gets in the news all the time. So people who are trined specifically to carry weapons in dnagerous situations misuse guns. I'm not saying it happens alot, nor even enough to warrant gun control. But I am saying I don't trust joe blow off the street to handle a firearm, concealed or otherwise, responsibly.

Posted by: stoirmeil 05-Jun-2006, 11:02 AM
oldraven has a point that gun registry is not very effective as gun control.

CC -- it's a bit like trusting people with automobiles, in a way. They have to be trained to use them, and then after that we're on our own, driving defensively against potential flaws in others' operation of the vehicle. We ourselves can't unconditionally guarantee anything either as drivers, but we think we can. sad.gif

So what's the difference? The necessity of possession and use of the item. The size of our country and the diversity of activity make independent transportation crucial. So a car is a necessary evil to the majority, even though it's possession and use is potentially lethal, as an unintentional side characteristic. We must similarly weigh what the necessity is of a lethal weapon that has no other purpose than to kill or threaten to kill (in defense or as a deterrant, or to provide food). How often is it necessary to have the potential of killing? How does that stack up, statistically, against the potential of unnecessary, accidental or malicious harm due to misuse? I think we thrashed this out once before that not all places in this country have an equal ratio of need to risk, and that's why it should be determined state by state. Notice I'm not saying "never necessary," or even "never strongly preferable". But it is a ratio of risk to gain, and if some form of control or restriction is determined, after a proper assessment of risk versus gain, for any given region by legitimate legislation it needs to be adhered to, and punished commensurately with the potential loss (human life?) if it's not. The same as driving with an unfit vehicle, or under the influence, or without a license or proper insurance, should be and under the right circumstances is punished to the max under the law.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 05-Jun-2006, 05:32 PM
QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 05-Jun-2006, 11:07 AM)
My thing about guns is I don't trust people to own them. I'm sure everyone on here is responsible with their guns, but I just don't trust the general public to use a gun wisely.

Heck, cops shoot people they shoudln't and it gets in the news all the time. So people who are trined specifically to carry weapons in dnagerous situations misuse guns. I'm not saying it happens alot, nor even enough to warrant gun control. But I am saying I don't trust joe blow off the street to handle a firearm, concealed or otherwise, responsibly.

You are right! I agree that if someone buys a gun and looks to use it has no business posessing a gun.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 06-Jun-2006, 10:37 AM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 05-Jun-2006, 11:02 AM)
oldraven has a point that gun registry is not very effective as gun control.

CC -- it's a bit like trusting people with automobiles, in a way. They have to be trained to use them, and then after that we're on our own, driving defensively against potential flaws in others' operation of the vehicle. We ourselves can't unconditionally guarantee anything either as drivers, but we think we can. sad.gif

So what's the difference? The necessity of possession and use of the item. The size of our country and the diversity of activity make independent transportation crucial. So a car is a necessary evil to the majority, even though it's possession and use is potentially lethal, as an unintentional side characteristic. We must similarly weigh what the necessity is of a lethal weapon that has no other purpose than to kill or threaten to kill (in defense or as a deterrant, or to provide food). How often is it necessary to have the potential of killing? How does that stack up, statistically, against the potential of unnecessary, accidental or malicious harm due to misuse? I think we thrashed this out once before that not all places in this country have an equal ratio of need to risk, and that's why it should be determined state by state. Notice I'm not saying "never necessary," or even "never strongly preferable". But it is a ratio of risk to gain, and if some form of control or restriction is determined, after a proper assessment of risk versus gain, for any given region by legitimate legislation it needs to be adhered to, and punished commensurately with the potential loss (human life?) if it's not. The same as driving with an unfit vehicle, or under the influence, or without a license or proper insurance, should be and under the right circumstances is punished to the max under the law.

The differences between owning a gun and owning a car as I see it are:

You have to be able to pass a test to drive a car legally. You also have to register the car on a yearly basis.

Owning a car isn't a right, it's a privilage.

If you kill someone with your car the chances are good you will lose your license.

A car is used for transportation. A gun is used to kill.

I don't trust a lot of drivers out there either. But there are at least a few restrictions in place on who can own and operate a car. The only restrictions to buy a gun are age and a background check.

I think it's interesting that we would require a test to drive a car, but not to own a gun.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 06-Jun-2006, 06:29 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 05-Jun-2006, 12:02 PM)
oldraven has a point that gun registry is not very effective as gun control.

CC -- it's a bit like trusting people with automobiles, in a way. They have to be trained to use them, and then after that we're on our own, driving defensively against potential flaws in others' operation of the vehicle. We ourselves can't unconditionally guarantee anything either as drivers, but we think we can. sad.gif

So what's the difference? The necessity of possession and use of the item. The size of our country and the diversity of activity make independent transportation crucial. So a car is a necessary evil to the majority, even though it's possession and use is potentially lethal, as an unintentional side characteristic. We must similarly weigh what the necessity is of a lethal weapon that has no other purpose than to kill or threaten to kill (in defense or as a deterrant, or to provide food). How often is it necessary to have the potential of killing? How does that stack up, statistically, against the potential of unnecessary, accidental or malicious harm due to misuse? I think we thrashed this out once before that not all places in this country have an equal ratio of need to risk, and that's why it should be determined state by state. Notice I'm not saying "never necessary," or even "never strongly preferable". But it is a ratio of risk to gain, and if some form of control or restriction is determined, after a proper assessment of risk versus gain, for any given region by legitimate legislation it needs to be adhered to, and punished commensurately with the potential loss (human life?) if it's not. The same as driving with an unfit vehicle, or under the influence, or without a license or proper insurance, should be and under the right circumstances is punished to the max under the law.

All I can say is that a gun is a great deterant. Here's an example. Why back in the early 90s were thugs in Miami car jacking foreign tourist? Because they knew they for sure had no gun. That's the confession of more then 1 car jacker. The crime rate in Florida actually dropped in Florida as a whole when the allowed the ccw law came in in the late 80s early 90s and to much of the displeasure of the anti-gun folks, there was NO increase in crime involving hand guns. Actually in my carrier I see more people die or who are severly injured by automobles then guns. I've been a Paramedic for 10+ years here in Florida and I've sheeted on scene or sent to the hospital more incidents involving things other then guns. In fact, I've treated only 1 person in my 10+ years who was shot by a ccw permit holder and he was in his right to use that force. Thats' right 1 in 10+ years. I also work in a level 2 trauma center and we do see a lot of traumatic injuries but injuries from guns can't touch the number of injuries or deaths from automobles and other mechinisms. Everyone is so scared of guns. I think it's pathetic since we are in more danger of getting killed by other means then getting shot.
Alaska and Vermont have probably the most lax gun laws and look at the crime rate in those states. Look at Washington DCs crime rate. It's sky high. But they have one of the strictest gun laws. Controlling guns won't control the thugs from getting guns. New Orleans found that out quick when they took the guns from the Law biding citizens while the thugs ruled the city with their guns. All I can say if a disaster hits here in Tampa. My guns are staying with me. If anyone tries to hurt me, or my family, or tries to take something from me that I've worked hard for, I won't hesitate to use my gun. God forbid that situation ever occurs. But I sure don't want to be without a gun when I need one. The 2nd ammendment is the original homeland security.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 06-Jun-2006, 06:37 PM
QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 06-Jun-2006, 11:37 AM)
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 05-Jun-2006, 11:02 AM)
oldraven has a point that gun registry is not very effective as gun control.

CC -- it's a bit like trusting people with automobiles, in a way.  They have to be trained to use them, and then after that we're on our own, driving defensively against potential flaws in others' operation of the vehicle.  We ourselves can't unconditionally guarantee anything either as drivers, but we think we can. sad.gif

So what's the difference?  The necessity of possession and use of the item.  The size of our country and the diversity of activity make independent transportation crucial.  So a car is a necessary evil to the majority, even though it's possession and use is potentially lethal, as an unintentional side characteristic.  We must similarly weigh what the necessity is of a lethal weapon that has no other purpose than to kill or threaten to kill (in defense or as a deterrant, or to provide food).  How often is it necessary to have the potential of killing?  How does that stack up, statistically, against the potential of unnecessary, accidental or malicious harm due to misuse?  I think we thrashed this out once before that not all places in this country have an equal ratio of need to risk, and that's why it should be determined state by state.  Notice I'm not saying "never necessary," or even "never strongly preferable".  But it is a ratio of risk to gain, and if some form of control or restriction is determined, after a proper assessment of risk versus gain, for any given region by legitimate legislation it needs to be adhered to, and punished commensurately with the potential loss (human life?) if it's not.  The same as driving with an unfit vehicle, or under the influence, or without a license or proper insurance, should be and under the right circumstances is punished to the max under the law.

The differences between owning a gun and owning a car as I see it are:

You have to be able to pass a test to drive a car legally. You also have to register the car on a yearly basis.

Owning a car isn't a right, it's a privilage.

If you kill someone with your car the chances are good you will lose your license.

A car is used for transportation. A gun is used to kill.

I don't trust a lot of drivers out there either. But there are at least a few restrictions in place on who can own and operate a car. The only restrictions to buy a gun are age and a background check.

I think it's interesting that we would require a test to drive a car, but not to own a gun.

You say cars are used for transportation. Yes they are but as I said before, I see more killed by cars here in this part of Florida every year then with guns owned by law biding citizens and ccw permit holders. But you don't hear people calling for the ban of cars. Cars can be just as deadly a weapon as a gun and as of latly it's being used more so then a gun to commit violent crimes. I'll show you the statistic if you'd like.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 07-Jun-2006, 09:45 AM
I agree, cars are dangerous. In fact, I believe that it should be far more difficult than it is to get a drivers license. There have been laws passed and discussed to do exactly that.

However, my point was simply that a car is NOT primarily a weapon and yet there are more restrictions placed on car ownership than gun ownership. Why is it that you have to pass a test before you can get a drivers license and you don't have to do anything other than pass a background check for a gun?

I think we can all agree that a gun is primarily a weapon. I mean, I could use it as a hammer, but that's not the intended purpose. I can use a car as a weapon, but the intended purpose is for transportation.

Perhaps some believe that guns are only used by law abiding citizens in the proper way. There are some who see any use of a gun as protection, even if they are protecting themselves from a threat that isn't there, as justifiable. I think people need to be held accountable for errors in judgement that lead to someones death. The 2nd amendment protects the right to own a gun, but not to use it in any given situation.

Posted by: stoirmeil 07-Jun-2006, 09:50 AM
QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 07-Jun-2006, 10:45 AM)
The 2nd amendment protects the right to own a gun, but not to use it in any given situation.

Strange, isn't it? Puts it quite close to the category of detente, which, as we found with atomic weapons buildup, was a nerve-wracking condition that eventually had to be stepped down with disarmament agreements.

Not that the agreements have turned out to be so reliable or enforceable . . . disgust.gif

Posted by: Swanny 07-Jun-2006, 03:26 PM
Actually, cars are frequently used as primary weapons. In my 30 year career as a paramedic, law enforcement officer and firefighter I've run on just as many homocides committed by automobile as I have committed by firearms.

The argument that everyone needs a car today is so much hogwash. Nearly all communities of any size at all offers some form of public transportation, and if the private ownership of automobiles were to be restricted those public transportation systems would almost certainly be improved to the point where they are reasonably reliable and effective.

The bottom line in this argument though, is that the right to keep and bear arms is a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the privilege of owning and operating a motor vehicle is not. It's comparing apples and oranges.
Someone compared the right to keep and bear to detente, but I think they intended to compare it to the cold war theory of MAD (mutually assured destruction). I live in a region where nearly everyone in my community owns and frequently carries firearms, either openly or concealed yet I have never had reason to fear any of my gun-totin' neighbors.

In the course of my employment I openly carry a firearm, have never had to draw it from it's holster, and suspect I'll finish out my career without need to draw it. I don't recall who said it, but the quote that "an armed society is a polite society" seems to have articulated a basic truth.


Posted by: Nova Scotian 07-Jun-2006, 04:34 PM
QUOTE (Swanny @ 07-Jun-2006, 04:26 PM)
Actually, cars are frequently used as primary weapons. In my 30 year career as a paramedic, law enforcement officer and firefighter I've run on just as many homocides committed by automobile as I have committed by firearms.

The argument that everyone needs a car today is so much hogwash. Nearly all communities of any size at all offers some form of public transportation, and if the private ownership of automobiles were to be restricted those public transportation systems would almost certainly be improved to the point where they are reasonably reliable and effective.

The bottom line in this argument though, is that the right to keep and bear arms is a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the privilege of owning and operating a motor vehicle is not. It's comparing apples and oranges.
Someone compared the right to keep and bear to detente, but I think they intended to compare it to the cold war theory of MAD (mutually assured destruction). I live in a region where nearly everyone in my community owns and frequently carries firearms, either openly or concealed yet I have never had reason to fear any of my gun-totin' neighbors.

In the course of my employment I openly carry a firearm, have never had to draw it from it's holster, and suspect I'll finish out my career without need to draw it. I don't recall who said it, but the quote that "an armed society is a polite society" seems to have articulated a basic truth.

Thom, very well said. You live in AK. One of two states with the most lax gun laws. Look at the crime rate in Alaska and Vermont or lack there of. Pluse I know you can relate with me since we both work in the same field.

Posted by: SCShamrock 08-Jun-2006, 11:32 PM
Personally, I would like to see an end to firearms as we know them. Hurling pieces of lead fast enough to penetrate sheet metal seems a waste of energy to me. Frankly, if we could only perfect the phaser like on Star Trek so that we could sever the limbs or torso of our subject (think cauterization) that would cut down on the mess and likely the need for gun control. starwars.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 09-Jun-2006, 04:33 AM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 09-Jun-2006, 12:32 AM)
Personally, I would like to see an end to firearms as we know them. Hurling pieces of lead fast enough to penetrate sheet metal seems a waste of energy to me. Frankly, if we could only perfect the phaser like on Star Trek so that we could sever the limbs or torso of our subject (think cauterization) that would cut down on the mess and likely the need for gun control. starwars.gif

I like that idea!

Posted by: Nova Scotian 10-Jun-2006, 02:42 PM
Why we are at it, I think pilots on commercial airliners should be permitted to carry heat. The objection is that the terrorist could get the gun from the pilot. Well at least the pilot has the upper or equal hand. Besides the terrorist on 9/11 had boxcutters. I'm sure those would out do a gun. LOLOL.

I'm surprised of the lack of opposition. I was thinking there'd be a firestorm of debate. Actually I'm impressed with the unity. I'll never agree with everything someone has to say or think. But this subject I've found common ground with just about everyone. Here, with co-workers, church members, etc. Two good books to read. Guns, Crime, and Liberty and Guns, Greedom and Terrorism. Both by Wayne LaPierre. He's the VP of the NRA.

Posted by: Dogshirt 10-Jun-2006, 02:59 PM
EVERYONE on a plane should have a gun, then let the terrorists try to take over the plane! If you don't own one, one will be provided at no cost for the duration of the trip.


beer_mug.gif



Posted by: Nova Scotian 10-Jun-2006, 08:25 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 10-Jun-2006, 03:59 PM)
EVERYONE on a plane should have a gun, then let the terrorists try to take over the plane! If you don't own one, one will be provided at no cost for the duration of the trip.


beer_mug.gif

A little much but at the same time not bad! LOLOLOL

Posted by: MacEoghainn 11-Jun-2006, 09:29 AM
I'd normally post something like this in "the Jester's Court" forum but it seems to be in line with the debate in this thread (I have my doubts it even happened).

Marine Corp's General Reinwald was interviewed on the radio the other day and you have to read his reply to the woman who interviewed him concerning guns and children. Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you gotta love this!!!!
It is a portion of National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US Marine Corps General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?
GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?
GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
GENERAL REINWALD: Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?
The radio went silent and the interview ended.
You gotta love the Marines!

Posted by: SCShamrock 11-Jun-2006, 10:24 AM
idiot.gif idiot.gif jawdrop.gif punk.gif

Posted by: Dogshirt 11-Jun-2006, 11:51 AM
I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Buy that man a drink! thumbs_up.gif \


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: Swanny 11-Jun-2006, 09:03 PM
biggrin.gif Although it is a favorite story, I'm sad to report that according to Snopes, it is false. Reference http://www.snopes.com/military/reinwald.htm

It's still a GREAT story, though.

Swanny

Posted by: stoirmeil 12-Jun-2006, 06:57 AM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 09-Jun-2006, 05:33 AM)
I like that idea!
About the star-trek style phaser to replace all that clumsy flying lead: Fine. But the phaser user has to carry heavy insurance to pay for the prosthesis and rehab of the victim, because no way is the taxpayer going to pick that up.

Posted by: Dogshirt 12-Jun-2006, 08:54 PM
A corpse needs NO rehab!


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: stoirmeil 12-Jun-2006, 09:13 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 12-Jun-2006, 09:54 PM)
A corpse needs NO rehab!


beer_mug.gif

Oh, true enough. smile.gif The reference to phasers was made by someone who contemplated severed limbs and the benefits of the instant cauterization the ray accomplishes as one possible scenario, though, so you might have to give some of them up for saved. Once in a while.

Posted by: Dogshirt 12-Jun-2006, 09:18 PM
I was trained that if you pull on someone that I was to be ready to shoot. And if I shoot it was to kill, there is NO other reason to pull a gun. There is no 2nd chance and no going back. If that philosophy bothers anyone my appologies, but that is the way it is!


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: SCShamrock 12-Jun-2006, 09:34 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 12-Jun-2006, 07:57 AM)
About the star-trek style phaser to replace all that clumsy flying lead: Fine. But the phaser user has to carry heavy insurance to pay for the prosthesis and rehab of the victim, because no way is the taxpayer going to pick that up.

A man that tries to steal my weed-eater and gets his arm zapped off deserves no prosthesis. He should just be thankful for the cauterizing effect and move on.

Posted by: stoirmeil 12-Jun-2006, 11:08 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 12-Jun-2006, 10:18 PM)
I was trained that if you pull on someone that I was to be ready to shoot. And if I shoot it was to kill, there is NO other reason to pull a gun. There is no 2nd chance and no going back. If that philosophy bothers anyone my appologies, but that is the way it is!


beer_mug.gif

Actually, that sounds grim but realistic. It doesn't add much to the idea of carrying a gun primarily as a deterrant, though. You might as well not have it unless you pull it, and if you pull it you will kill with it and the deterrant function is void.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 14-Jun-2006, 07:29 AM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 12-Jun-2006, 10:18 PM)
I was trained that if you pull on someone that I was to be ready to shoot. And if I shoot it was to kill, there is NO other reason to pull a gun. There is no 2nd chance and no going back. If that philosophy bothers anyone my appologies, but that is the way it is!


beer_mug.gif

I agree. That is a good enough deterrant. Any smart criminal would not mess with someone if they knew they'll get killed.

Posted by: Fiddler 24-Jun-2006, 03:29 PM
This thread has been interesting. I Detect the usual arguments for and against gun ownership. I have stated elseware that the second amendment is the primary safeguard for all the rest of our freedoms. The founding fathers understood full well that an armed society will deter governmental as well as criminal abuse. There were two primary positions debated during the forging of our constitution; the majority created the second amendment while the minority believed in government taking responsiblity for our safety.

Some of my best friends are in law enforcment, but none of them pretend to be responsible for my personal safety. They arrive well after any personal protection is needed.

Picture in your mind a late night noise coming from the front door of your house. You immediately call 911 and report an intruder coming through your front door. The 911 call starts the clock ticking. Depending where you live relative to where an officer is when he receives the call you will waite anywhere from 7 to 30 minutes. During that time you have the legal right to use deadly force to protect yourself and your family or be a statistic on a police report after the police arrive. It's that simple. This type of call happens more often than the main stream media would like you to believe. People all over this great nation defend themselves from violent criminals every day (Or night) of the year.

Training? responsiblity? absolutely!! It is no simple matter taking another persons life. There are no second chances. You must be 100% sure of what you are doing and why you are doing. What are the alternatives if you do not act to protect yourself?

Someone suggested a regional approach to personal protection. How do you determine just who is eligible for personal self defence and who is not? My home is in a rather remote area of north georgia. Am I more eligible for personal protection than someone who lives, lets say in washington DC? The second amendment applies to everyone in this nation. No exceptions!


Posted by: MacEoghainn 25-Jun-2006, 05:49 AM
What I find "interesting" about the people who argue for Gun Control is they are usually the very same people who support Liberal judges and politicians who some how find, and in the case of judges enforce, the magical and mystical "Right of Privacy" for just about any sexually related function you can think of; Abortion Rights (including the rights of minors to have abortions without notifying the very people who are responsible for everything the minor does), Partial Birth Abortion Rights, Homosexual Marriage Rights, etc.... After all, what ever happens in a womend body is her business and whatever goes on in the bedroom is no ones’ business but the individual or couple involved. But when you ask where in the Preamble, the various Articles, or the 27 Amendments to the Constitution this magical and mystical right appears the answer is invariably, "it's implied...."


Yet if any one of the people protected by this mystical and magical implied "Right of Privacy" should want to have a firearm in their bedroom to defend themselves from someone breaking into their home and murdering them then the very same judges and politicians who discovered this “Right” not only can't seem to locate it anymore, they can't even find the Second Amendment staring them straight in the face: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Am I the only one who finds this at least odd? unsure.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 25-Jun-2006, 12:44 PM
QUOTE (Fiddler @ 24-Jun-2006, 04:29 PM)

Someone suggested a regional approach to personal protection. How do you determine just who is eligible for personal self defence and who is not? My home is in a rather remote area of north georgia. Am I more eligible for personal protection than someone who lives, lets say in washington DC? The second amendment applies to everyone in this nation. No exceptions!

I argee with you. The crime rate in DC is one of the highest in the nation however, to own a hand gun it practally takes a law biding citizen an act of congress in order to obtain an owners permit. But the criminals can get a gun in no time at all.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 25-Jun-2006, 12:58 PM
QUOTE (MacEoghainn @ 25-Jun-2006, 06:49 AM)
What I find "interesting" about the people who argue for Gun Control is they are usually the very same people who support Liberal judges and politicians who some how find, and in the case of judges enforce, the magical and mystical "Right of Privacy" for just about any sexually related function you can think of; Abortion Rights (including the rights of minors to have abortions without notifying the very people who are responsible for everything the minor does), Partial Birth Abortion Rights, Homosexual Marriage Rights, etc.... After all, what ever happens in a womend body is her business and whatever goes on in the bedroom is no ones’ business but the individual or couple involved. But when you ask where in the Preamble, the various Articles, or the 27 Amendments to the Constitution this magical and mystical right appears the answer is invariably, "it's implied...."


Yet if any one of the people protected by this mystical and magical implied "Right of Privacy" should want to have a firearm in their bedroom to defend themselves from someone breaking into their home and murdering them then the very same judges and politicians who discovered this “Right” not only can't seem to locate it anymore, they can't even find the Second Amendment staring them straight in the face: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Am I the only one who finds this at least odd? unsure.gif

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I agree with everything you wrote. Talk about hipocrocy, read this


5. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) Sponsor of the much-vaunted assault-weapon ban of 1994-2004. Despite the ban's having been found to have been misdirected and irrelevant to crime, Feinstein said she wished for a stronger law, one that would say, "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn [your firearms] all in." Feinstein carried a handgun for her own protection in California.


Not all liberals are bad but they sure like to point their fingers.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 25-Jun-2006, 02:49 PM
Three things:
1. Is it just as hypocritical for proponents of the 2nd amendment to be against the"Rights to Privacy" regarding sexual acts?

2. I think there is a big difference between an assault rifle and a hand gun for use of personal protection.

3. If it is agreed that training and responsibility are improtant, should they be required for gun ownership? I'm not saying a test to be passed, simply a class attended. Should someone have to attend a class on gun safety and use and receive proof of attendance before they are allowed to own a gun? I mean, we already require a background check, why not this?

Posted by: MacEoghainn 25-Jun-2006, 05:50 PM
QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 25-Jun-2006, 04:49 PM)
Three things:
1.  Is it just as hypocritical for proponents of the 2nd amendment to be against the"Rights to Privacy" regarding sexual acts?


How can one be "Hypocritical" about something that doesn't exist? unsure.gif

QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 25-Jun-2006, 04:49 PM)
2.  I think there is a big difference between an assault rifle and a hand gun for use of personal protection.


What I choose to defend myself with is my business. My choice of a firearm will depend on the nature of the threat. As far as I can tell (and based on Senator Feinstein's quote) most Pro-Gun Control proponents want all firearms banned!

QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 25-Jun-2006, 04:49 PM)
3.  If it is agreed that training and responsibility are important, should they be required for gun ownership?  I'm not saying a test to be passed, simply a class attended.  Should someone have to attend a class on gun safety and use and receive proof of attendance before they are allowed to own a gun?  I mean, we already require a background check, why not this?


Which of the words in the Second Amendment are confusing you? unsure.gif A background check is supposed to determine if you are a felon or are prevented from possessing a firearm for some other legal reason, not to prevent Law-abiding citizens from owning a gun. Most of the extended waiting periods in some states are bogus and un-Constitutional infringement on our rights. The system as currently set up is supposed to allow for instant background checks.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 25-Jun-2006, 07:50 PM
QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 25-Jun-2006, 03:49 PM)

3. I mean, we alreIf it is agreed that training and responsibility are improtant, should they be required for gun ownership? I'm not saying a test to be passed, simply a class attended. Should someone have to attend a class on gun safety and use and receive proof of attendance before they are allowed to own a gun?ady require a background check, why not this?

The laws we have in place are enough! The bottom line is if you restrict the law biding citizen, the criminal will ALWAYS have the advantage.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 25-Jun-2006, 07:53 PM
QUOTE (MacEoghainn @ 25-Jun-2006, 06:50 PM)
As far as I can tell (and based on Senator Feinstein's quote) most Pro-Gun Control proponents want all firearms banned!




Good quote since we are on the subjects of hypocrits.

Posted by: Swanny 26-Jun-2006, 08:38 AM
QUOTE
Three things:
1. Is it just as hypocritical for proponents of the 2nd amendment to be against the"Rights to Privacy" regarding sexual acts?


All of the rights ennumerated in the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution are precious and sancrosanct to me. I don't see any hypocracy there. Just a note from the devil's advocate, though. I don't see any of those amendments addressing any "right to privacy" other than the fourth ammendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.

QUOTE

2. I think there is a big difference between an assault rifle and a hand gun for use of personal protection.


Really? Several points come to mind.

First - the term assault rifle refers to "A military rifle intended purely for one-man operation and equipped to provide both semiautomatic or full-automatic fire by means of a selector switch or other fire-control device. Today's assault rifles are typified by the Soviet AK 47 and the US M 16." True assault rifles are incredibly heavily regulated by Federal law.

Semi-automatic firearms are not assault rifles, no matter who "cool" they may look. It's that simple.

Second - On my job I am issued a military style semi-automatic patrol rifle for the sole purpose of self-defense, precisely because in some situations it is the best firearm for the job at hand. Not more deadly by any stretch, but more accurate at longer ranges. The objective is give me a tool that is accurate enough that I can stop the "bad guy" from shooting with less danger to innocent bystanders who might be near the assailant.

If someone is busting caps at you with his grampa's deer rifle from 80 yards distance, you aren't going to be able to do much to defend your own life with a handgun that is accurately effective at only 35 to 50 yards, especially if you there innocent bystanders standing around in harm's way.

Third - please explain exactly what that big difference is in your own mind. I just don't see it myself.

QUOTE
3. If it is agreed that training and responsibility are improtant, should they be required for gun ownership? I'm not saying a test to be passed, simply a class attended. Should someone have to attend a class on gun safety and use and receive proof of attendance before they are allowed to own a gun? I mean, we already require a background check, why not this?


I agree that training and responsibility are vital, but we are talking about the right to keep and bear arms, not the privilege of doing so. The moment you establish such a legal requirement, it is no longer a right, but merely a privilege granted by, and easily rescinded by, the Sovereign.

Many States do grant a privilege of carrying a firearm concealed with a permit, and most of those do require training, including a competency examination in order to acquire a permit allowing you to exercise that privilege. Most are also very clear that the privilege may be rescinded at the whim of the State.

Swanny


We do not require a background check to own a firearm, we require a background check to purchase a firearm from a licensed firearm dealer. The constitutionality of that is pretty shaky, based on the government's constitutional authority to regulate interstate trade - simply because the government has no authority to regulate firearms per se.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 26-Jun-2006, 05:53 PM
First off, I agree that privacy is not a right, and therefore speaking out against privacy while upholding the 2nd amendment is not hypocritical.

I was not inferring that assualt rifles should be banned...I was simply stating that there is a difference between carrying a hand gun vs an assault rifle for defense. For example, which would you carry for everyday use and protection? A hand gun, or an assualt rifle? I realize that law enforcement and others carry assualt rifles in there vehicles, but they do not simply walk around with them. These people are also actively putting themselves in potentially dangerous situations where an assault rifle would be useful on occasion.

Question for you Swanny. Before you were allowed to have the assault rifle were you trained in its use, or did they simply give it to you in case you needed it?

I really don't see what the big deal is in having someone take a class before being allowed to purchase guns. I think it would be good for everyone involved. I don't think having to sit through a class makes it a privilage either. If you had to pass a class, then yeah, I could see that. But simple instruction I don't see as infringing on anyone's rights.

Frankly I don't see how someone can adequately protect themselves without at least a basic training in the use of the weapon.

Posted by: Dogshirt 26-Jun-2006, 07:02 PM
CC,
I don't know where you are from, but out here where I live, MOST if not all kids LEARN to shoot and handle ALL firearms safely. From our Dads, Uncles and Granddads. As A kid I got smacked for pointing a cap gun at my sister.
THEN we have to take a Hunter Education class to get a hunting license, with, you guessed it, MORE firearms safety. As I've posted before, the kids take them to school after early morning hunts and for after school. It drives the Rent-a-Cop nuts, but HEY! Welcome to rural America! I don't know a kid over 7 that hasn't learned to shoot here, unless he's an import, this is a college town and SOME of the folks that pulls in have some damn strange ideas!
My point is that MOST people who buy a gun have had some form of training. You don't usually grow up in a non-gun family and suddenly wake up one day and say "Hey, I'm gonna go get a gun!" Some do, yes, but the majority of gun owners have grown up with them and have had more intensive "training" than ANY class you are proposing!


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 26-Jun-2006, 07:43 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 26-Jun-2006, 08:02 PM)
CC,
I don't know where you are from, but out here where I live, MOST if not all kids LEARN to shoot and handle ALL firearms safely. From our Dads, Uncles and Granddads. As A kid I got smacked for pointing a cap gun at my sister.
THEN we have to take a Hunter Education class to get a hunting license, with, you guessed it, MORE firearms safety. As I've posted before, the kids take them to school after early morning hunts and for after school. It drives the Rent-a-Cop nuts, but HEY! Welcome to rural America! I don't know a kid over 7 that hasn't learned to shoot here, unless he's an import, this is a college town and SOME of the folks that pulls in have some damn strange ideas!
My point is that MOST people who buy a gun have had some form of training. You don't usually grow up in a non-gun family and suddenly wake up one day and say "Hey, I'm gonna go get a gun!" Some do, yes, but the majority of gun owners have grown up with them and have had more intensive "training" than ANY class you are proposing!


beer_mug.gif

You are right. Lets just remember that the criminals don't take training classes so why should the law biding citizen be required to take a class?

Posted by: sisterknight 26-Jun-2006, 07:50 PM
just to throw in my canadian two cents.....tonight on the news in montreal they reported that they are now arming the cops(city cops not provincial) with tazers as well as their regular weapons...get this, so that the crazed junkie or just plain crazy person that pulls heat on them can be brought down without killing them!!!before it was just the swat that had them, but with all the crime involving "unstable"persons they figured they were off their heads from whatever they were on....duh....

Posted by: CelticCoalition 27-Jun-2006, 10:09 AM
How do we know if criminals are taking training classes or not?

heck, if those of you who are proponents of the 2nd amendment feel so strongly, then why not add a class on gun use to the PE curriculum in schools? Then everyone will get a basic training and understanding of weapons, it's not infringing upon the rights of anyone because teenagers can't buy guns anyway, and now everyone is a little more educated.

What do you all think of that idea?

Posted by: CelticCoalition 27-Jun-2006, 10:13 AM
OH, and I forgot to say it before in my earlier post.

If you don't like the idea of using less lethal weapons such as tasers, etc, fine. Go out and kill anyone that threatens you or gets in your way.

But don't mock those that would use these weapons. Don't mock the idea of giving the police the choice of using a taser instead of a gun. Not everyone is willing to gun down someone just because they would be in the right to do so, not if there are other options available.

Posted by: Swanny 27-Jun-2006, 10:21 AM
QUOTE
I was not inferring that assualt rifles should be banned...I was simply stating that there is a difference between carrying a hand gun vs an assault rifle for defense. For example, which would you carry for everyday use and protection? A hand gun, or an assualt rifle? I realize that law enforcement and others carry assualt rifles in there vehicles, but they do not simply walk around with them. These people are also actively putting themselves in potentially dangerous situations where an assault rifle would be useful on occasion.


I work as a security officer/paramedic at a facilty considered vital to the National security. Most of the time I work at a fixed post (as opposed to patrol). I carry my handgun on my hip and the patrol rifle is parked in a quick-release locking rack next to the door of my guard shack alongside my shotgun. On patrol it's kept next to the shotgun, in a rack in the cab of the truck.

That's really immaterial, though. For every day protection around the house I frequently carry a 12 gauge pump shotgun. I live in grizzly bear country and it is not uncommon at all to see folks show up anywhere except the local bar with either a rifle or shotgun in hand.

QUOTE
Question for you Swanny. Before you were allowed to have the assault rifle were you trained in its use, or did they simply give it to you in case you needed it?


I was given a 10 minute "familiarization" of the rifle. A different company had the contract back then and they were cheap to the extreme. It was so bad that I had to call a buddy who retired from the military to come over to the house and show me how to disassemble the rifle for cleaning and maintenance. I'm very grateful that the new contractor takes things things FAR more seriously.

QUOTE
I really don't see what the big deal is in having someone take a class before being allowed to purchase guns.


Should we require people to take a class in logic and debate before practicing their right to free speech? How about requiring people to sit through a class before being allowed to worship in the manner they choose? Perhaps a class before being allowed to hang with friends on a street corner (right to assemble)?

The problem with rights is that if they are no longer inviolable, then they are no longer rights - merely privileges.

QUOTE
Frankly I don't see how someone can adequately protect themselves without at least a basic training in the use of the weapon.


Untrained people defend themselves from attack every day. They may not use a firearm or other weapon, but when attacked people resort to whatever option they may have available. Feet, fists, nails and teeth. I once saw the results of a frail little 72 year old widow swinging a 5 pound ashtray. It ended the assault and her assailant received a nasty crease to the temple and significant underlying brain damage. Even the abused child who curls up in a little ball is defending herself as best she can against the onslaught, even if it costs her her emotional health to do so.

One doesn't need to know how to safely operate a firearm in order to operate it. Just point and pull the trigger until it quits going "bang".

I'm not suggesting that people should not be trained, but I am opposed to that training being mandated by the Sovereign. Those who chose to forego such training should (and usually are) be held accountable for their inevitable mistakes.

QUOTE
.tonight on the news in montreal they reported that they are now arming the cops(city cops not provincial) with tazers as well as their regular weapons...get this, so that the crazed junkie or just plain crazy person that pulls heat on them can be brought down without killing them!


In the U.S. tazers are used most often in response to a knife or other edged weapon, rather than use on someone armed with a gun. They have saved many lives over the past few years subduing people that previous would have been shot. They have their down-side (some deaths have occurred as a result of their use), but they have saved many, many criminals and nut-cases from death and have had a considerable impact on the numbers of "suicide-by-cop" fatalities.

Swanny

Posted by: sisterknight 27-Jun-2006, 11:48 AM
cc- it was not a mock!! it was just another use for another choice of weaponary that the cops have chosen to use....but tazers can kill too

Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 27-Jun-2006, 12:48 PM
QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 27-Jun-2006, 12:09 PM)
How do we know if criminals are taking training classes or not?

heck, if those of you who are proponents of the 2nd amendment feel so strongly, then why not add a class on gun use to the PE curriculum in schools? Then everyone will get a basic training and understanding of weapons, it's not infringing upon the rights of anyone because teenagers can't buy guns anyway, and now everyone is a little more educated.

What do you all think of that idea?

Where my kids went to high school, hunter safety classes ARE required for every student. But this is a pre-requisite for a hunting license, not for buying a gun. Big difference.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 27-Jun-2006, 01:20 PM
QUOTE (sisterknight @ 27-Jun-2006, 11:48 AM)
cc- it was not a mock!! it was just another use for another choice of weaponary that the cops have chosen to use....but tazers can kill too

I apologize for the acusatory tone of my post. I got carried away.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 27-Jun-2006, 10:01 PM
QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 27-Jun-2006, 11:09 AM)
How do we know if criminals are taking training classes or not?

heck, if those of you who are proponents of the 2nd amendment feel so strongly, then why not add a class on gun use to the PE curriculum in schools? Then everyone will get a basic training and understanding of weapons, it's not infringing upon the rights of anyone because teenagers can't buy guns anyway, and now everyone is a little more educated.

What do you all think of that idea?

I agree they should include gun safty in schools but all the far lefters would pitch a fit. I think Isreal and Switzerland should be looked at when it comes to this idea.

Posted by: Swanny 27-Jun-2006, 11:53 PM
Many schools use the NRA's "Eddy Eagle" program to teach elementary kids about gun safety (don't touch, tell an adult). In many areas hunter education classes are offered in schools as an elective. I'm not familiar with any requiring it, but it wouldn't surprise me.

I would also like to see firearm's safety addressed in the schools, but I doubt it will happen on a wide spread basis just because so many anti- fanatics would let out such a high-pitched screech that every dog in the U.S. would be howling in response.

Swanny

Posted by: Nova Scotian 28-Jun-2006, 02:36 PM
Hey! This is primarly to our Canadian friends here. Did you hear that Canada is going to try to repeal their manditory gun registration for long guns? I think it's about time. The reason? Because crime with guns has gone up since the law was passed. An RCMP representive was on Fox news and sta Imagine that! I say it's a GOOD THING! See this link from CTV

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060619/tories_registry_060619/20060619?hub=TopStories

Posted by: Nova Scotian 04-Jul-2006, 08:40 PM
Happy 4th of July to all! Never forget your 2nd ammendment nor those who died or thought to keep it. England fought to take it away and today they're realizing with the increase in gun crime by criminals and thugs that disarming the law biding does NOTHING! Thank God the British didn't win 230 years ago. This is coming from one whos relitives fought in the British army during the revolution.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 04-Jul-2006, 08:41 PM
Happy 4th of July to all! Never forget your 2nd ammendment nor those who died or fought to keep it. England fought to take it away and today they're realizing with the increase in gun crime by criminals and thugs that disarming the law biding does NOTHING! Thank God the British didn't win 230 years ago. This is coming from one whos relitives fought in the British army during the revolution.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 06-Jul-2006, 11:50 AM
Hope everyone had a great 4th. Anyone who thinks the NRA is just a bunch of gun toating red necks better think again. The NRA was able to sway the UN from holding a meeting that concerns a push for a world wide gun ban. So to all the anti gun folks who think the NRA isn't very powerful better think again.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 24-Jul-2006, 06:26 PM
Just a reminder, owning a gun is a RIGHT, not a privilidge.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 27-Jul-2006, 04:15 AM
biggrin.gif Did every one here the good news? The House passed a bill protecting gun owners from having their guns confiscated during an emergency. This is what happened in New Orleans after Hurricain Katrina last year. Now all gun owners are alowedto stay armed even at the shelters. This is a victory for the NRA. Look at the link.http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=7934 biggrin.gif

Posted by: stoirmeil 27-Jul-2006, 11:40 AM
OK, Nova Scotian, you've been talking to yourself in here long enough. smile.gif

This should interest you, and some of the other gun enthusiasts -- a 400-year-old Scottish gun was found in Jamestown, Virginia. The article is interesting enough, but it's the commentary by readers about the find and what it signifies that's entertaining and thought provoking.

ARCHAEOLOGISTS have uncovered a rare but perfectly preserved early 17th-century Scottish pistol at the historic former British colony known as the birthplace of the United States, making the firearm one of the oldest artefacts of European origin ever discovered in North America.

The weapon probably belonged to one of the first settlers to arrive at Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607, and was recovered from a well at the site with several other "hugely significant" artefacts.



http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1089102006

Posted by: Dogshirt 27-Jul-2006, 03:25 PM
What an incredible find. The Scottish Pistol is one of the most graceful and beautiful firearms ever designed. Made with a steel stock, they were made to be fired going into the fight, then dropped to free up the hands for the claymore and dirk for the close work. If the fighter survived he would then reclaim his pistol, which since it had a steel stock, would be unbroken. I have seen one example that had mace blades around the muzzle, for use after it was fired. I wish I could see a picture of this one.


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: stoirmeil 27-Jul-2006, 06:33 PM
well -- this is not the new Jamestown find, but it is a picture of the remains of a snaphaunce pistol of the period found at the same site:

http://www.apva.org/ngex/c9snap.html




Posted by: Nova Scotian 27-Jul-2006, 07:34 PM
What an awsome find! I'd love to own an antique musket some day or even an old pistol from years back. thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 28-Jul-2006, 03:33 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 27-Jul-2006, 04:25 PM)
What an incredible find. The Scottish Pistol is one of the most graceful and beautiful firearms ever designed. Made with a steel stock, they were made to be fired going into the fight, then dropped to free up the hands for the claymore and dirk for the close work. If the fighter survived he would then reclaim his pistol, which since it had a steel stock, would be unbroken. I have seen one example that had mace blades around the muzzle, for use after it was fired. I wish I could see a picture of this one.


beer_mug.gif

I'm just glad you and me have something we can agree on in here beer_mug.gif
Are you a member of the NRA by the way?

Posted by: Dogshirt 28-Jul-2006, 04:38 PM
Lifetime! We also have the Clan. Did you get letters about restructuring the House of Gordon? If not, send me an address and I'll send you a copy. It is kind of confusing what the plan is, but after the meeting at the games this weekend I hope it will be clearer.


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 28-Jul-2006, 07:06 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 28-Jul-2006, 05:38 PM)
Lifetime! We also have the Clan. Did you get letters about restructuring the House of Gordon? If not, send me an address and I'll send you a copy. It is kind of confusing what the plan is, but after the meeting at the games this weekend I hope it will be clearer.


beer_mug.gif

Yes I would be interested in seeing. Do you need a home address or e-mail? thumbs_up.gif

Thanks

Posted by: Nova Scotian 03-Aug-2006, 07:01 PM
Did anyone hear about the Marine in Lawrence, Mass. who was aquited for defending his family? I'm not going to get into it but I think it should never have gone to trial. I say, WAY TO GO SARG!!! biggrin.gif

Posted by: Irish Stepper 06-Aug-2006, 02:33 AM
Last month when I went out to visit my dad in Ohio, I took my 2 boys with me. We went to a firing range to brush up on our skills. Neither of my boys had been around guns before, so it was a learning experience for them. We had them both try firing a .22 pistol and neither of them were strong enough to pull the trigger themselves. rolleyes.gif It was a great learning experience though. We took the time to explain to them that guns aren't bad...just the people who use them for bad reasons.

By the way, I'm finally about on equal terms with my dad when it comes to target shooting. Usually he kicks my butt to no end! He blamed it on his tri-focals though... wink.gif laugh.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 08-Aug-2006, 04:23 AM
Did anyone hear about the guy in Tampa Fl who was rodded at gun point and pursued his attacked with hin vehicle and ran him down? He was aquitted! biggrin.gif biggrin.gif
Now I don't encourage anyone to go and PLOT the same thing. He got off with the "crimes of passion" law. But I say this we as American have the right to defend ourselves. Always call 911 but have .357 as a secoundary!

Posted by: Dogshirt 08-Aug-2006, 05:39 AM
I prefer a .45, but the effect is the same. tongue.gif


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: John Clements 08-Aug-2006, 07:27 AM
I like a 45 too, because you can actually see the round going to the target.

Posted by: Elspeth 08-Aug-2006, 08:00 AM
OK, more than a little into the conversation and I didn't read it all, but can anyone explain to me just exactly what is gun control?

The term gets bandied about, but is there a clear definition of what it is?

And, shadows, again I'm late to the party, but I agree 100% with your letter in that the violent media culture our kids are being subject to is the real issue.

I'm amazed that games such as grand theft auto are sold with so little backlash.

TV/movie/video game violence takes 'virtual lives'. Killing with no consequences. Frightening how that gets translated to use of real guns with no respect for life.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 08-Aug-2006, 02:19 PM
QUOTE (Elspeth @ 08-Aug-2006, 09:00 AM)
OK, more than a little into the conversation and I didn't read it all, but can anyone explain to me just exactly what is gun control?

The term gets bandied about, but is there a clear definition of what it is?

And, shadows, again I'm late to the party, but I agree 100% with your letter in that the violent media culture our kids are being subject to is the real issue.

I'm amazed that games such as grand theft auto are sold with so little backlash.

TV/movie/video game violence takes 'virtual lives'. Killing with no consequences. Frightening how that gets translated to use of real guns with no respect for life.

I started it to discuss guns and how SCREWED UP gun control is.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 08-Aug-2006, 05:12 PM
QUOTE (Elspeth @ 08-Aug-2006, 08:00 AM)
OK, more than a little into the conversation and I didn't read it all, but can anyone explain to me just exactly what is gun control?

The term gets bandied about, but is there a clear definition of what it is?

And, shadows, again I'm late to the party, but I agree 100% with your letter in that the violent media culture our kids are being subject to is the real issue.

I'm amazed that games such as grand theft auto are sold with so little backlash.

TV/movie/video game violence takes 'virtual lives'. Killing with no consequences. Frightening how that gets translated to use of real guns with no respect for life.

I don't know what others on here would say, but I define gun control as any law that restricts the ability of a person to own or purchase a firearm or ammunition.

And I have a quick question in regards to the violence in the media causing problems. If this were true, why has violent crime steadily decreased over the past decade?

I get that statistic from the Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm

Also according to this site violent crime for juveniles has also steadily decreased over the past decade.

If violence in the media were having an effect on violence...wouldn't the crime rate be increasing?

Posted by: Nova Scotian 08-Aug-2006, 05:28 PM
QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 08-Aug-2006, 06:12 PM)
QUOTE (Elspeth @ 08-Aug-2006, 08:00 AM)
OK, more than a little into the conversation and I didn't read it all, but can anyone explain to me just exactly what is gun control?

The term gets bandied about, but is there a clear definition of what it is?

And, shadows, again I'm late to the party, but I agree 100% with your letter in that the violent media culture our kids are being subject to is the real issue.

I'm amazed that games such as grand theft auto are sold with so little backlash.

TV/movie/video game violence takes 'virtual lives'. Killing with no consequences. Frightening how that gets translated to use of real guns with no respect for life.

I don't know what others on here would say, but I define gun control as any law that restricts the ability of a person to own or purchase a firearm or ammunition.

And I have a quick question in regards to the violence in the media causing problems. If this were true, why has violent crime steadily decreased over the past decade?

I get that statistic from the Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm

Also according to this site violent crime for juveniles has also steadily decreased over the past decade.

If violence in the media were having an effect on violence...wouldn't the crime rate be increasing?

I think the media has a big part as well as violent video games but parenting or lack there of play a huge part. Yes violent crime has dropped. That's great! But it still is a problem. We Americans have the right to life, liberty, and happiness. Those are the main 3 basic rights. I protect them with the right of .357! biggrin.gif "Don't tread on Me"

Posted by: Nova Scotian 08-Aug-2006, 05:33 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 08-Aug-2006, 06:39 AM)
I prefer a .45, but the effect is the same. tongue.gif


beer_mug.gif

Make sure you use hydro shock bullits! thumbs_up.gif beer_mug.gif I showed my brother in law a video demo on what those babies do when someone gets hit. All he could say was, "dang, you carry conceled with those? I'm not messing with you!"

Posted by: Dogshirt 08-Aug-2006, 08:44 PM
Gold Star tongue.gif


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: Swanny 09-Aug-2006, 04:05 AM
QUOTE
but can anyone explain to me just exactly what is gun control?


Gun control is putting 10 of 10 into the X ring.


Posted by: Elspeth 09-Aug-2006, 07:22 AM
QUOTE (Swanny @ 09-Aug-2006, 05:05 AM)

Gun control is putting 10 of 10 into the X ring.

So, why would anyone be against it? tongue.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 09-Aug-2006, 07:57 AM
QUOTE (Elspeth @ 09-Aug-2006, 08:22 AM)
QUOTE (Swanny @ 09-Aug-2006, 05:05 AM)

Gun control is putting 10 of 10 into the X ring.

So, why would anyone be against it? tongue.gif

Commies, socialist and fascious would be or anyone who has an agenda to have total control over a group or population.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 09-Aug-2006, 12:25 PM
While we are at, I carry a conceled weapon I'd say 90% of the time or when I can. I think EVERY state should have that unrestricted right. Stats prove that crime did go down in Florida when they brought that law into being but the anti-gun goon try to doctor the numbers and get stats that are most of the time bogas to make it look like guns are the problem.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 12-Aug-2006, 10:45 AM
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." ~Thomas Jefferson, 1776

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe."
~Noah Webster, 1787

"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

"What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
~George Mason, 1788

"The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." ~Samuel Adams, 1788

"The militia is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it. The great object is that every man be armed."
~Patrick Henry

"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves."
~William Pitt, 1783


Just a little something for those who are gun nutural to think about.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 23-Aug-2006, 04:32 AM
This is in response to the Your Turn commentary Aug. 12 by Diane Barde of the Brady Campaign to promote a police state.

If a person such as Barde does not want to protect herself or her family, that is perfectly fine, but why should law-abiding, free people who do want to protect themselves have to ask permission to do so?

Why shouldn't criminals live in fear instead of the good guys? Many cities in the Bay Area have astronomical murder rates. Why should a law-abiding citizen have to be unprotected? Why should I have to wear a Timex instead of a Rolex because the county sheriff or the state will not allow citizens the dignity of self protection?

Why is the burden on the law abiding not to be a victim? These people in the Brady Bunch are telling you that you would be safer without a gun because people (the police) -- who have never, ever stopped a crime in advance and only even arrest and prosecute a minimal percentage of perpetrators -- will be there in 20 minutes to write the report.

In every single state where "shall-carry" laws have been passed, crime has dropped significantly, old people have become safer, the criminals were put on notice.

This is the only proven effective way to reduce crime -- unless we are planning to do it like they do in China -- and it doesn't require more taxes and more police-state infrastructure.

A law-abiding citizen should not have to pay a campaign contribution to the sheriff or be on his posse or be his personal friend to exercise the human dignity and right of self defense.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: stoirmeil 23-Aug-2006, 10:23 AM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 23-Aug-2006, 05:32 AM)
Why should I have to wear a Timex instead of a Rolex because the county sheriff or the state will not allow citizens the dignity of self protection?


Huh???

I must be missing something here. Can you shoot somebody with a Rolex, then? unsure.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 23-Aug-2006, 10:58 AM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 23-Aug-2006, 11:23 AM)
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 23-Aug-2006, 05:32 AM)
Why should I have to wear a Timex instead of a Rolex because the county sheriff or the state will not allow citizens the dignity of self protection?


Huh???

I must be missing something here. Can you shoot somebody with a Rolex, then? unsure.gif

Think about it, which victim would be more tempting to a robber? One with a timex or one with a rolex?


Why shouldn't criminals live in fear instead of the good guys? Many cities in the Bay Area have astronomical murder rates. Why should a law-abiding citizen have to be unprotected? Why should I have to wear a Timex instead of a Rolex because the county sheriff or the state will not allow citizens the dignity of self protection?

Read this again and think about it>

Posted by: stoirmeil 23-Aug-2006, 11:25 AM
Well -- I was kind of teasing a little. But to be truthful, I don't think criminals have all that much fear of an armed civilian on the street, although I do think they might be more careful and inventive (but not deterred completely) by the thought of a citizen being armed to defend his home, which is his own familiar turf and inherently more dangerous for a thief. On the street, if I want your Rolex and I think you've got a gun, I'll find a way to slug you from behind. sad.gif Then I'll take your watch AND your gun. Or -- what if I snatch your watch and run like hell into a crowd -- are you going to start firing after me and endanger all those people? Not everything is a face to face stickup.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 25-Aug-2006, 06:34 AM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 23-Aug-2006, 12:25 PM)
Well -- I was kind of teasing a little. But to be truthful, I don't think criminals have all that much fear of an armed civilian on the street, although I do think they might be more careful and inventive (but not deterred completely) by the thought of a citizen being armed to defend his home, which is his own familiar turf and inherently more dangerous for a thief. On the street, if I want your Rolex and I think you've got a gun, I'll find a way to slug you from behind. sad.gif Then I'll take your watch AND your gun. Or -- what if I snatch your watch and run like hell into a crowd -- are you going to start firing after me and endanger all those people? Not everything is a face to face stickup.

Yes. You are right that if a thug wants something of yours and thinks you are armed, he probably would sucker punch of blind side you. That's why when I carry I'm in CONSTANT awareness of my surroundings and I stay away from places where I could get held up. However if something still happens, being aware of my surroundings I stand a chance of keeping whats mine and killing if I have to to keep it.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 25-Aug-2006, 06:36 AM
Before the police arrive, it's just YOU, and ...
Police response times vary widely, depending on volume of calls, and manpower levels; you must consider how long you want to cringe in terror, hoping they arrive, before some possibly drug or alcohol-crazed psycho gets to you first. What if more clear headed burglars cut your phone lines, or your cell phone goes dead? If you don't realize that YOU are first, and foremost responsible for your own safety, in your own home, you've really missed something joining this organization... Proven fact is that burglars most fear armed homeowners, and even more so, aggressive ones, FAR MORE THAN THEY DO THE POLICE (who can't be everywhere at once), a well-documented fact!


Just something else to justify gun freedom.

Posted by: stoirmeil 25-Aug-2006, 10:40 AM
I've said I think a home owner is justified having a licensed weapon in his home. I'm more ambivalent about someone who carries a weapon on the street.

I've heard that burglers fear little yappy dogs, too, the ones that run and hide and scream and wake up half the neighborhood, more than anything. Of course you have to feed them and walk them . . . but it sounds worth it, if you're in a high-burglary area, because police don't come quickly to home alarm systems either.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 25-Aug-2006, 11:14 AM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 25-Aug-2006, 11:40 AM)
I've said I think a home owner is justified having a licensed weapon in his home. I'm more ambivalent about someone who carries a weapon on the street.

I've heard that burglers fear little yappy dogs, too, the ones that run and hide and scream and wake up half the neighborhood, more than anything. Of course you have to feed them and walk them . . . but it sounds worth it, if you're in a high-burglary area, because police don't come quickly to home alarm systems either.

Well think what you want. I pack and am ready to use it if I have to. Not that I want to. I teach this. God forbid I ever have to use it. But God forbid you could have had it but didn't or weren't allowed.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 25-Aug-2006, 11:16 AM
I think a home owner is justified having a licensed weapon in his home

Also, you think weapons should be licensed? That will just give the anti-gun scum when they get elected, to take them away! Just look at what happened in New Orleans after Katrina.

Posted by: stoirmeil 25-Aug-2006, 11:45 AM
Yes, they should be licensed. The same amount of answerability for the use of a dangerous implement as a citizen has to show to use a car -- you get the license if you are of age, and you demonstrate proof of skill in operating it; and I think insurance in case any person or property is injured or damaged during operation would be a good idea too. Licensing laws might need to be modified, maybe for age in any case, depending on the part of the country or the primary use, like for example hunting. Again, as we have mentioned before, state by state determination.

But yes -- if you are going to carry a weapon primarily for self defense against a potential human assailant, why should you not have to register it and show proof of skill in operating it? Tell me why that bothers you, assuming it does not prevent you from owning or operating it, if it should become necessary.

Posted by: John Clements 25-Aug-2006, 02:33 PM

I don’t know guys, but some times I think Gun Control is not about protecting ourselves from each other, and more about revenue, and not having a gun to protect ourselves, from our own jack boot government.

Just a thought.

Posted by: Dogshirt 25-Aug-2006, 03:43 PM
QUOTE
Yes, they should be licensed. The same amount of answerability for the use of a dangerous implement as a citizen has to show to use a car -- you get the license if you are of age, and you demonstrate proof of skill in operating it; and I think insurance in case any person or property is injured or damaged during operation would be a good idea too. Licensing laws might need to be modified, maybe for age in any case, depending on the part of the country or the primary use, like for example hunting. Again, as we have mentioned before, state by state determination.

But yes -- if you are going to carry a weapon primarily for self defense against a potential human assailant, why should you not have to register it and show proof of skill in operating it? Tell me why that bothers you, assuming it does not prevent you from owning or operating it, if it should become necessary.


When Pigs fly, Hell freezes over, and I vote for a Democrat!!!!!!!!!!!


beer_mug.gif


Posted by: stoirmeil 25-Aug-2006, 06:10 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 25-Aug-2006, 04:43 PM)


When Pigs fly, Hell freezes over, and I vote for a Democrat!!!!!!!!!!!


beer_mug.gif

Heaven forfend all three, revered one! smile.gif

But you didn't say why you object to registering it or proving you can effectively operate it. Why is that so hard to take? I honestly don't get it. unsure.gif

Posted by: Dogshirt 25-Aug-2006, 06:15 PM
QUOTE
But you didn't say why you object to registering it or proving you can effectively operate it. Why is that so hard to take? I honestly don't get it.


We are talking about a Constitutional RIGHT. This is not a privilege like driving a car. This is a Guaranteed RIGHT. One does not put any infringement on a right!


beer_mug.gif



Posted by: Nova Scotian 25-Aug-2006, 06:18 PM
Yes, they should be licensed. The same amount of answerability for the use of a dangerous implement as a citizen has to show to use a car -- you get the license if you are of age, and you demonstrate proof of skill in operating it; and I think insurance in case any person or property is injured or damaged during operation would be a good idea too. Licensing laws might need to be modified, maybe for age in any case, depending on the part of the country or the primary use, like for example hunting. Again, as we have mentioned before, state by state determination.

But yes -- if you are going to carry a weapon primarily for self defense against a potential human assailant, why should you not have to register it and show proof of skill in operating it? Tell me why that bothers you, assuming it does not prevent you from owning or operating it, if it should become necessary.



So the put restrictions on the law abiding citizens. The criminals will ALAWAYS have the guns. All I can say is when it comes to gun laws, thank God I live in Florida! Although I do like Alaska and Vermonts gun laws or lack there of. Speaking of that, the old wild west shootouts that the anti-gunners spoke of when Florida passed the ccw permits? I've been a Paramedic for 10 years and between the field and the ER, most of the gun shot wounds I see are on criminals. I'm still waiting to see the shootout happen.

If gun registration EVER comes, I become a criminal just as quick a Dog. HELL NO I WON'T EVER REGISTER!!!!!

Posted by: Nova Scotian 25-Aug-2006, 06:19 PM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 25-Aug-2006, 03:33 PM)
I don’t know guys, but some times I think Gun Control is not about protecting ourselves from each other, and more about revenue, and not having a gun to protect ourselves, from our own jack boot government.

Just a thought.

John I actually agree with you on that one. thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: coastman 01-Sep-2006, 01:21 PM
I cannot remember not having a gun. My father taught me how to use a gun when I was less than ten years old. I have taught my daughters how to use a pistols and long guns. Now it is my grandchildrens time to learn. My 8 year old grandson shoots a 410 gauge shot gun. I have a youth model 20 gauge for him now. My 5 year old granddaughter is learning to shoot a Daisy BB gun. Safety is the first rule at my household. We are having a rash of criminals breaking down the door and robbing older folks. Recently an "older folks" killed two criminals robbing his home. No charges filed by the police. These two criminals will not be bother society. thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: Dogshirt 01-Sep-2006, 04:05 PM
QUOTE
I cannot remember not having a gun. My father taught me how to use a gun when I was less than ten years old. I have taught my daughters how to use a pistols and long guns. Now it is my grandchildrens time to learn. My 8 year old grandson shoots a 410 gauge shot gun. I have a youth model 20 gauge for him now. My 5 year old granddaughter is learning to shoot a Daisy BB gun. Safety is the first rule at my household. We are having a rash of criminals breaking down the door and robbing older folks. Recently an "older folks" killed two criminals robbing his home. No charges filed by the police. These two criminals will not be bother society. 


Good guy 2 Bad guys 0! Icouldn't agree with you more!
Sorry to hear of your mother's passing.



Posted by: Nova Scotian 19-Sep-2006, 11:00 AM
Just got back from Nova Scotia. Beautiful place alright! I've been going there since I was born. Most of my fathers relitives are there. But not being able to be armed while I was there bothered me. Had a real great bonfire side debate on Guns. I think I changed a few minds. I strongly defended the 2nd ammendment. My cousins tried to take the wind out of my sails by reminding me that my ancesters were loyalist but I told them that was 230 years ago and I'm me and my grandfather and father as well as myself all served in the US military to defend that right. They also reminded me that Canada gaind independence without revolution. However I said who's to say ti ever would have happened if the revolution in the US didn't occure? Also If I were a Canadian citizen, I'd question my independence from England with Queen Elizebeth as head of state and on the coins and currency. wink.gif

Posted by: sisterknight 19-Sep-2006, 11:31 AM
i had to wade into this one again...today in montreal we buried an 18 girl who was shot in her CEGEP,2 are still in critical condition, 11 more treated and released!!!the kid that did the shooting was 21yrs. and was shot dead by the cops,this morning the S.Q arrested a 15 year old for saying that the guy didn't do it right and he would do better!!!all this is on a web site called vampirefreaks....what is the world coming to??the weapons were legally registered!!! the registery system cost lots of money but it still doesn't do the job!!

sorry had to say this...it is very sad when families become scared to send their kids to school for fear of what might happen....

not a happy day here in montreal

Posted by: Nova Scotian 19-Sep-2006, 12:43 PM
QUOTE (sisterknight @ 19-Sep-2006, 12:31 PM)
i had to wade into this one again...today in montreal we buried an 18 girl who was shot in her CEGEP,2 are still in critical condition, 11 more treated and released!!!the kid that did the shooting was 21yrs. and was shot dead by the cops,this morning the S.Q arrested a 15 year old for saying that the guy didn't do it right and he would do better!!!all this is on a web site called vampirefreaks....what is the world coming to??the weapons were legally registered!!! the registery system cost lots of money but it still doesn't do the job!!

sorry had to say this...it is very sad when families become scared to send their kids to school for fear of what might happen....

not a happy day here in montreal

OH yes. I was still in Canada when that happened. The same cousin I had the bonfire side gun debate with brought up Columbine and how NOTHING like that ever happened in Canada. Boy she ate her words. She even admitted it. LOLOL. I still love her though. My heart and prayers go out to all the families who lost a loved on. The whole incident comes to show that more strict gun laws won't stop Columbine type incidents. What's sad is the law abiding gun owners are the ones who will pay. Canada wanted to drop registration on long guns. I hope they still do. Registration obviously didn't stop this incident.

Posted by: sisterknight 19-Sep-2006, 03:44 PM
unfortunately not...those damn frenchmen here are blethering that more should be done and that stephen harper should be more passionate about it!!!!!!!!!!!!sorry

Posted by: Nova Scotian 19-Sep-2006, 06:44 PM
QUOTE (sisterknight @ 19-Sep-2006, 04:44 PM)
unfortunately not...those damn frenchmen here are blethering that more should be done and that stephen harper should be more passionate about it!!!!!!!!!!!!sorry

Well you summed it up. Frenchmen! Maby they should just break away for the greater good of Canada.

Posted by: sisterknight 20-Sep-2006, 06:47 AM
there is no greater good if the province of quebec left canada....it would be a very back day in history, don't forfet it was quebec and ontario that was the beginnings of our great nation!!unfortunately the french don't know that no means NO!!! oooopps sorry i know i'm off topic

Posted by: stoirmeil 20-Sep-2006, 10:16 AM
QUOTE (coastman @ 01-Sep-2006, 02:21 PM)
I cannot remember not having a gun. My father taught me how to use a gun when I was less than ten years old. I have taught my daughters how to use a pistols and long guns. Now it is my grandchildrens time to learn. My 8 year old grandson shoots a 410 gauge shot gun. I have a youth model 20 gauge for him now. My 5 year old granddaughter is learning to shoot a Daisy BB gun.

I kind of liked this image --

http://www.flatrockpublishing.com/images/kid%20and%20dog%20and%20gun.jpg

Probably this kid will be a good responsible hunter someday, and once the hound is a little less green smile.gif they'll have some good times together, not to mention venison, rabbit and wildfowl on the table.

But I still don't see what that has to do with registering or not registering a gun, or being required to show proof of knowing how to use it safely. Don't gimme the constitution again -- that was a very long time ago, and social, civil and legal conditions have changed completely since then.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 20-Sep-2006, 06:11 PM
QUOTE (sisterknight @ 20-Sep-2006, 07:47 AM)
there is no greater good if the province of quebec left canada....it would be a very back day in history, don't forfet it was quebec and ontario that was the beginnings of our great nation!!unfortunately the french don't know that no means NO!!! oooopps sorry i know i'm off topic

Oh! Believe me I agree! I don't wan't Canada to ba broken up. You could say I'm one of a few Yankees that know a thing or two about Canada. It's like a secound nation to me. As you can see by my name on the CR site, I'm American by birth but Nova Scotian by the grace of God. Now lets get back on topic. laugh.gif smile.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 20-Sep-2006, 06:26 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 20-Sep-2006, 11:16 AM)
I kind of liked this image --

http://www.flatrockpublishing.com/images/kid%20and%20dog%20and%20gun.jpg

Probably this kid will be a good responsible hunter someday, and once the hound is a little less green smile.gif they'll have some good times together, not to mention venison, rabbit and wildfowl on the table.

But I still don't see what that has to do with registering or not registering a gun, or being required to show proof of knowing how to use it safely. Don't gimme the constitution again -- that was a very long time ago, and social, civil and legal conditions have changed completely since then.

Cute attachment. I like it.


Now about what you said, tell me how registerting guns prevents criminals from getting guns? Tell me when the last criminal registered their gun? HOW will it prevent crime? Who does that law really punish? I think it would make it easier to confiscate guns if some anti gun scum ever got into office on a local state or federal level. IT IS OUR RIGHT to PROTECT ourselves and this nation. I'LL give you the constitution EVERY time because weather you or the anti-gun crowd like it OR NOT it's there to STAY! It counts for today the same as it did 230 years ago! If someone EVER tries to confiscate my gun without cause, ie. I commited a fellony or broke any other law attached to the CCW permit, they'd have to kill me and MANY others first.
In conclusion, ANY one who thinks they are responsible enough to own a gun should learn how to use it first for their own good. Fortunatly MOST folks I encounter who are interested in getting a gun want to learn how to use it first. So why create a LAW that will only punish the GOOD people!

That's all I have to say. I THANK GOD for the 2nd AMMENDMENT!!

Posted by: stoirmeil 20-Sep-2006, 06:45 PM
Stop shouting at me, man! sad.gif

I never said registering guns would prevent criminals from getting hold of them. I don't believe that if you have a gun registered openly and legally it's going to make it more likely someone will take it away from you. But it will make you accountable for its ownership and safe use, as a law abiding citizen. It is a LETHAL INSTRUMENT, and that is its primary purpose. I see no reason to have the whole population, law-abiding or otherwise, skulking about with the things hidden and unaccounted for. Far better that there be some punishment for the person found with one illegally, unregistered, since he doesn't have the civic sense of responsibility to own up to having it and commit himself to learning its proper operation and care. You, NS,want to be able to surprise someone you think threatens you, is it not so? without anyone holding you responsible for it or even knowing you have it. That's in the ballpark of scot-free vigilantism, and I don't think that is how the constitution was ever construed, back in the days when every citizen was openly assumed to have a gun in the house.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 20-Sep-2006, 06:45 PM
Don't gimme the constitution again -- that was a very long time ago, and social, civil and legal conditions have changed completely since then.




Also a little advice, don't come to this thread putting down the 2nd ammendment. There are a lot of people in here who hold it dear. Trust me you'll loose. smile.gif

Posted by: stoirmeil 20-Sep-2006, 06:50 PM
You spell it "lose." And I don't think of it as a game, a contest or a war, and this thread is not your private domain, or the domain of gun non-control enthusiasts at all, despite all appearances. The second amendment is a long outmoded piece of legislation as it stands, and your arguments strike me as a good example of why. Address the main comment please -- why do you wish to conceal the fact that you have a lethal instrument, and not be held accountable under the law for ownership or the demonstrated ability to use it correctly? Registration does not prevent you from owning it. It might protect others from you, though. Is that what you don't want to give up -- the element of surprise? I am not trying to bust your arse -- I want to understand this mentality.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 20-Sep-2006, 07:16 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 20-Sep-2006, 07:50 PM)
You spell it "lose." And I don't think of it as a game, a contest or a war, and this thread is not your private domain, or the domain of gun non-control enthusiasts at all, despite all appearances. The second amendment is a long outmoded piece of legislation as it stands, and your arguments strike me as a good example of why. Address the main comment please -- why do you wish to conceal the fact that you have a lethal instrument, and not be held accountable for ownership or the demonstrated ability to use it correctly? It does not prevent you from owning it. It might protect others from you, though. Is that what you don't want to give up -- the element of surprise? I am not trying to bust your arse -- I want to understand this mentality.

OK, tell me this, since they started allowing law abiding citizen in Florida to carry concelled weapons with a permit, why did the crime rate go down? Humm? Why did the car jackers in Miami only go after foreign visitors? They even admitted it to the press. "Because they know they wern't armed". If you think that a government won't take guns away if they're registered, well you are wrong. Just ask any leagal gun owner in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. The Cops confiscated all the guns from all the law abiding except the criminals and people were being robbed of their supplies at gun point. A clear VIOLATION of the secound amment. Now the City of New Orleans is being sued by the NRA and the city already tried to have it thrown out but the Judge refused. Now a lot of states have signd a promas never to confiscate guns in a state of emergency again. Also, If I'm somewhere and someone wants to rob a place and see me with a gun, don't you think they'd target me first. If it's conceled, I'm safer. I think you are smart enough to figure out the rest. I live in a state that if someone enters my home illeagally, I have the right to shoot them dead and have no consequences to follow. Unfortunatly, in a few other states, if you do the same thing, they treat YOU as a criminal. Thats @#$$ up if you ask me. The bottom line is and Dog Shirt will agree with me. They'll have to pry the gun from my cold dead hands. I have a wife and daughter and do I ever want to use my gun or does my wife ever want to use her's? NO way! But we will if we have to.

Also you said registration will protect others from me. Well if I'm a law abiding citizen, why would they need protection from me? They'd be protected by me now. You see here in the South, we trust our citizens. Did you know there's a town in Georga that you are required to own a gun to live there. What's the crime rate? 0

Like said before, all the people I know who want to own a gun, want to know how to use it first. Yes there are some who don't care and thank goodness they are few and far between. So why should we the responsible gun owners be held responsible because of them?

That's all I have to say. thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 20-Sep-2006, 07:25 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 20-Sep-2006, 07:45 PM)
Stop shouting at me, man! sad.gif

I never said registering guns would prevent criminals from getting hold of them. I don't believe that if you have a gun registered openly and legally it's going to make it more likely someone will take it away from you. But it will make you accountable for its ownership and safe use, as a law abiding citizen. It is a LETHAL INSTRUMENT, and that is its primary purpose. I see no reason to have the whole population, law-abiding or otherwise, skulking about with the things hidden and unaccounted for. Far better that there be some punishment for the person found with one illegally, unregistered, since he doesn't have the civic sense of responsibility to own up to having it and commit himself to learning its proper operation and care. You, NS,want to be able to surprise someone you think threatens you, is it not so? without anyone holding you responsible for it or even knowing you have it. That's in the ballpark of scot-free vigilantism, and I don't think that is how the constitution was ever construed, back in the days when every citizen was openly assumed to have a gun in the house.Don't gimme the constitution again -- that was a very long time ago, and social, civil and legal conditions have changed completely since then.

You, NS,want to be able to surprise someone you think threatens you, is it not so? without anyone holding you responsible for it or even knowing you have it. That's in the ballpark of scot-free vigilantism,

If I you were a criminal, which house would you want to rob even if someone were in it? The one in a state where hand guns are banned? Or a state where gunsare allowed to be owned and or conceled?
Also, vigilantism? Well I don't go out looking to shoot ANYONE! My moto is GOD FORBID I EVER HAVE TO USE MY GUN! But GOD forbid I need it and don't have it. Besides, I have a lot of Cop friends who are in favor of carry conceled weapon permits, and they think registration is a waist of time money and energy. Also when it come down to the legal aspect, I rather be tried by 12 then carried by 6.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 20-Sep-2006, 07:26 PM
why do you wish to conceal the fact that you have a lethal instrument, and not be held accountable under the law for ownership

Why should a criminal have the right to know if I'm armed or not?

Posted by: stoirmeil 20-Sep-2006, 07:38 PM
These catch phrases about "tried by twelve instead of carried by 6", or "cold dead hands", and all that other NRA-style sloganeering make me think you are in a very rote, rigid and emotional state of mind about it, and waving sayings without reflection as justifications. That is not a good indicator right there for carrying.

I don't suggest that a person with a registered gun should carry it where other people can see it. That attracts trouble and confrontation, I agree. I am saying that the weapon you keep in your house or carry concealed on your person should be registered, or you cannot be held accountable for its ownership or use. You are putting too much stock in some imagined, obvious difference between a law abiding citizen and a criminal. I know of no natural law or belief system that creates such a distinction, and the amount of situational pressure it takes to make a law abiding citizen slip the boundary is not known, very individually variable. It is not an ideal situation -- y'all down there have a culture that puts guns commonly and routinely in the hands of the young, way below the age when they could legally drive, as a matter of course. All well and good, but even that is not a guarantee that they will use them competently or with good judgement. I cannot see why registering guns and having to demonstate competence compromises your safety.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 20-Sep-2006, 07:43 PM
I'm a PROUD NRA member. Also, if you think they are just a bunch of gun toating goons, well they are one of the nations most power lobby FYI. Also if you feel the 2nd ammendment isn't needed, it sound to me that it's because it doesn't fit your agenda. Lets see someone sayt the the 1st ammendment isnt necessary any more.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 20-Sep-2006, 07:46 PM
Also FYI the tried by 12 then carried by 6 is a COP motto. It's not from the NRA

Posted by: Nova Scotian 20-Sep-2006, 08:08 PM
y'all down there have a culture that puts guns commonly and routinely in the hands of the young, way below the age when they could legally drive, as a matter of course. All well and good, but even that is not a guarantee that they will use them competently or with good judgement. I cannot see why registering guns and having to demonstate competence compromises your safety.


FYI, I'm originally from NJ. So I know how Y'ALL up their think of the South as backward and should have been wiped out during the civil war. You can't legally own a gun under 21 here in Florida. Also most of my "gun" buddies are from the great blue north, NY,NJ,CT,MS, etc. Most are either retired Cops or just those escaping the cold. Me I moved here to go to school and stayed. So it's not a Southern thing. I also am teach a Canadian how to shoot and is looking forward to owning a gun when he and his wife are comfortable. They are taking advantage of a right that they didn't have in Canada. By the way Canada is a nation I truly love. Also, I work with a guy from Boston who say my gun mag and NRA pi and said oh! Your one of them. Wellyou know what I am one of them. And I'll bet if you, him or anyone else were ever in a situation where a nut is shooting people randomly, you'd wish one of us were there to shoot them to stop them. You think that hasn't ever happened? YES it has. In Texas before they allowed the CCW permit, a crazy nut drove his suv through a restraunt window and just started shooting people randomly. 21 people were killed, one person who survived had a gun in her car but if she had it with her she could have saved a few people including her parients but she also knew if she took it in she could have lost her job and lively hood over it. Even though she may have saved a few lives! Gun registration would not have stopped that guy but a conceled weapons holder could have stopped the attack. If you want to live in a society that has laws for everything, and by the way laws cost more money, fine. But your arguement for gun control is futile to me. I could go on with other FACTS but you won't care anyway. You want gun control and the fact is it doesn't stop crime. It only make it harder for the law abiding citizen to obtain and possess a gun which is a RIGHT not a privilidge! biggrin.gif

Posted by: stoirmeil 20-Sep-2006, 08:17 PM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 20-Sep-2006, 08:43 PM)
I'm a PROUD NRA member. Also, if you think they are just a bunch of gun toating goons, well they are one of the nations most power lobby FYI. Also if you feel the 2nd ammendment isn't needed, it sound to me that it's because it doesn't fit your agenda. Lets see someone sayt the the 1st ammendment isnt necessary any more.

You still haven't answered my most basic question. In fact, verbally you are just reacting to perceived slights and firing wildly from the hip. I never said a thing about gun-toting goons. I said they are prone to using slogans, and what the danger of that is. I have no agenda except understanding why the vision of a whole population who may or may not have guns, but think it is nobody's business whether they do or not, is better than at least requiring the responsible, law abiding members of the population to be accountable for ownership and proper operation. As I have said about half a dozen times. This is not about how many maniacs you need to protect yourself from, or however many examples you could give. Lastly -- it does not matter whether you came from New Jersey originally. You are living now in a culture of much more acceptance of guns around the average population, at younger ages.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 20-Sep-2006, 08:21 PM
rote, rigid and emotional state of mind about it, and waving sayings without reflection as justifications.

Rote? I happen to know exactally what I'm saying when I say it and understand it fully! Your statement sums up the far lefters all right on a lot of issues!

Posted by: stoirmeil 20-Sep-2006, 08:26 PM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 20-Sep-2006, 09:21 PM)
rote, rigid and emotional state of mind about it, and waving sayings without reflection as justifications.

Rote? I happen to know exactally what I'm saying when I say it and understand it fully! Your statement sums up the far lefters all right on a lot of issues!

And you are using the only index you seem to understand or know about -- "guns, do you approve my having and carrying at full liberty and without accountability or not?" -- as a way of reducing a huge number of criteria concerning where I stand politically. And that makes you wrong. And probably rigid too.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 20-Sep-2006, 08:28 PM
I have no agenda except understanding why the vision of a whole population who may or may not have guns, but think it is nobody's business whether they do or not, is better than at least requiring the responsible, law abiding members of the population to be accountable for ownership and proper operation.


Why don't you look at my signature at the bottom of my space. The one by Plato and go back and read some of the quotes from our founding fathers. I guess you'll try to say that's not for today as well but it's a fact I've always believed. Like I said before, since when has gun registration stopped or slowed down crime? If I had to register my gun, all it would do is make me pay more money to register it, and tell the police that I'm a law abiding citizen. Would a criminal register a gun? How would it protect the cops. I think I've already answered you question as to learning safe handling so I'm not going to repeat myself.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 20-Sep-2006, 08:33 PM
And you are using the only index you seem to understand or know about -- "guns, do you approve my having and carrying at full liberty and without accountability or not?" -

If you are a law abiding citizen, not a convicted fellon, of stable mind, not an alcoholic or drug user, then you have every right to a CCW. If you don't want to carry it, then you can keep it in your home. I DO approve of you carrying a gun. It's your right!

Posted by: Nova Scotian 20-Sep-2006, 08:34 PM
I do understand a lot of other things, but guns are my speciality.

Posted by: stoirmeil 20-Sep-2006, 08:37 PM
You have answered the question under the question. There is no difference between you and a criminal, in terms of the way you think gun rights and privileges ought to be -- that is, nobody has to declare ownership or demonstrate proper operation before owning and carrying one, and nobody has to disclose to fellow citizens that he owns or carries -- no difference, but your self-perceived lawfulness and judgement. Having had a wee bit taste of your temper here, I am afraid that is not enough for me.

Posted by: stoirmeil 20-Sep-2006, 08:40 PM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 20-Sep-2006, 09:33 PM)
And you are using the only index you seem to understand or know about -- "guns, do you approve my having and carrying at full liberty and without accountability or not?" -

If you are a law abiding citizen, not a convicted fellon, of stable mind, not an alcoholic or drug user, then you have every right to a CCW. If you don't want to carry it, then you can keep it in your home. I DO approve of you carrying a gun. It's your right!

the "you" is in quotes. It refers to you specifically, NS. And I am the only one in a position to approve of my carrying a gun, even after someone in a legal position to grant permission gives it. Your opinion takes nothing at all into account about my fitness to have or operate one, which is totally unknown to you, and the few vcriteria you give about lawfulness, mental health and substance-free status are not nearly enough to determine fitness. That's part of the problem. You don't have to be a criminal or a user to be a bad candidate for ownership or operation of firearms. There's no control of that obvious problem without disclosure of ownership, mandatory training, and passing a regulated test of some kind demonstating competence.

Posted by: MDF3530 20-Sep-2006, 10:38 PM
I've tried staying out of the gun issue.

Personally, I abhor guns. I think that they cause more problems than they solve. And Charlton Heston was a great actor-I loved him in Ben-Hur and The Ten Commandments-but as far as I'm concerned, he and his NRA buddies do two things: 1. Find a nice big lake, and 2. Jump in.

That being said, however, I respect your right to own as many guns as you please. All I ask is that you be responsible. Unload and lock your guns when you're not using them. Keep them out of reach of children. Join a gun club or shooting range and learn to aim correctly. Become a registered or licensed gun owner.

Posted by: Dogshirt 20-Sep-2006, 10:40 PM
I fail to see how my owning or NOT owning a gun(or anything else for that matter) is ANYONE's business. PERIOD! It's mine, I did not take from you, NOT YOUR BUSINESS! PERIOD!


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: zeryx 21-Sep-2006, 12:22 AM
Looking at the issue of gun control from this side of the pond has a slightly different perspective. Here we already have very strict gun laws - but it doesn't mean we have no illegal guns, it doesn't mean there is no gun crime - we've had a number of horrific incidents (most famously Dunblane), even on the news this morning there is a teenager who was shot in school by a fellow pupil carrying an air gun in school. However, we do have less gun crime than there is in the USA.

My personal feeling is that no one who doesn't have a need for a gun should have one, and those that do have one should have them registered to ensure that safety regulations (storage etc) are are adhered to and to help control the sale and distribution of these lethal weapons. I'm with Mike on this one when he says
QUOTE
That being said, however, I respect your right to own as many guns as you please. All I ask is that you be responsible. Unload and lock your guns when you're not using them. Keep them out of reach of children. Join a gun club or shooting range and learn to aim correctly. Become a registered or licensed gun owner.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 21-Sep-2006, 05:53 AM
The Bottom line is guns don't kill people it's people who kill people. Also if registry of all guns really helps crime then why did Canada recienty drop registery of Long Guns? The problem is, is that the criminals have it too easy in our justace system. However the anti gun crowd think taking away the guns or making them harder to get by the law abidinh citizen is the answer. I'd suggest a few books to read. 1. Guns Crime and Liberty, 2. Guns, Freedom and Terrorism, and 3. More Guns less crime. Registery is only a way for the GOvernment to make more money and also a way to snach the guns evenyually from everyone. That is except the criminals because they don't register. It all ready happened in New Orleans and it caused a lot MORE problems then it helped.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 21-Sep-2006, 05:59 AM
QUOTE (MDF3530 @ 20-Sep-2006, 11:38 PM)
I've tried staying out of the gun issue.

Personally, I abhor guns. I think that they cause more problems than they solve. And Charlton Heston was a great actor-I loved him in Ben-Hur and The Ten Commandments-but as far as I'm concerned, he and his NRA buddies do two things: 1. Find a nice big lake, and 2. Jump in.

That being said, however, I respect your right to own as many guns as you please. All I ask is that you be responsible. Unload and lock your guns when you're not using them. Keep them out of reach of children. Join a gun club or shooting range and learn to aim correctly. Become a registered or licensed gun owner.

Hummmm! Well if thats the way you feel about the NRA well I feel the same way about the ACLU. I did a full background check before I got my permit to carry a conceled weapon so what more do I need? Someone would be stupid to want to have a gun and not learn how to use and MOST who do own a gun learned how to use it before they purchased the gun. Tell me this. How would crime benefit by requiring a liscence and registration?

Posted by: Nova Scotian 21-Sep-2006, 06:08 AM
QUOTE (zeryx @ 21-Sep-2006, 01:22 AM)
Looking at the issue of gun control from this side of the pond has a slightly different perspective. Here we already have very strict gun laws - but it doesn't mean we have no illegal guns, it doesn't mean there is no gun crime - we've had a number of horrific incidents (most famously Dunblane), even on the news this morning there is a teenager who was shot in school by a fellow pupil carrying an air gun in school. However, we do have less gun crime than there is in the USA.

My personal feeling is that no one who doesn't have a need for a gun should have one, and those that do have one should have them registered to ensure that safety regulations (storage etc) are are adhered to and to help control the sale and distribution of these lethal weapons. I'm with Mike on this one when he says

My personal feeling is that no one who doesn't have a need for a gun should have one, and those that do have one should have them registered to ensure that safety regulations (storage etc) are are adhered to and to help control the sale and distribution of these lethal weapons.

What benefit would gun registration have? Also if it's so improtant then why did crime go down here in Florida when folks were able to start carrying a conceled weapon? Al registry does is make the Government more money and make it easier for them to snatch them up! If registry becomes a requirement, that is the day I bewcome a criminal. NO WAY will I ever register my gun. Again, if you don't think the Government will ever confiscate guns from a law abiding citizen, it alll ready happened in New Orleans. Now the City of NO is getting sued byt the NRA. Also bill was passed that will prevent that situation from ever happening again. Some of the ones who voted against it were Hillary Clinton,and Diane Finestien.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 21-Sep-2006, 06:15 AM
To those who would follow laws; laws need not apply. Those who would not follow laws; laws will have no affect upon."

Plato


This is why registration would make no sense.

Posted by: stoirmeil 21-Sep-2006, 08:30 AM
QUOTE (MDF3530 @ 20-Sep-2006, 11:38 PM)
That being said, however, I respect your right to own as many guns as you please. All I ask is that you be responsible. Unload and lock your guns when you're not using them. Keep them out of reach of children. Join a gun club or shooting range and learn to aim correctly. Become a registered or licensed gun owner.

All I would add to this is: have the grace and sense of public responsibility to submit to a test of competence prior to licensing. I wouldn't want you on the road if you haven't passed a driving test, and I wouldn't want you in possession of a gun unless you've passed a shooting test. You can't say that John Q. Public has any common sense when it comes to this, though you have mentioned several times that only a fool would own a gun he didn't know how to use. I agree with THAT completely -- but you seem to think it means there would not be such fools out there, and I say I very much think there would. Just as there would be far more incompetent drivers on the road if there were no driving test for licensure.

This maxim of Plato that you keep quoting, NS, is one of those tidy little verbal reversal constructs that you seem to have adopted as literally applicable, simply because it appears to support your prior opinion. It is not meant as a prescription to suggest: "Throw away all the laws, because good people don't need to be told how to act right, and bad people won't act right no matter how many laws you make." Plato's doing nothing more than making a sad and ironic commentary on human nature, and it doesn't endorse anything -- certainly not getting rid of regulations applying to lethal instuments. You can't throw Plato around to support the notion that lawful people are dependably lawful, and unlawful people can reliably be identified as such, by their actions. It just ain't so. Maybe that's why we have forensic psychologists, but not forensic philosphers making actual case determinations.

Posted by: stoirmeil 21-Sep-2006, 08:34 AM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 20-Sep-2006, 11:40 PM)
I fail to see how my owning or NOT owning a gun(or anything else for that matter) is ANYONE's business. PERIOD! It's mine, I did not take from you, NOT YOUR BUSINESS! PERIOD!


beer_mug.gif

Because it's a lethal instrument -- unlike, say, your VCR -- and that is its primary purpose; and if something happens involving it that results in an injury or death, whether you intended it or not, you have to be held accountable not just for operating it but for owning it. If no one knows you have it, how can you be held accountable?

About the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" -- well, that's true. That's why I don't hold the gun accountable, but the person who owns and/or operates it. When guns can own and operate other guns, that's when we make them register each other. smile.gif

Is part of this about being p****d off because criminals who don't register their guns (and you have to ask yourself why . . . ) don't get caught for a registration fee, so why should you? biggrin.gif

Posted by: MDF3530 21-Sep-2006, 02:21 PM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 21-Sep-2006, 06:59 AM)
QUOTE (MDF3530 @ 20-Sep-2006, 11:38 PM)
I've tried staying out of the gun issue.

Personally, I abhor guns. I think that they cause more problems than they solve. And Charlton Heston was a great actor-I loved him in Ben-Hur and The Ten Commandments-but as far as I'm concerned, he and his NRA buddies do two things: 1. Find a nice big lake, and 2. Jump in.

That being said, however, I respect your right to own as many guns as you please. All I ask is that you be responsible. Unload and lock your guns when you're not using them. Keep them out of reach of children. Join a gun club or shooting range and learn to aim correctly. Become a registered or licensed gun owner.

Hummmm! Well if thats the way you feel about the NRA well I feel the same way about the ACLU. I did a full background check before I got my permit to carry a conceled weapon so what more do I need? Someone would be stupid to want to have a gun and not learn how to use and MOST who do own a gun learned how to use it before they purchased the gun. Tell me this. How would crime benefit by requiring a liscence and registration?

You sure are hypocritical when it comes to peoples' rights. You think it's okay to detain people based on the color of their skin, but when it comes to gun rights, you're the poster child for the Second Amendment.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 21-Sep-2006, 04:15 PM
Why have gun registration and require learning how to use a gun before you can own one?

First of all, I agree that crime will not be detered by doing either of these things. However, concealed weapons permits will not be effected, neither will the right to own a firearm. No one is saying that guns should not be allowed for everyone that can already pass a background check for a weapon. However, it would accomplish:

1. Registration would aid in the investigation of homicides involving firearms. It would do this by giving the police a database of registered firearms linked to the crime. If a suspect is a match on the list then they have information that could aid in their investigation. It also would aid with stolen firearms. If the weapons were registered, then reporting them missing would be easier.

2. Mandatory training: This would increase the awareness and knowledge of the causual gun owner. It seems to be the general consensus that everyone SHOULD be educated in firearm use and that those who do not get such training are being irresponsible. Requiring training in basic firearm care, use, and safety could decrease accidental deaths and injuries of people who by a gun for safety and yet don't bother to understand the weapon. It would also insure that owners of guns know the laws governing firearms and also peripheral accessories available to increase safe storing of firearms in houses with children.

It would basically force people who choose to exercise their right to gun ownership to do so responsibly.

Afterall, the 2nd amendment gives people the right to OWN firearms, but not to USE them.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 21-Sep-2006, 06:20 PM
QUOTE (MDF3530 @ 21-Sep-2006, 03:21 PM)
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 21-Sep-2006, 06:59 AM)
QUOTE (MDF3530 @ 20-Sep-2006, 11:38 PM)
I've tried staying out of the gun issue.

Personally, I abhor guns. I think that they cause more problems than they solve. And Charlton Heston was a great actor-I loved him in Ben-Hur and The Ten Commandments-but as far as I'm concerned, he and his NRA buddies do two things: 1. Find a nice big lake, and 2. Jump in.

That being said, however, I respect your right to own as many guns as you please. All I ask is that you be responsible. Unload and lock your guns when you're not using them. Keep them out of reach of children. Join a gun club or shooting range and learn to aim correctly. Become a registered or licensed gun owner.

Hummmm! Well if thats the way you feel about the NRA well I feel the same way about the ACLU. I did a full background check before I got my permit to carry a conceled weapon so what more do I need? Someone would be stupid to want to have a gun and not learn how to use and MOST who do own a gun learned how to use it before they purchased the gun. Tell me this. How would crime benefit by requiring a liscence and registration?

You sure are hypocritical when it comes to peoples' rights. You think it's okay to detain people based on the color of their skin, but when it comes to gun rights, you're the poster child for the Second Amendment.

I know you mean profiling and FYI I know MORE people of color and or creed who are for it. 7 of whom are my wife and her family who are ALL except for one from Amman Jordan and are full blooded Arab. At work I hear it from a lot of the African Americans as well. But this is not what this thread is for to discuss. It just make me sick that the first Ammendment is sooooooo special but the secound ammendment is just something that was for yesterday. THAT'S what I call hypocritical.

Posted by: Shadows 21-Sep-2006, 06:32 PM
All the registration of guns does is allow the government to know where to go collect them if they so deem....


If guns kill people then I can blame my pencil or keyboard for mis- spelled words.

Posted by: Dogshirt 21-Sep-2006, 07:05 PM
QUOTE
Because it's a lethal instrument -- unlike, say, your VCR -- and that is its primary purpose; and if something happens involving it that results in an injury or death, whether you intended it or not, you have to be held accountable not just for operating it but for owning it. If no one knows you have it, how can you be held accountable?


I AM held accountable for my actions with my guns, and ALL accidents as well. Should anyone cause me to shoot them, or a child have an accident with it, how would I cover that up? Any gunshot wounds going to the hospital are required to be be reported to the police, and any deaths will be found out. So how am I not already held accountable? It's not like I hit a ball through your window and then said I don't own a bat! Any incident involving a firearm IS investigated, if I say I don't have one then a search warrant would be issued and my property searched to verify that. Registration will not insure anything that does not already exist.
Also, where I live it assumed that everyone is armed. Most ranchers and farmers carry a rifle AND a handgun, the one in the truck, the other on their person. The last incidence of violence was a college football player that was stabbed. We still don't know all the details on that one. But no one has been shot in over 20 years, and that was a drug deal. Registration will solve nothing, nor insure anything.


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: stoirmeil 21-Sep-2006, 07:12 PM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 21-Sep-2006, 07:20 PM)
It just make me sick that the first Ammendment is sooooooo special but the secound ammendment is just something that was for yesterday. THAT'S what I call hypocritical.

Could it be because far fewer people die as a direct result of someone else shooting their mouth off?

Hey -- who said that registering guns was primarily to deter crime and criminals, anyway? The reasons CC cites for weapon registration are the same ones I have always assumed. And look -- if the government wants to collect your weapon for some reason, and you hide your ownership by not owning up to having it, what does that make you? Besides "armed"? What if willful refusal to register a weapon when it's required were to be considered at least a misdemeanor, or even a felony? What makes you better than the criminal you fear then? Just your good intentions and peerless judgement and forbearance? dry.gif

NS, I think you have to stop citing your wife and family as the evidence for why you know what Middle Easterners think. First of all, and this is just good science and no kind of disrespect to your wife -- the fact that she is married to you, not to mention not a Muslim, may make her a much less typical member of the sample. I'm surrounded by hundreds of Muslim kids of many countries of origin at this school, every semester I have tens of them as students, and I've yet to meet one that approves of profiling. But I have met a few whose college careers have been screwed up and delayed by unwarranted arrest and detention based on their ethnicity and country of origin.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 21-Sep-2006, 09:48 PM
To be frankly honest I don't really see the point in registering guns either. However, I do see a point in requiring certification or at the very least a short weekend course on the care and safe use of firearms before anyone is allowed to own one.

If you need a gun so badly that a short course is going to be a matter of life and death, well I doubt that it's going to matter in the end in that sort of scenario anyway.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 21-Sep-2006, 09:58 PM
To be frankly honest I don't really see the point in registering guns either. However, I do see a point in requiring certification or at the very least a short weekend course on the care and safe use of firearms before anyone is allowed to own one.

If you need a gun so badly that a short course is going to be a matter of life and death, well I doubt that it's going to matter in the end in that sort of scenario anyway.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 22-Sep-2006, 09:54 AM
I'm posting this article because this is what this area is for. PRO-GUNS!

Man awakens, kills intruderA sleeping man wakes up to find burglars in his parents' home -- and shoots one of them dead, the Broward Sheriff's Office said.
BY WANDA J. DeMARZO AND JENNIFER MOONEY PIEDRA
[email protected]
Just four months ago, burglars broke into the home of Victoria and Paul McKinley and stole jewelry worth thousands of dollars.

On Wednesday a trio of burglars tried to score again.

But someone was home this time -- and one of the intruders was shot dead.

Richard McKinley, 26, was sleeping at his parents' town house in the 3200 block of Northwest 44th Street in Oakland Park just before noon when he heard someone coming in, said Broward Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Veda Coleman-Wright.

McKinley grabbed a handgun and went to investigate. He found three men in the home.

McKinley pointed the gun at them and demanded they leave, Coleman-Wright said. But the men walked toward him. There was a struggle, and McKinley fired his weapon. Two of the men ran away.

The third fell to the ground and died instantly. He was later identified as Jeremy Goldwire, 20, who lived across the street.

DOGS AND HELICOPTER

BSO used dogs on the ground and a helicopter in the air to search the neighborhood for the two other men for several hours. Late Wednesday, they hadn't been found.

Less than two hours after the shooting, Paul and Victoria McKinley returned to their pink town house in the Montage by the Lake complex to find swarms of police and reporters.

After speaking with police and their son, the McKinleys sent their three small pooches, two of them Chinese crested hairless dogs, to stay at their daughter's home.

They said their son ``is doing fine.''

Devastated relatives of Goldwire trickled in to the complex as word of his death spread.

''He was a gentleman all around,'' said a friend, Gelene Rivera. ``He had a good spirit. We just can't believe it.''

Jonathan Hart, 23, who lives next door to the McKinleys, was at home with his eight-months-pregnant wife when the shooting happened.

Hart didn't hear any shots fired, but said his Rottweiler was barking more than usual.

''We didn't pay any attention to it,'' he said. ``We thought it was nothing.''

Soon after the shooting, Hart noticed that a screen had been pushed out of a first-floor window of the McKinleys' home, as well as a screen from a second-floor bathroom.

As police combed the area, Hart spoke with Victoria McKinley.

''The family is very shaken up,'' he said.

Danny Gelford, 30, left the complex carrying his golf bags. Deputies blocked off the entrance to the complex and would only allow residents to enter the street where the shooting took place on foot.

Gelford's home was burglarized about a year ago, he said.

`I'D DO THE SAME'

''They kicked in the front door to get in,'' Gelford said, commenting on McKinley's case: ``He took it upon himself to defend himself, and I'd do the same thing he did.''

After Goldwire's body was removed, his family returned to their home across the street, in the 3100 block of Northwest 43rd Place. His backyard faced the complex where he died.

More than a dozen cars were parked outside. Young people milled about outside. Older family members sat inside talking about the young man and the way he died.

McKinley had not been charged with a crime late Wednesday, BSO said.

''This case, like all other homicides, will be given to the state attorney, and the state attorney will present it to the grand jury,'' BSO spokesman Jim Leljedal said. ``Ultimately, the grand jury will determine whether it was justified.''

The law may be on his side. Florida's new ''Stand Your Ground'' law allows anyone who feels threatened -- even if they don't see a gun -- to shoot.


I say, WAY TO GO!

Posted by: Nova Scotian 22-Sep-2006, 10:00 AM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 21-Sep-2006, 08:12 PM)
Could it be because far fewer people die as a direct result of someone else shooting their mouth off?

Hey -- who said that registering guns was primarily to deter crime and criminals, anyway? The reasons CC cites for weapon registration are the same ones I have always assumed. And look -- if the government wants to collect your weapon for some reason, and you hide your ownership by not owning up to having it, what does that make you? Besides "armed"? What if willful refusal to register a weapon when it's required were to be considered at least a misdemeanor, or even a felony? What makes you better than the criminal you fear then? Just your good intentions and peerless judgement and forbearance? dry.gif

NS, I think you have to stop citing your wife and family as the evidence for why you know what Middle Easterners think. First of all, and this is just good science and no kind of disrespect to your wife -- the fact that she is married to you, not to mention not a Muslim, may make her a much less typical member of the sample. I'm surrounded by hundreds of Muslim kids of many countries of origin at this school, every semester I have tens of them as students, and I've yet to meet one that approves of profiling. But I have met a few whose college careers have been screwed up and delayed by unwarranted arrest and detention based on their ethnicity and country of origin.

NS, I think you have to stop citing your wife and family as the evidence for why you know what Middle Easterners think. First of all, and this is just good science and no kind of disrespect to your wife -- the fact that she is married to you, not to mention not a Muslim, may make her a much less typical member of the sample.


And what makes you think my wife is Muslim? Because ALL Arabs are Mulsim? Very bias statement from someone who looks to call me bias. She and her family are Cathloic and Greek Orthodox. So do the smart thing and ask next time.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 22-Sep-2006, 10:29 AM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 22-Sep-2006, 10:00 AM)
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 21-Sep-2006, 08:12 PM)
Could it be because far fewer people die as a direct result of someone else shooting their mouth off?

Hey -- who said that registering guns was primarily to deter crime and criminals, anyway?  The reasons CC cites for weapon registration are the same ones I have always assumed.  And look -- if the government wants to collect your weapon for some reason, and you hide your ownership by not owning up to having it, what does that make you?  Besides "armed"?  What if willful refusal to register a weapon when it's required were to be considered at least a misdemeanor, or even a felony?  What makes you better than the criminal you fear then?  Just your good intentions and peerless judgement and forbearance?  dry.gif

NS, I think you have to stop citing your wife and family as the evidence for why you know what Middle Easterners think.  First of all, and this is just good science and no kind of disrespect to your wife -- the fact that she is married to you, not to mention not a Muslim,  may make her a much less typical member of the sample.  I'm surrounded by hundreds of Muslim kids of many countries of origin at this school, every semester I have tens of them as students, and I've yet to meet one that approves of profiling.  But I have met a few whose college careers have been screwed up and delayed by unwarranted arrest and detention based on their ethnicity and country of origin.

NS, I think you have to stop citing your wife and family as the evidence for why you know what Middle Easterners think. First of all, and this is just good science and no kind of disrespect to your wife -- the fact that she is married to you, not to mention not a Muslim, may make her a much less typical member of the sample.


And what makes you think my wife is Muslim? Because ALL Arabs are Mulsim? Very bias statement from someone who looks to call me bias. She and her family are Cathloic and Greek Orthodox. So do the smart thing and ask next time.

You need to read your quotes a little closer next time NS. Stormeil specifically says: the fact that she is married to you, not to mention not a Muslim, may make her a much less typical member of the sample.

The emphasis is mine, but the quote was pulled from YOUR post.

Posted by: stoirmeil 22-Sep-2006, 11:24 AM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 22-Sep-2006, 11:00 AM)

And what makes you think my wife is Muslim? Because ALL Arabs are Mulsim? Very bias statement from someone who looks to call me bias. She and her family are Cathloic and Greek Orthodox. So do the smart thing and ask next time.

I know perfectly well that your lady is not a Muslim. You have made that point several times, in a variety of places, and I took it as being important enough to remember, since you saw fit to mention it. Frankly, I suppose the smart thing I am not doing is refraining from discussing this issue with you, particularly the bits about profiling. But you do throw off a lot of energy, so it's good exercise. smile.gif

Posted by: stoirmeil 22-Sep-2006, 11:45 AM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 22-Sep-2006, 10:54 AM)
I'm posting this article because this is what this area is for. PRO-GUNS!


biggrin.gif The title of the thread is "Gun control, who's for it?"


Posted by: Nova Scotian 22-Sep-2006, 01:29 PM
QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 22-Sep-2006, 11:29 AM)
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 22-Sep-2006, 10:00 AM)
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 21-Sep-2006, 08:12 PM)
Could it be because far fewer people die as a direct result of someone else shooting their mouth off?

Hey -- who said that registering guns was primarily to deter crime and criminals, anyway?  The reasons CC cites for weapon registration are the same ones I have always assumed.  And look -- if the government wants to collect your weapon for some reason, and you hide your ownership by not owning up to having it, what does that make you?  Besides "armed"?  What if willful refusal to register a weapon when it's required were to be considered at least a misdemeanor, or even a felony?  What makes you better than the criminal you fear then?  Just your good intentions and peerless judgement and forbearance?  dry.gif

NS, I think you have to stop citing your wife and family as the evidence for why you know what Middle Easterners think.  First of all, and this is just good science and no kind of disrespect to your wife -- the fact that she is married to you, not to mention not a Muslim,  may make her a much less typical member of the sample.   I'm surrounded by hundreds of Muslim kids of many countries of origin at this school, every semester I have tens of them as students, and I've yet to meet one that approves of profiling.  But I have met a few whose college careers have been screwed up and delayed by unwarranted arrest and detention based on their ethnicity and country of origin.

NS, I think you have to stop citing your wife and family as the evidence for why you know what Middle Easterners think. First of all, and this is just good science and no kind of disrespect to your wife -- the fact that she is married to you, not to mention not a Muslim, may make her a much less typical member of the sample.


And what makes you think my wife is Muslim? Because ALL Arabs are Mulsim? Very bias statement from someone who looks to call me bias. She and her family are Cathloic and Greek Orthodox. So do the smart thing and ask next time.

You need to read your quotes a little closer next time NS. Stormeil specifically says: the fact that she is married to you, not to mention not a Muslim, may make her a much less typical member of the sample.

The emphasis is mine, but the quote was pulled from YOUR post.

Thank you for pointing out my error. I'm at work and had to read it fast with a lot of talking going on. So unsure.gif I apoligize.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 22-Sep-2006, 01:36 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 22-Sep-2006, 12:24 PM)
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 22-Sep-2006, 11:00 AM)

And what makes you think my wife is Muslim? Because ALL Arabs are Mulsim? Very bias statement from someone who looks to call me bias. She and her family are Cathloic and Greek Orthodox. So do the smart thing and ask next time.

I know perfectly well that your lady is not a Muslim. You have made that point several times, in a variety of places, and I took it as being important enough to remember, since you saw fit to mention it. Frankly, I suppose the smart thing I am not doing is refraining from discussing this issue with you, particularly the bits about profiling. But you do throw off a lot of energy, so it's good exercise. smile.gif

If you had said she must be gook with an AK-47, I would have tol;d you no but a .357? watch out because that's when the Arab in her comes out tongue.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif


Or when she haggles for a price. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 22-Sep-2006, 01:39 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 21-Sep-2006, 08:05 PM)

I AM held accountable for my actions with my guns, and ALL accidents as well. Should anyone cause me to shoot them, or a child have an accident with it, how would I cover that up? Any gunshot wounds going to the hospital are required to be be reported to the police, and any deaths will be found out. So how am I not already held accountable? It's not like I hit a ball through your window and then said I don't own a bat! Any incident involving a firearm IS investigated, if I say I don't have one then a search warrant would be issued and my property searched to verify that. Registration will not insure anything that does not already exist.
Also, where I live it assumed that everyone is armed. Most ranchers and farmers carry a rifle AND a handgun, the one in the truck, the other on their person. The last incidence of violence was a college football player that was stabbed. We still don't know all the details on that one. But no one has been shot in over 20 years, and that was a drug deal. Registration will solve nothing, nor insure anything.


beer_mug.gif

Thank you Dog! Very good point.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 22-Sep-2006, 01:52 PM
QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 21-Sep-2006, 10:48 PM)
To be frankly honest I don't really see the point in registering guns either. However, I do see a point in requiring certification or at the very least a short weekend course on the care and safe use of firearms before anyone is allowed to own one.

If you need a gun so badly that a short course is going to be a matter of life and death, well I doubt that it's going to matter in the end in that sort of scenario anyway.

CC, that is a very good point. I've left this point out in this discussion, the 2 states that have the most laid back gun laws probably have some of the lowest crime rate. The laws don't require registration, a license or even a permit to carry. Those 2 states are Alaska and Vermont. Funny how stringent New York City and Washington DCs laws are however the crime in those places is crazy. New York City I can remember in the 1980s was out of control but these days it's better now especially since Rudy G was Mayor however I think it's very hypocritical when the senior editor of the New York times is very anti gun and very pro gun control however he carries a conceled handgun. However the mom and pop grocer in The Bronx is forbidden by law from having a gun to protect his livelyhood. Hummmm! Lets see, who is more pron to violent crime? unsure.gif

Posted by: stoirmeil 22-Sep-2006, 02:29 PM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 22-Sep-2006, 02:36 PM)

If you had said she must be gook with an AK-47, I would have tol;d you no but a .357? watch out because that's when the Arab in her comes out tongue.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif


Or when she haggles for a price. biggrin.gif

I'm feeling a bit sorry for both of you here. Are you really all that nonchalant about this kind of stereotyping? And now, I guess, you are going to take the route of many others who say "I love that woman and she means the world to me (so I can use any kind of objectionable racist label I want to describe her, because when I do it it's loving humor)". I know a good few men with latina wives who pull that crap all the time. It's beyond sad.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 22-Sep-2006, 03:15 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 22-Sep-2006, 03:29 PM)
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 22-Sep-2006, 02:36 PM)

If you had said she must be gook with an AK-47, I would have tol;d you no but a .357? watch out because that's when the Arab in her comes out tongue.gif  laugh.gif  laugh.gif


Or when she haggles for a price. biggrin.gif

I'm feeling a bit sorry for both of you here. Are you really all that nonchalant about this kind of stereotyping? And now, I guess, you are going to take the route of many others who say "I love that woman and she means the world to me (so I can use any kind of objectionable racist label I want to describe her, because when I do it it's loving humor)". I know a good few men with latina wives who pull that crap all the time. It's beyond sad.

Well I'm sorry. SHE says don't worry about it! She's the one who told me to write the haggling remark.

Plus, how about in a prior post when you refered to us in the South as "Yall down there"? Now was that not sterotyping? This is a childish arguement . I was only trying to defuse it with some humor to have some peace but obviously you're pretty sensitive. People sterotype me to my face all the down here being from the North by calling me a yankee and being a non-grit eater. By the way I don't eat grits now tongue.gifI don't like them. So like I said I'm sorry and this humor is between me and my wife and it wont stop.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 22-Sep-2006, 08:22 PM
Since we are on the subject of registration of guns, I mentioned before how Canada was pishing to end long gun registration. Here's an interesting article. I'm glad our friends up there are thinking outside of the UKs thumbs_up.gif



Kenora MP Roger Valley repeated his pledge this week to vote with the Conservatives when it comes time to vote against the gun registry.
Even in the wake of the shootings in Montreal, Valley said he hadn’t changed his mind on the issue.
While acknowledging the seriousness of the events at Dawson College last week, the MP said the registry wouldn’t have prevented the events.
“It is so tragic when these things happen, but they could use cars or any other tool to take lives,” he said.

Kenora members of Parliament have struggled with the issue, particularly since the massacre at Ecole Polytechnique in December 1989. The push for gun control legislation after the event pushed the Liberal government to create the long-gun registry, whose price tag ballooned from $2 million to more than $1 billion.
As a government member and eventually a cabinet minister, Valley’s predecessor Bob Nault voted with the party on the issue.
Back in May, Valley said he would buck party discipline and vote with the government. He noted gun owners still have to get a licence before purchasing weapons or ammunition. While he noted the applications may not turn up signs of mental illness, the MP said leaving the registry in place wouldn’t solve the problem.
Since the killings in Montreal, Quebec Premier Jean Charest and Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe have pushed the government to back off on its plans to scrap the expensive registry.
Despite the opposition, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Tuesday he planned to continue with his plans to abolish the expensive program

Posted by: Shadows 23-Sep-2006, 05:04 AM
Am fear nach gleidh na h–airm san t–sith, cha bhi iad aige ’n am a’ chogaidh.
He that keeps not his arms in time of peace will have none in time of war.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 23-Sep-2006, 05:26 AM
QUOTE (Shadows @ 23-Sep-2006, 06:04 AM)
Am fear nach gleidh na h–airm san t–sith, cha bhi iad aige ’n am a’ chogaidh.
He that keeps not his arms in time of peace will have none in time of war.

AGREED!!!!!

Posted by: stoirmeil 23-Sep-2006, 02:14 PM
War on the home turf is one thing, and a citizen's militia is right and normal under conditions like that. But crime is what you've mostly been talking about, and I don't think that's a clear-cut enough issue for a homegrown militia. If you are going to consider the World Trade Tower attacks "war" and say the whole country is at war five years hence, and this is the reason to put that particular argument forward, that's too much of a stretch. You have a friend in a high place with that sort of reasoning, of course -- the President. But it's still a misconstruction of the word "war"-- and I don't notice any presidential commissions organizing any purely civilian militias.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 26-Sep-2006, 05:34 AM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 23-Sep-2006, 06:26 AM)
QUOTE (Shadows @ 23-Sep-2006, 06:04 AM)
Am fear nach gleidh na h–airm san t–sith, cha bhi iad aige ’n am a’ chogaidh.
He that keeps not his arms in time of peace will have none in time of war.

AGREED!!!!!

I personally think there should be more militias today. beer_mug.gif thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 26-Sep-2006, 05:35 AM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 26-Sep-2006, 06:34 AM)
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 23-Sep-2006, 06:26 AM)
QUOTE (Shadows @ 23-Sep-2006, 06:04 AM)
Am fear nach gleidh na h–airm san t–sith, cha bhi iad aige ’n am a’ chogaidh.
He that keeps not his arms in time of peace will have none in time of war.

AGREED!!!!!

I personally think there should be more militias today. beer_mug.gif thumbsup.gif

And don't say it's the National Guard. It's NOT.

Posted by: Shadows 26-Sep-2006, 03:15 PM
I am not talking about militias, I am talking about the common man exercising his right to protect that which is his from said militias and other government do gooders that might, just might try to harm, take, or otherwise remove the rights of said common man, property and persons.

Here are some quotes a long with some quotes from other historical figures. Some good people and yes some bad as well.

First the Second amendment the founders most powerful statement
QUOTE
The 2nd Amendment

(1791)A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


John Adams
QUOTE
"Here, every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offense...." -John Adams


Samuel Adams
QUOTE
"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams, debates at; Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.


Adolf Hitler
QUOTE
"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." -Adolf Hitler, 1935.


Alexander Hamilton
QUOTE
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton


Thomas Jefferson
QUOTE
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Constitution of most of the states (and of the United States) asserts that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms are in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people, which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is medicine necessary for the sound health of government." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.


Richard Henry Lee
QUOTE
"To preserve Liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them

-Richard Henry Lee, Letters from the Federal Farmer


James Madison
QUOTE
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at the individual discretion, in private self-defense." John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787-88

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Besides, the advantage of being armed forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would certainly shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did." -James Madison

By the time James Madison uttered these words, Switzerland had already been a free and armed republic for nearly 250 years. The Swiss government insists that every able bodied person between 18 and 45 years of age possess a military style firearm and ammunition. Switzerland is still a free, armed republic today after nearly 460 years, and was the only nation in Europe that Hitler didn't dare invade. The Swiss also have the lowest crime rate of any nation in Europe. Armed crime in Switzerland is so rare they don't even keep statistics on it. (JP)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." - James Madison


George Mason
QUOTE
"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates 380.


George Washington
QUOTE
"When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour." -George Washington

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and the keystone under independence... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurances and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle, and pistol are equally indispensable... The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." -George Washington


So that is how some of history has seen the use of weapons.


Posted by: Nova Scotian 26-Sep-2006, 07:06 PM
QUOTE (Shadows @ 26-Sep-2006, 04:15 PM)
I am not talking about militias, I am talking about the common man exercising his right to protect that which is his from said militias and other government do gooders that might, just might try to harm, take, or otherwise remove the rights of said common man, property and persons.

Here are some quotes a long with some quotes from other historical figures. Some good people and yes some bad as well.

First the Second amendment the founders most powerful statement
QUOTE
The 2nd Amendment

(1791)A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


John Adams
QUOTE
"Here, every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offense...." -John Adams


Samuel Adams
QUOTE
"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams, debates at; Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.


Adolf Hitler
QUOTE
"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." -Adolf Hitler, 1935.


Alexander Hamilton
QUOTE
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton


Thomas Jefferson
QUOTE
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Constitution of most of the states (and of the United States) asserts that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms are in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people, which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is medicine necessary for the sound health of government." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.


Richard Henry Lee
QUOTE
"To preserve Liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them

-Richard Henry Lee, Letters from the Federal Farmer


James Madison
QUOTE
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at the individual discretion, in private self-defense." John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787-88

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Besides, the advantage of being armed forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would certainly shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did." -James Madison

By the time James Madison uttered these words, Switzerland had already been a free and armed republic for nearly 250 years. The Swiss government insists that every able bodied person between 18 and 45 years of age possess a military style firearm and ammunition. Switzerland is still a free, armed republic today after nearly 460 years, and was the only nation in Europe that Hitler didn't dare invade. The Swiss also have the lowest crime rate of any nation in Europe. Armed crime in Switzerland is so rare they don't even keep statistics on it. (JP)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." - James Madison


George Mason
QUOTE
"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates 380.


George Washington
QUOTE
"When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour." -George Washington

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and the keystone under independence... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurances and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle, and pistol are equally indispensable... The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." -George Washington


So that is how some of history has seen the use of weapons.

biggrin.gif I like this Shadow. I've posted much of what you said in previous posts. What's sad is a lot of folks act like they don't care about where they came from and act like they would rather have a Government that rules with an Iron fist. The revolution was to break away from English imperialism and that's what happened and that was the beginning of the end of Englands great empire under King George. I also think it's sad that most of those who demand rights are for every right other then guns. It seem like they want a Government that is agreeable with them but presses their agenda on the masses and since the masses are unarmed the masses can do nothing. If I had to register my gun what good would that do? Oh! It woulds make it easier for the Government to find out that I have a gun and they'd go after me first and all the other registered gun owners if a nation wide gun ban ever occured. However, they'd probably take their time going after the criminals because it's safer for the Police to go after and disarm the law abiding citizen then a criminal. It's happened before reciently in New Orleans so NO one can say that it's never happened. thumbs_up.gif thumbs_up.gif smile.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 29-Sep-2006, 10:21 AM
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785.


Just a quote from one of our founding fathers. thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: John Clements 29-Sep-2006, 06:03 PM
Nova Scotian, I know we don’t agree on a lot of things, but I thought you might enjoy my little story about gun control.

In July of 1965, I found myself at Fort Dix, standing on the firing line, along with the rest of the guys in my platoon. All of whom were armed with M 14’s. The exercise that day, was to take a standing shot at the target, at the sound of a whistle, and then you were to charge the target, until you heard the whistle sound for the second time. At which point you were to drop to a kneeling position, and take your second shot at the target, and then continue charging the target, until you heard the whistle sound for the third time. At which point you were to drop to a prone position, and squeeze off your third and final round. Anyway, they didn’t usually bring targets back to the firing line. But they brought my target that day. Not just because I had hit the bull three times, but because all three rounds were overlapping. I can still hear my DI saying. Dammmmm! If I have to go back to Nam, I want you in the fox hole with me. Some where along the way, I lost that target. Dam, I wish I still had it.

Posted by: Shadows 29-Sep-2006, 06:09 PM
John! That is something to be proud of!

Keep on shooting straight!

That is real gun control!

Posted by: Nova Scotian 30-Sep-2006, 04:12 AM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 29-Sep-2006, 07:03 PM)
Nova Scotian, I know we don’t agree on a lot of things, but I thought you might enjoy my little story about gun control.

In July of 1965, I found myself at Fort Dix, standing on the firing line, along with the rest of the guys in my platoon. All of whom were armed with M 14’s. The exercise that day, was to take a standing shot at the target, at the sound of a whistle, and then you were to charge the target, until you heard the whistle sound for the second time. At which point you were to drop to a kneeling position, and take your second shot at the target, and then continue charging the target, until you heard the whistle sound for the third time. At which point you were to drop to a prone position, and squeeze off your third and final round. Anyway, they didn’t usually bring targets back to the firing line. But they brought my target that day. Not just because I had hit the bull three times, but because all three rounds were overlapping. I can still hear my DI saying. Dammmmm! If I have to go back to Nam, I want you in the fox hole with me. Some where along the way, I lost that target. Dam, I wish I still had it.

thumbs_up.gif Now that is something to be proud of! Should call yourself streight shooter. laugh.gif

Posted by: stoirmeil 04-Oct-2006, 12:02 PM
Nobody has said a blessed word here. Unbelievable.

How about a database tracking system for ammo sales, similar to what is done with legal pharmaceuticals? Somebody might have picked up that the man who killed all those little girls was stocking up on rounds that had nothing to do with hunting. He had every right to his guns, as an upstanding non-criminal citizen -- until he went postal, criminal and lethal. Unfortunately there was no way to disarm him in time on that very nebulous basis.

Posted by: Swanny 04-Oct-2006, 04:36 PM
Such a databse would be almost as effective at preventing gun crimes as the current database on pseudofed (flu medicine) is a preventing meth addiction. ZILCH!!!

If it won't have the desired effect, there is no reason to waste the time, money and effort unless your goal is to employ more stinkin' government functionaries and bureaucrats.


Posted by: stoirmeil 04-Oct-2006, 05:57 PM
That's about what I figured. Funny how that cold med gets around unchecked, but I can't duplicate a prescription of Tylenol 3 at two different drug stores in the same day. Something does work there at least part of the time. Still -- this was not a member of the mythic group known as "criminals," wearing the obligatory black hats for easy and convenient identification, that righteous members of the community who need guns to protect themselves from them are always going on about. This was one of the good guys who went off his rails.

What is there to say about this incident then? Too bad, what a shame, but the population still must keep the right to bear arms for its own inscrutable reasons and at its own multifarious, MYOB discretion?

Posted by: Swanny 05-Oct-2006, 09:10 AM
QUOTE
This was one of the good guys who went off his rails.


Um... With all due respect, I would hardly characterize a man who admitted to molesting two young relatives as "one of the good guys." Rather, he was indeed a criminal, who like many criminals before him, did not get caught.

He was a bad guy who targeted innocent young girls belonging to a religious order that is pacificistic to the extreme, and therefore very unlikely to be armed. While he lived in a heavily Amish community, he himself was not Amish.

Reality sucks. Especially the reality that we can neither predict nor prevent all violent crimes. The best that so-called "authorities" can do is react after the fact, and the best that individuals can do is prepare ourselves as best we can to defend ourselves if necessary.

Swanny

Posted by: Nova Scotian 05-Oct-2006, 12:50 PM
thumbs_up.gif The shootings the other day were horrable! It really sickened me! However, the man proved one thing, the most dangerious place is a gun free zone. He picked his target well. Everyone know that in a school, especially an Omish school the threat of someone having a gun for defense in about 1:100000000. Of course the anti-gun lobby are looking at this as ammo in their fight. But recient events in Canada proved that stiff gun laws don't prevent anything! Here's and interesting article.
Pennsylvania Killings Teach Timely Lesson

Gun-free zones create defense-free zones

October 4, 2006 -- As America grieves over the loss of such innocent life in the Pennsylvania school shootings, many Americans ask, "How can we put an end to this?"

While some groups claim that more gun control is needed to prevent attacks like this, a closer look will expose an interesting truth. The Pennsylvania shootings along with the recent shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin all have one thing in common. These atrocities were committed in "gun-free" school zones.

The unfortunate and unintended consequence of the federal law banning all guns from schools is that they, in essence, create "defense-free" zones for criminals.

"Evil will always exist in our world," explains USCCA Founder Tim Schmidt. "Many groups try to control criminals by creating laws that limit the tools they use. Unfortunately, this just doesn't work. Gun control laws are only effective at taking guns away from good, law-abiding people."

The sad truth is that criminals do not follow gun control laws and will always be able to get guns. Even in Great Britain and Australia, where handguns are completely banned, the criminals still manage to get them.

The real solution to these terrible crimes lies within each individual American. It is a solution that is not only simple, it is shockingly effective.

"It is time for Americans to wake up," says Schmidt. "We must be willing and able to be the first line of defense for our families and children."

Self-defense had long been a core American value, a part of our independent heritage. An American society that places a high value on self-defense creates the ultimate deterrent to violent crime.

It is time for Americans to learn how to defend themselves again. Attacks like these will only increase until the average American is willing to learn some basic principles of self-defense.

"I am a father of three young kids, and I've come to the realization that there is only one person responsible for their safety. That person is me," says Schmidt.
thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: CelticCoalition 05-Oct-2006, 10:07 PM
Ok. The school shootings are horrible. However, two things:

First of all, the reason these men targeted schools was because they were both going after children. They weren't targeting schools because they presented unarmed targets.

The answer is not in increasing the number of firearms in our schools either. The men who attacked these schools were mentally imbalanced and were specifically targeting young women at the school. Had they known teachers or administrators were armed they may well have shot the teachers instead of letting them go. the fact is that we don't know, but I sincerely believe that guns in schools isn't the answer.

However, I disagree that gun control would have made much of a difference in these cases. In colorado the man claimed to have a bomb. Other weapons could have been used to kill these girls as well, including baseball bats, actual bombs, knives, etc. There is no guarentee that gun control would have kept guns out of their hands. Criminals already are able to get their hands on illegal firearms, what would change with greater gun control?

There is also no mention of the 15 year old boy that shot a school principal.

There is no easy answer where schools are concerned. However, I think it is important to realize that Columbine happend 7 years ago. School shootings of this magnitude are not a regular occurance. Taking these cases as a basis for drastically changing policy is a bad idea.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 06-Oct-2006, 03:58 AM
QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 05-Oct-2006, 11:07 PM)
Ok. The school shootings are horrible. However, two things:

First of all, the reason these men targeted schools was because they were both going after children. They weren't targeting schools because they presented unarmed targets.

The answer is not in increasing the number of firearms in our schools either. The men who attacked these schools were mentally imbalanced and were specifically targeting young women at the school. Had they known teachers or administrators were armed they may well have shot the teachers instead of letting them go. the fact is that we don't know, but I sincerely believe that guns in schools isn't the answer.

However, I disagree that gun control would have made much of a difference in these cases. In colorado the man claimed to have a bomb. Other weapons could have been used to kill these girls as well, including baseball bats, actual bombs, knives, etc. There is no guarentee that gun control would have kept guns out of their hands. Criminals already are able to get their hands on illegal firearms, what would change with greater gun control?

There is also no mention of the 15 year old boy that shot a school principal.

There is no easy answer where schools are concerned. However, I think it is important to realize that Columbine happend 7 years ago. School shootings of this magnitude are not a regular occurance. Taking these cases as a basis for drastically changing policy is a bad idea.

biggrin.gif Very good points stated. Some states are considering letting teachers carry conceled weapons. I personally think that would even the playing field in most cases. Usually there is more then one teacher. You are right, Columbine happend 7 years ago. School shootings of this magnitude are not a regular occurance. But when they happen the anti gunners seem to love it because it helps their cause. They just don't seem to get it. I mentioned before how my cousin up in Nova Scotia, Canada and I had a gun debate and she tried to say how no Columbine type incident has ever happened in Canada. However just two weeks later in Montreal they had that nasty shooting so she admittingly "ate her words". thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: CelticCoalition 06-Oct-2006, 09:37 AM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 06-Oct-2006, 03:58 AM)
biggrin.gif Very good points stated. Some states are considering letting teachers carry conceled weapons. I personally think that would even the playing field in most cases. Usually there is more then one teacher. You are right, Columbine happend 7 years ago. School shootings of this magnitude are not a regular occurance. But when they happen the anti gunners seem to love it because it helps their cause. They just don't seem to get it. I mentioned before how my cousin up in Nova Scotia, Canada and I had a gun debate and she tried to say how no Columbine type incident has ever happened in Canada. However just two weeks later in Montreal they had that nasty shooting so she admittingly "ate her words". thumbsup.gif

I don't think arming teachers would even the playing field at all. There were tons of police that showed up at these schools while these kids were taken hostage, all of them armed. So why were students killed? Because when someone is using a child as a human shield and has a gun to the kid's head, adding more guns to the situation doesn't help anything. They stormed the guy in colorado and he was still able to kill a hostage and himself. What is a teacher going to do when a guy barges in with a gun, grabs a kid, and uses them as a shield? I doubt they would be willing to try and shoot the hostage taker through the child.

In a perfect world arming oneself would make one the equal of an armed assailant. But that isn't the way the world works. The attacker has the advantage over the victims, whether they are armed or not. People willing to sexually assault and kill innocent unarmed girls have the advantage because they are willing to put these children in danger to get what they want. I doubt a teacher would be willing or able to sway things in their favor should they be armed in these situations.

This isn't the movies.

Posted by: John Clements 06-Oct-2006, 10:34 AM
Some people arm themselves in order to assault others. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have the option of protecting myself, simply because the authorities usually get there in time to call coroner.

Posted by: Swanny 06-Oct-2006, 11:13 AM
Since schools are already allegedly gun-free zones, it's obvious that these incidents could not possibly have occurred. Wasn't that the logic behind the act that created the so-called "gun-free schools", to prevent incidents exactly like these?

No amount of "gun control" in the world is going to stop these sick SOBs. It's time to look for other, more effective solutions. I would start by demanding much better security, including strict access control to ensure that unauthorized people can't just saunter through the door.

After Columbine it seemed like every school in the U.S. was staffed by armed security officers or police officers, everyone entering had to go through a metal detector and show reason for being in the building. Over the years school officials responsible for the safety of these children have become complacent and cheap. The result was predictable, bad-guys once again have access to schools.

It will happen again, and in just the same way. For a while school security will be on everyone's brains and steps will be taken. As time passes people will get complacent, decide they don't want to spend the money, and those security measures will fade until another spate of killings.

We're Americans. That's what we do.

Swanny

Posted by: Shadows 06-Oct-2006, 04:24 PM
The Amish school did not have the " security features" of most schools in this country... even those features can be circumvented.

I am not arguing with you swanny.. I am in agreement...

I think the best defence against this type thing is being well armed!

If you know that you are going to be shot back at then you might think twice about starting something, unless you are suicidal... as most of these recent cases seem to be....( suicide by cop )

Then there is nothing that can stop it.

Just my humble opinion.


Posted by: Nova Scotian 06-Oct-2006, 05:48 PM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 06-Oct-2006, 11:34 AM)
Some people arm themselves in order to assault others. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have the option of protecting myself, simply because the authorities usually get there in time to call coroner.

Thank you JC. My point exactally. The Police can't be everywhere at once. Also try asking someone who tried holding the police liable for not being there and they suffered. However if the same people had a gun? The outcome would have possibly been different. thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 06-Oct-2006, 05:50 PM
QUOTE (Swanny @ 06-Oct-2006, 12:13 PM)
Since schools are already allegedly gun-free zones, it's obvious that these incidents could not possibly have occurred. Wasn't that the logic behind the act that created the so-called "gun-free schools", to prevent incidents exactly like these?

No amount of "gun control" in the world is going to stop these sick SOBs. It's time to look for other, more effective solutions. I would start by demanding much better security, including strict access control to ensure that unauthorized people can't just saunter through the door.

After Columbine it seemed like every school in the U.S. was staffed by armed security officers or police officers, everyone entering had to go through a metal detector and show reason for being in the building. Over the years school officials responsible for the safety of these children have become complacent and cheap. The result was predictable, bad-guys once again have access to schools.

It will happen again, and in just the same way. For a while school security will be on everyone's brains and steps will be taken. As time passes people will get complacent, decide they don't want to spend the money, and those security measures will fade until another spate of killings.

We're Americans. That's what we do.

Swanny

biggrin.gif Well said Swanny!

Posted by: Nova Scotian 07-Oct-2006, 03:04 PM
Here's an interesting stat I found.

According to U.S. Department of Justice statistics, the violent crime rate has dropped every year since 1991, and states that allow residents to carry guns have 21 percent lower violent crime rates, 28 percent fewer murders, 43 percent fewer robberies and 13 percent fewer aggravated assaults.

Just some info for the anti-gun lobby.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 08-Oct-2006, 11:47 AM
"If you carry a firearm, sooner or later you are going to have to use it." If you don't carry a firearm, sooner or later you are going to need it."
I like that! beer_mug.gif beer_mug.gif

Like I always advise those who want to get a gun. God forbid you'll ever have to use it but got forbid you ever need it and don't have it. thumbs_up.gif thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 18-Oct-2006, 08:50 PM
Here's something I found that EVERY American needs to watch. Tell me this what were these people suppose to do? If they all banded together and stood up against the cops they would probably have been shot. This is a clear violation of someones rights and New Orleans doesnt have gun registration. Imagine if they did. Just watch the video at this link. http://www.givethemback.com sad.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 18-Oct-2006, 08:58 PM
All I can say living in a tropical region, if it EVER happens here, they'll never get my gun from me unless the pry it from my dead hands. I also know a lot of cops who I shot with that say they'd disobey any such order. It made them sick when they saw the video. It's a shame that there are so many good people in New Orleans. If there wasn't, I say Katrina wasn't good enough for New Orleans. sad.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 18-Oct-2006, 09:00 PM
shot with unsure.gif No I mean shoot with tongue.gif

Posted by: maisky 19-Oct-2006, 08:01 AM
And the NRA and gun collectors still support the Republicants? This was done by order of our white house. And they still claim the Republiant administration isnt fasciast? rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 19-Oct-2006, 09:08 AM
QUOTE (maisky @ 19-Oct-2006, 09:01 AM)
And the NRA and gun collectors still support the Republicants? This was done by order of our white house. And they still claim the Republiant administration isnt fasciast? rolleyes.gif

Really and where did you hear that? I saw Ray Nagin and the poliece chief giving the order. The bottom line is it happened and a law is now in place that passed through the House and Senete and was approved by the President. Please show me where you get that the order came from the White House. thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 19-Oct-2006, 09:17 AM
No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns, or other firearms, said P. Edwin Compass, the superintendent of police. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.

This is where the order came from.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 19-Oct-2006, 09:21 AM
President Bush, or whoever happens to be President at the time,, in the name of "National Security" , could issue an order to confiscate all weapons . Or local officials could issue such an order, legal or not, as Police Commissioner Edwin Compass did in New Orleans. Armed national guard units could be called in to begin confiscating weapons and forcing people AT GUN POINT to stay in their homes, restrict their activities, and leave them with no means to protect themselves, their families, and their homes. We should all pray that these things never happen in America , but being realistic I believe the odds are they will
. And again I say to those of you who say this kind of thing could never happen in America, New Orleans shows that it not only CAN happen but it DID happen!!!!


This is something else I found and I searched for a while and found no where even on propaganda sites that Bush gave the order. The one to blame it on is the Police superintendant.

Posted by: John Clements 19-Oct-2006, 05:30 PM
Being a lefty, politically speaking, I didn’t agree with most of Charlton Hesston’s thinking. But like him, they’ll have to pry my weapon out of my cold dead hands.
You see, I believe when they say national security. They’re talking about their own security, not mine.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 19-Oct-2006, 07:21 PM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 19-Oct-2006, 06:30 PM)
Being a lefty, politically speaking, I didn’t agree with most of Charlton Hesston’s thinking. But like him, they’ll have to pry my weapon out of my cold dead hands.
You see, I believe when they say national security. They’re talking about their own security, not mine.

I think National security is only one part. We are the ones who are responsible for our own personal protection. thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 23-Oct-2006, 07:01 PM
Here's and article I found from the Washington Times. This is what I'm talking about.

The conventional wisdom on the "Amish shootings" by Charles Carl Roberts Roberts and other recent school violence maintains that the "real" problem is just too many guns. Many believe that this horrible crime could have been prevented by stricter gun-control laws. One hundred big-city mayors, including New York's Michael Bloomberg and Boston's Thomas Menino, have formed a coalition to get illegal guns off the streets of their cities where violent crime is on the rise. The mayors want to increase gun control and impose stiffer penalties on illegal weapons traffickers.
Students of gun-control's effect on violent crime differ with the mayors' premise, however. In his article "Does gun control equal crime control?", Dr. Jeremy D. Blanks -- a Senior Research Scientist with a leading R&D firm -- writes:
"A review of the areas in the U.S. with the most restrictive firearm laws, including ? Washington, DC, Chicago, New York, and California, shows that these areas have some of the highest ? violent crime rates in the U.S. The crime rates in all of these areas exceed the national average, and they all have enacted in depth restrictions on firearm ownership that include licensing and registration schemes, various taxes, testing, and even bans on firearms."
Other experts acknowledge that no current laws would have prevented the crime Roberts' twisted mind had planned. Some say Pennsylvania being a "shall-issue" state -- where any law-abiding citizen without a prior felony conviction can obtain a concealed weapon permit -- enabled the crime. But there is no evidence that Roberts had a permit for his pistol. His other two weapons required no permits, as they were not handguns. Had guns and knives been banned so effectively that he couldn't obtain them, he could have used a pitchfork to kill his victims just as effectively.
Most political responses to this and other shooting crimes center on the weapons, not on their users. Missing from reports I have seen (or heard) on Roberts' pitiless slaughter of those girls was any mention of the word "evil". In fact, he was a wicked man who for two decades -- by his own account -- nursed some crack-brained grudge and plotted how he would despoil and kill young girls. This was not about law or guns, but about evil in a man's heart.
In a 2000 review of Christina Hoff Sommers' book, The War Against Boys, How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men, Dr. Kelley Ross wrote:
"Where children are not raised in a morally appropriate fashion, they will behave impolitely, imprudently, or illegally -- [or] all three ? The criminality of the young, especially the sociopathic and even psychopathic behavior evident in recent school shootings and massacres, let alone the criminal slaughter found in inner cities, ? is a matter of frequent sensational headlines. That the public debate over such incidents is typically diverted into controversy over firearms is one of the most disturbing and damaging misdirections in all of recent politics. ? The outrageous crimes of virtually feral children are adopted as a pretext to restrict the autonomy of adults by limiting general access to arms."
When I was growing up, we had some child-molesters and killers, but we dealt with them decisively when we caught them. Animals like Roberts -- who kidnapped and/or killed children -- got the Chair or rotted in mental hospitals for the rest of their sick lives. Would Pennsylvania have sentenced Roberts to die? Maybe. But probably not. (PA has executed only two men since 1977.) Luckily, he executed himself, thus saving Pennsylvania citizens the expense of paying for his meals, accommodations, and cable TV for 20 years, until some liberal judge gave him a new trial because a police officer called him an insulting name.
Contemporary society nurses a delusion that every criminal can be "reformed" -- that no one is beyond reclaim. We can't see "evil" because we don't believe in it any more. This extends to religious people, of whom large numbers no longer even believe in Hell. Where do we think people like Hitler and Himmler ended up. (Maybe in that great Mental Hospital in the Sky.)
The delusion goes beyond defining evil down. We can't even recognize danger when we see it. Today, disturbed homeless people live among us instead of in institutions where they would pose no threat to society and could be properly cared for. Once we kept them there, but do-gooders like Rosalyn Carter got thousands of them released so they could sleep in our parks and defecate in parking garage stairwells. We know little about their criminal records. When one commits a violent crime, we are shocked -- shocked! -- that such a person managed to obtain a weapon. We demand more laws. We want someone held accountable. But we're the responsible party. Our indifference to danger is befouling our culture and costing our children their lives and futures.
Eventually we'll wake up and put things right. When the pendulum swings back it will be a time of reckoning and severe punishments. This isn't about guns. It's about recognizing danger, understanding evil, and punishing wicked people. We need to quit fooling around with this. It's our responsibility.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 23-Oct-2006, 07:04 PM
biggrin.gif Here's another good one.


The concealed weapon law went into effect three years and since hitting the books hundreds of permits have been issued to many people including Greene County.
"It makes criminals a lot less opt to try and do something to somebody. Not only if they are going to be facing someone who is armed with a firearm or not," says Darrell Loftis, a business owner who carries a concealed weapon to calms his fears of becoming a crime victim.

Since October 2003, Greene County has issued 1,429 permits and that does not include the 31 permits currently being processed.

"I feel safer for myself, for my employees and myself," he adds.

Loftis carries his weapon not only at work, but at home as well. He has never used it before, but knows his weapon is there if the need arises.

"It`s just like a neighborhood watch or any type of proactive thing you put out there," says Loftis.

The day after lawmakers passed the concealed weapons bill, Ozarks Shooters began receiving calls from people interested in gun training. That`s because, those wanting to conceal and carry a gun have to complete an eight hour training course from a certified instructor.

"I think the concern that the law would go into the Wild West days where everybody would be carrying a gun. In my opinion, that has not happened. It`s been the responsible citizens that have gone to the training and who want to pay the money for that ability," said Capt. Jim Arnott of the Greene County Sheriff`s Department.

Arnott says the law was created to deter crime from happening in the state and though measuring its effect takes at least ten years, business owners like Loftis feel it’s working already.

"I feel it has because most everybody, if they are going to go through an eight hour course, you will pay all the money and go threw the finger printing and everything to carry a conceal weapon then they are serious about it," he says.

Since the law went into effect, the Greene County Sheriff`s Department has only revoked a total of five permits and that included people with a criminal history, someone with a DUI and another person who had a mental illness.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 24-Oct-2006, 07:45 PM
Gun control isn't the answer, but neither is punishment. The main problem I had with the first article is that it failed to address the fact that the amish killer killed himself. Punishment wouldn't have prevented that crime either.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 24-Oct-2006, 08:46 PM
QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 24-Oct-2006, 08:45 PM)
Gun control isn't the answer, but neither is punishment. The main problem I had with the first article is that it failed to address the fact that the amish killer killed himself. Punishment wouldn't have prevented that crime either.

Well then what's the solution? The guy killed himself. I say now our tax dollars don't have to support him in jail now or pay for a long costly trial. It is a shame anyone died but do you really think he have been stopped if guns were harder to get? I hear all the time only the police should have guns. Well why would they need guns if no one else had guns? Hummm. Can you say police state? unsure.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 24-Oct-2006, 08:49 PM
Here's another article. thumbs_up.gif

Re Howard Goodman's liberal anti-gun rhetoric ("Rising homicide rate should set off alarms," Thursday): The "gang bangers" he refers to are inner city punks who have been killing each other forever, for the privilege of owning a corner to ply their trade.

Due to the popularity of illegal drugs, these gang bangers will not hesitate to protect their turf. If firearms were not available, they would use knives, bats and even golf clubs as weapons.

Liberals like Goodman will always take the opportunity to blame legal firearm ownership and the National Rifle Association. The real blame lies on "revolving door justice" meted out by liberal judges who constantly are sympathetic to these career criminals.

Most of these gang bangers are experts in working our legal system.

The State of Florida has a 10-20-life law. Using a firearm to commit a crime, 10 years incarceration. Firing a firearm in the commission of a crime, 20 years. Injuring or killing a person while committing a crime, a mandatory life sentence.

Yet when the defendant shows up in court wearing a white shirt and tie, defended by a slick-talking attorney, in front of a lenient judge, he usually winds up back on the street, doing what he does, until he gets caught again.

Take the time to investigate the records of the judges that are running for election, weed out the ones that are soft on crime and boot them out the door regardless of their party affiliation.

People like Goodman would like to see the disarming of all law-abiding American citizens. The firearms industry is the most strictly regulated industry in the United States.

In any occupation or industry, there are always a few bad apples. The bad apples of the firearms industry are constantly being eliminated and prosecuted.

It's a fact that the communities that have the strictest gun control have the highest crime rate. Goodman and some politicians, if they could, would eliminate legal gun ownership in America. If they were successful, only the bad guys would have the guns.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 05-Nov-2006, 08:39 PM
I'd say the arguement to ban guns is useless! Just read this. thumbs_up.gif


The United Nations’ conference on small arms, which starts today, has an admirable enough goal: to save lives. Some conference attendees claim that guns used in armed conflicts cause 300,000 deaths world-wide every year. The “international community’s” solution? Prevent rebels from getting guns with rules that include a registry of all small arms to enable tracing them and to ensure that weapons sales can be limited to governments.That is an understandable “solution” for governments that don’t trust their citizens. But it also represents a dangerous disregard for their citizens’ safety and freedom.

Why? First, and most obviously, because not all insurgencies are bad. It is hardly surprising that infamous regimes such as those in Syria, Cuba, Rwanda, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, and Sierra Leone support these regulations. Yet, banning guns to rebels in totalitarian countries is like arguing that there is never anything such as a just war.

In hindsight, would Europeans really have preferred that no resistance was put up as Hitler rolled across Europe? Should the French or Norwegian resistance movements simply have given up? Surely this would have minimized war causalities.

Many countries already ban private gun ownership. Rwanda and Sierra Leone are two notable examples. Yet, with more than a million people hacked to death in those countries over seven years, were their citizens better off without guns?

What about the massacres of civilians in Bosnia or Darfur? Would that have been so easy if those people had been able to defend themselves? And what about the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto during World War II? Wouldn’t it have been better if they had more guns to defend themselves? All the well-deserved publicity for the movie Schindler’s List not withstanding, the movie left out how Schindler, an avid gun collector, stockpiled guns and hand grenades in case the Jews he was protecting needed to defend themselves. During the 1980s, the proposed rules would have prevented the American government from assisting the Afghanis in their fight against the Soviet Union.

There is a second reason to reject a ban on small arms. Even in free countries, where there is little risk of a totalitarian regime, gun bans all but invariably result in higher crime. In the U.S., the states with the highest gun ownership rates have by far the lowest violent crime rates. And similarly, over time, states with the largest increases in gun ownership have experienced the biggest drops in violent crime.

Research by Jeff Miron, now at Harvard, in which he examined homicide rates across 44 countries, found that countries with the strictest gun control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates. Take four English-speaking island nations, with easily defendable boarders which allow for the prevention of smuggling, that have passed strict gun bans only to discover that violent crime and homicide didn’t decline as they’d hoped, but actually increased.

The British government banned handguns in January 1997 but recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the seven years from 1996 to 2003. Since 1996, the rate of serious violent crime has soared by 88 percent; armed robberies by 101 percent; rapes by 105 percent; and homicide by 24 percent.

Australia’s 1996 gun-control regulations banned many types of guns, and the immediate aftermath was similar. While murder rates have remained unchanged, armed-robbery rates averaged 59 percent higher in the eight years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2004) than in 1995.

The Republic of Ireland banned and confiscated all handguns and all center-fire rifles in 1972, but murder rates rose five-fold by 1974, and in the twenty years after the ban, the murder rate has averaged 114 percent higher than before the ban (never falling below at least 31 percent higher).

Jamaica banned all guns in 1974, but murder rates almost doubled from 11.5 per 100,000 in 1973 to 19.5 in 1977, and soared further to 41.7 in 1980.

Bans haven’t even work in totalitarian countries, even after having been in place for decades. The former USSR banned private ownership of guns after the Communist revolution and still had much higher murder rates than the U.S. The USSR’s murder rates during its last 15 years, from 1976 to 1991, were between 21 and 48 percent higher than ours. Did eliminating access to weapons fail simply because the USSR wasn’t totalitarian enough?

So why the perverse effects? We all want to take guns from criminals, but regulations that primarily disarm law-abiding citizens, not criminals, can actually make crime more likely to occur.

It is clear that what may protect governments does not always protect their citizens. Especially when it comes to guns, freedom and safety go together.

— John Lott is the author of More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns biggrin.gif biggrin.gif

Posted by: MDF3530 05-Nov-2006, 09:13 PM
I have no problem with handguns or even hunting rifles/shotguns. What I have a problem with is the assault rifles. AK-47s and M-16s are not made for hunting. They are made to kill people. You want to use one of those weapons, go join the military or National Guard.

Posted by: Swanny 05-Nov-2006, 09:31 PM
Why do you even bring up M-16s or AK-47s? They can only be sold to civilians with very deep pockets, deep enough to afford an incredibly expensive registration fee. In fact, fully automatic firearms were the very first to be "controlled" by law in the United States.

They have been off the legal market since the 1930s or so.

Swanny

Posted by: MDF3530 05-Nov-2006, 10:28 PM
Because the gun industry and their cronies in the NRA want to erase all bans on assault weapons.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 06-Nov-2006, 05:06 AM
Even during the assult weapon ban, I know a few people who had semi-automatic AKs and M-16. As mentioned before, you need deep DEEP pockets to own and register fully-automatic guns. Those who had the semi-autos had them legally by the way. Also I'm a ccm and will ALWAY be a ccm of the NRA.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 06-Nov-2006, 05:10 AM
Also, owning and posessing a gun, as long as you are not a convicted felon, is a right, not a privilidge thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 06-Nov-2006, 06:17 PM
Here's an article I think just proves the elitest attitude of the anti-gunners. I mean look at the names of the concelled weapons holders. Donald Trump, Howard Stern. Now why do they NEED conceled hand guns but Mike Bloomberg thinks someone like me need to trust the PD? Who is more at risk of violent crime? The adverage joe or those big cheeses. unsure.gif Here's the article. Oh and yes I know Bloomberg is a Republican but if he EVER runs for president. He most definatly doesn't have my vote.



Mayor Bloomberg blasted his political predecessors yesterday for handing out concealed-gun permits to their well-connected cronies.
"We have been pretty hard-nosed about renewing [permits]," Bloomberg said on his weekly WABC-AM radio show.

"Sometimes, some administrations, you know, if any of their friends want a gun permit, they just gave it to 'em," he said. "And I don't think that's right. I think you should have to justify it."

Bloomberg did not single out any of his predecessors for blame or identify the New Yorkers he believes were wrongly given permits to carry concealed weapons.

The well-known New Yorkers who have obtained permits in the past include Donald Trump, Howard Stern and state Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno.

Bloomberg has been crusading against illegal handguns since being reelected and co-founded a coalition, which now consists of 109 mayors, dedicated to stopping the sale of illegal guns.

Yesterday, Bloomberg said he also is hoping to reduce the number of people allowed to carry concealed weapons in the city.

"If you tell me you need a gun permit, you're telling me you don't think the NYPD can do a good job in protecting you," he said. "Most people, I don't see any reason why they need it."





Posted by: Nova Scotian 06-Nov-2006, 06:19 PM
Besides I think of myself more of a libertarian anyway thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 12-Nov-2006, 09:29 AM
thumbs_up.gif Here's an interesting article. Something I noticed before the election was over. All I can say the 2nd ammendment is ALIVE and WELL thumbs_up.gif


The Second Amendment has emerged from the biggest Democratic victory since 1974 with relatively little damage. One reason is that in races all over the country, Democrats returned to their Jefferson-Jackson roots by running candidates who trust the people to bear arms.

I do not disagree that the Democratic gains in Congress will, on the whole, be harmful for the economy, and extremely dangerous for the war against Islamofascism.

Nevertheless, the class of pro-gun Democrats who will be joining the House and the Senate includes some who will eventually become party leaders, and who will help move the Democratic party back towards its traditional position of respect for the civil liberties of the American people. A very constructive development, in the long run.

The information below is based on the results as of early Wednesday morning. The ratings cited below are from the National Rifle Association.

Governors: In a year in which Democrats gained a half-dozen governorships, only one pro-gun incumbent governor was defeated. Pro-gun Republican incumbents who repelled anti-gun challenges included Schwarzenegger (Calif.), Carcieri (R.I.), and Douglas (Vt.). After trailing for months, Tim Pawlenty won a very close re-election in Minnesota, while Jim Gibbons survived a last-minute scare in Nevada.

Democrats Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Jennifer Granholm of Michigan were not considered friendly to the Second Amendment when they were elected, but they helped ensure their re-election by generally supporting Second Amendment rights during their first terms. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, Brad Henry of Oklahoma, and Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming won their first terms by promising to protect Second Amendment rights, and they won easy re-election in part because they kept their promises.

In open seats, winners were pro-gun Democrat Culver (Iowa), and pro-gun Republicans Palin (Alaska), Crist (Fla.), and Otter (Idaho). All of the Republicans defeated candidates with weaker records on the Second Amendment.

Second Amendment activists did not achieve their goals of unseating Jim Doyle (Wisconsin) or Ted Kulongoski (Ore.).

In Maryland, incumbent Governor Bob Ehrlich was rhetorically pro-gun, but did very little to help gun owners. He was defeated by the “F”-rated Martin O’Malley. Next year, the gun-prohibition lobby in Maryland will make a major push to ban self-loading firearms.

The other major Second Amendment loss was in Colorado, where strongly anti-gun Democrat Bill Ritter will replace retiring Governor Bill Owens. In addition, moderately anti-gun George Pataki of New York will be replaced by vehemently anti-gun Democrat Elliot Spitzer.

Retiring anti-gun Republican Governor Bob Taft of Ohio will give way to solidly pro-gun Democrat Ted Strickland. Preliminary results suggest that the Ohio legislature still has a pro-gun majority, so prospects for constructive reform of Ohio laws — particularly pre-emption of local gun bans — appear good.

Net gubernatorial results: -1.5.

Gains: Ohio.

Losses: Colorado, Maryland, and half of one in New York.

Senate: With McCaskill taking Talent’s seat, we lose one seat for Second Amendment rights. In Vermont, Bernie Sander (“C-” rating) will take the place of retiring Jim Jeffords (“B” rated in his last election, but performed worse in his final term), so let’s call that a wash. In all other states, incumbents won, or were replaced by candidates who had nearly identical ratings on gun issues.

Net Senate results: -1.

Of the new pro-gun Democrats, Casey does not appear very deep intellectually, but Webb may emerge as an articulate, well-informed spokesman for America’s traditional culture of gun ownership. Jon Tester of Montana has Second Amendment views that are consistent with his state’s.

Assuming that Tester and Webb win, Majority Leader Reid will be one of a half-dozen generally pro-gun Democrats, along with Baucus, Ben Nelson, and Casey. The number of Democratic Senators who will vote against guns under all circumstances appears to be less then 20 (based on the number who voted in favor of allowing federal funds to be spent on gun confiscation during emergencies, even when the confiscation is not authorized by any law).

House: Pro-gun losses were about half the size of Republican losses — which is another way of saying that many of the Democrats who made the 2006 takeover possible are pro-gun. These include FL 16 (Mahoney), Indiana (Donnelly, Ellsworth, Hill), MN 1 (Walz), NC 11 (Shuler), Ohio (Wilson, Space), PA 4 (Altmire), TX 22 (Lampson), and VT (Welch).

Party control changed in the following races where pro-gun candidates were defeated by gun-control supporters: AZ 5 (Hayworth), CA 11 (Pombo), CO 7 (open), CT 2 (Simmons), IA 1 (open), KS 2 (Ryun), KY 3 (Northrup), NH (Shea, Bass), PA (Weldon, Fitzpatrick, Sherwood), NY 20 (Sweeney), WI 8 (open).

Net House results: -14, which would drop to -15 if Reichert (WA 8) loses his lead.

Several other districts had changes that were only a matter of degree: In NY 24 (open) an “F” rated Democrat took the seat of retiring “D+” rated Sherwood Boehlert. In FL 16, Shaw (“C+” rated) was replaced by an “F” challenger. The Illinois seat of retiring, and inconsistent, Henry Hyde was won by “A” rated Republican Peter Roskama. Democrat Peter Welch (“A” rated) of Vermont will take over the at-large seat vacated by Socialist Sanders (“C-” rated). The sum of the results in these four races is no net change.

There were, of course, many other tough races where pro-rights activists provided the volunteer work and votes that helped keep seats in pro-gun hands. Among these are AZ 1 (Renzi), CA 4 (Doolittle), CO 4 (Musgrave), CO 5 (open, Lamborn), Florida (Buchanan, Keller, Bilirakis), IN 3 (Souder), MN 6 (Bachmann), NM 1 (Wilson), Ohio (Chabot, Schmidt, Tiberi, Pryce), VA10 (Wolf), and WY (Cubin).

Many Democrats are now saying that 2006 is their 1994. Arguably so. The number of 2006 losses by pro-gun candidates, however, is very small compared to the number of 1994 losses by anti-gun candidates. Democratic victories are no longer synonymous with gun control victories.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 15-Nov-2006, 06:41 PM
Our neighbors in the north, Canada, think gun control is the end all of violent crime? Not quite according to this.

The number of murders in Canada rose for a second straight year in 2005, though they were still far lower than 30 years ago, according to statistics released.

Police services reported 658 homicides last year, 34 more than in 2004. Of these, 222 were committed with firearms, up from 173 the year before.

Most of the increase was driven by a jump in gang-related homicides, particularly in the provinces of Ontario and Alberta, the federal agency Statistics Canada said in a report Wednesday.

Police reported 107 homicides were gang-related in 2005, 35 more than in 2004.

But it's still far lower than in mid-1970s, when the national homicide rate peaked at 3.03 homicides per 100,000 people. It has generally dropped since then, reaching a low of 1.73 in 2003. The 2005 rate was 2.04 homicides per 100,000 population.

Justice Minister Vic Toews said the increase merits the Conservative government's proposed bill to impose mandatory minimum sentences for a variety of gun and gang-related offenses.

The laws would require spending C$246 million (US$218 million;euro170.63 million) to house the extra criminals they would create. Toews also wants to scrap the former Liberal administration's long-gun registry, arguing it is too costly and ineffective.

"What we need to target on is the use of handguns, especially by gangs," he said. "The areas of increase in gun crime is specifically the use of handguns by gangs."

Toews argued the federal firearms registry has not worked because the numbers show that since 1997, police reported that 83 percent of recovered firearms used to kill were not registered.

"Mechanisms like the gun registry simply have been ineffective," Toews said.

Others suggested the homicide jump was a blip in what has generally been a steady decline.

Martin Daly, a psychology professor from McMaster University in Burlington, Ontario, said politicians have long railed against "the rising tide of crime" even when the tide is ebbing.

"Seriously, for 300 years homicide rates have been coming down steadily and politicians have been going on about, `Ain't it awful, the rising tide of violence,'" he said.

Canada's 658 homicides pale in comparison to the homicide rates south of the border. The FBI reports that 16,137 people were killed in the United States in 2004.

Canada's population is about 33 million, compared with America's 300 million. Still, the homicide rate in the United States stood at 5.5 murders per 100,000 people in 2004; more than double that of Canada's last year.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 17-Nov-2006, 07:34 PM
I'm reading an awsome book. You'd like it, that is if you're for gun rights. It's called, "More Guns, Less Crime". By John R. Lott. Professor of law and economics at I believe the University of Chicago. He make any arguement for gun control futile. thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 27-Nov-2006, 01:24 PM
The news here in Tampa today was grim. A child was killed accidently by a handgun that the father, a convicted fellon had left accidentlty under a couch cushion. Yes, it's a tragidity and an anti-gun aquitanance tried to rub it in my face all ready. Well, tragically the anti-gunners will capitolize on this little ones death but they forget the fact according to the justice dept statistics, more small children are killed each year from getting into medication with child safty caps then with unsecured guns. As a matter of fact it's a huge difference. Also, the one who posessed the gun in this case wasn't supposed to even have a gun. So my main point is 2 things. # 1. As tragic it is to see a child die ANYTIME, it is extreamly rare that it happens with an unsecure gun. #2. Anyone can get a gun. So if they are EVER outlawed, the bad guys will always have a gun. Not implying that this boys father was a bad guy. thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 27-Nov-2006, 01:26 PM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 27-Nov-2006, 02:24 PM)
Well, tragically the anti-gunners will capitolize on this little

Sorry about the misspellings. I'm sure there is more. Forgot to hit the spell check.

Posted by: Swanny 27-Nov-2006, 08:54 PM
"Not implying that this boys father was a bad guy."

Yeah, right! All good fathers "accidentally" leave loaded firearms under the cushions of their couches while allowing the wee ones to play unsupervised.

He might not be a "bad guy", but he damned sure is an irresponsible and reckless guy.

Swanny

Posted by: Nova Scotian 27-Nov-2006, 08:59 PM
QUOTE (Swanny @ 27-Nov-2006, 09:54 PM)
"Not implying that this boys father was a bad guy."

Yeah, right! All good fathers "accidentally" leave loaded firearms under the cushions of their couches while allowing the wee ones to play unsupervised.

He might not be a "bad guy", but he damned sure is an irresponsible and reckless guy.

Swanny

All right! Easy Swanny. I wrote what I wrote trying not to be judgemental. The guy made a BAD mistake. No one is perfect.

Posted by: maisky 28-Nov-2006, 06:33 AM
This issue isnt really about gun control. It is about allowing idiots to have guns.....ooops! George Bush has nuclear weapons! rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Swanny 28-Nov-2006, 10:31 AM
Nova Scotian, I appreciate that you are trying to be non-judgemental about this particular idiot. I just don't feel any particular need to do so myself. The guy made several bad mistakes.

1. He committed a felony.

2. He got caught and was convicted (BAD mistake).

3. Upon release, he committed at least one other felony (Felon in possession of a firearm). That the firearm was stored under the cushion of a sofa at least hints that he had committed at least one other crime sufficient to make him a target of either police officers or of other bad guys. (another BAD mistake)

4. He stored that firearm in an unsafe manner (BAD mistake)

5. He allowed his child to play around that stored firearm unsupervised (VERY bad mistake).

Common sense (a rarity in our wold today) would hint that a convicted felon who parks a loaded handgun in a sofa cushion expects to be "entertaining guests" in the near future, and those expected guests are probably not the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Tupperware ladies. I guarantee you that if I were expecting violent people to come visit I would make it a point to as far away from anyone I love as possible - certainly not planning on bringing the fight into the home where my little child lives.

In my opinion, his total disregard for his child's safety makes him a bad guy.

Maisky, President Bush does not have nuclear weapons, his are nucular weapons. Don't you keep up with the news?

Swanny

Posted by: maisky 28-Nov-2006, 11:52 AM
QUOTE (Swanny @ 28-Nov-2006, 10:31 AM)


those expected guests are probably not the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Tupperware ladies.

Maisky, President Bush does not have nuclear weapons, his are nucular weapons. Don't you keep up with the news?

Swanny

Some of those tupperware ladies can be REALLY pushy!

I apologize for my misspelling of nucular! unsure.gif

Posted by: stoirmeil 28-Nov-2006, 11:57 AM
Meh. I have a friend so liberal as to make me myself resemble a John Bircher, who told me recently that "nucular" was an accepted variant because Jimmy Carter also pronounced it that way.

Strange, strange bedfellows the whole show makes, no? Or bombfellows as the case may be. smile.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 28-Nov-2006, 08:21 PM
Well looking at the big picture as it is. He was a convicted felon who had a gun which is illegal in the first place. In Florida, if you have youngsters around, and you improperly store a gun and the youngster gets harmed, YOU are responsible. I think weather or not he was trying to get himself right he was dealing into some bad stuff. I mean keeping a gun under a couch cushion? He had to be having some dealings with the wrong crowd. The bottom line is still more kids 0-5 are killed in automobile accidents, by swimming pool accidents, and by suffocation by far more then accidents with firearms.

Posted by: stoirmeil 29-Nov-2006, 08:32 AM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 28-Nov-2006, 09:21 PM)
The bottom line is still more kids 0-5 are killed in automobile accidents, by swimming pool accidents, and by suffocation by far more then accidents with firearms.

I have never really understood why people use this kind of reasoning as a "bottom line" justification for having guns around the home, or in the event that a firearms accident involving a child does occur. My dad had a quaint way of expressing it -- this is my dad, now, not me -- he used to say "That's Stalin patting himself on the back because he's not Hitler." A death is a death, a child's avoidable death is a terrible burden on the survivors forever after, and I don't know that numbers enter into it. Yes, I know that statistics drive policy. But I still don't understand the argument in this context, or what exactly it is trying to communicate.

Posted by: Swanny 29-Nov-2006, 10:22 AM
Stoirmeil, I can't understand how people can use isolated and unusual incidents as an excuse to pass laws that restrict my right to keep and bear arms and if necessary use those arms to defend my life or the lives of my loved ones.

When a kid drowns in a mop bucket you don't hear a sudden outcry to register and ban mop buckets. When a kid drowns in a swimming pool you don't hear a sudden outcry to register and ban swimming pools, and you darned sure never hear an outcry to ban automobiles.

The point is that anti-gun advocates are frquently inconsistent in their arguments and alleged concerns.

Swanny

Posted by: John Clements 29-Nov-2006, 10:29 AM
Gun control is impossible to achieve, at least not without a gun.

JC

Posted by: stoirmeil 29-Nov-2006, 10:39 AM
QUOTE (Swanny @ 29-Nov-2006, 11:22 AM)
Stoirmeil, I can't understand how people can use isolated and unusual incidents as an excuse to pass laws that restrict my right to keep and bear arms and if necessary use those arms to defend my life or the lives of my loved ones.


But I didn't say "If one kid gets shot, ban guns." I'm remarking on the use of relative statistics to justify NOT banning, based on unrelated kinds of deaths. Defenders of the right to bear arms have gotten so sensitive to any questions, everything sounds like a cry to ban, to y'all. You convinced me a long time ago that it should be a state's rights issue, based on legitimate need. I will never have a 1000-lb grizzly in my trash cans -- you may have one next week. Done.

And what I mean is that NO avoidable death (especially of a child, because of the sequelae to survivors) should be subjected to statistics in a dangerous-er than thou fashion to justify anything. It's not about banning or not banning, whether it's guns, swimming pools, or automobiles. It's about using the statistics that way.

Posted by: Swanny 29-Nov-2006, 11:02 AM
QUOTE
Defenders of the right to bear arms have gotten so sensitive to any questions, everything sounds like a cry to ban, to y'all.


I agree with that statement - and I think there is a reason for it. Every time we turn around some anti-gun organization and their rented politicians try to ramrod anti-firearm legislation down our throats, using statistics as a club. The only way to counter numbers is with more numbers.

The question that is asked when a new law is proposed is often "Is the problem bad enough to justify restricting everyone's freedom in an attempt to solve it?" That truly is where numbers come into play, and should come into play.

Meanwhile, gun control advocates claim they are "only interested in saving the lives of children", yet ignore the fact that unintentional firearms deaths are miniscule compared to other causes of unintentional childhood mortality. If they truly were interested in saving the lives of children it would seem they would focus at least equal effort on addressing other, much more common causes of death in childhood.

Reality is, they are not interested in saving children, they are interested only in restricting the freedom of others.

Swanny

Posted by: Antwn 29-Nov-2006, 11:06 AM
QUOTE (Swanny @ 29-Nov-2006, 11:22 AM)
  When a kid drowns in a mop bucket you don't hear a sudden outcry to register and ban mop buckets.  When a kid drowns in a swimming pool you don't hear a sudden outcry to register and ban swimming pools, and you darned sure never hear an outcry to ban automobiles. 


Swanny, I think the reason is that mop buckets, automobiles and swimming pools have alternate uses and the taking of life or causing of injury, while being a risk, is not their primary utility, nor the exclusive reason for their design.

The perception is that the risk is an acceptible tradeoff for the convenience of automobile transportation, swimming pool recreation and mop buckets. The perception of danger generally is not to a point where gun ownership is viewed as indispensable for defense and their recreational value is only high amongst enthusiasts. So in the risk vs benefit analysis of guns, the benefits do not weigh as heavily except for enthusiasts, the police and the military.

When you take the passions out of the issue, it seems to me that might be the concensus among those who you're complaining about.

Posted by: Swanny 29-Nov-2006, 11:44 AM
If you take passions out of the argument, it becomes a rather dull exercise, doesn't it? Passion is what fuels the fire of debate.

There is another side to the statistics that gun control activists choose to ignore. Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually fired. (Source)National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, BATF estimates on handgun supply

This indicates to me that firearms so have a somewhat utilitarian purpose.

S.

Posted by: maisky 29-Nov-2006, 12:37 PM
QUOTE (Swanny @ 29-Nov-2006, 11:44 AM)

This indicates to me that firearms so have a somewhat utilitarian purpose.

S.

Also, they look great hanging on the wall and make cool paperweights! laugh.gif

Posted by: stoirmeil 29-Nov-2006, 12:45 PM
QUOTE (Swanny @ 29-Nov-2006, 12:44 PM)
If you take passions out of the argument, it becomes a rather dull exercise, doesn't it?  Passion is what fuels the fire of debate.

There is another side to the statistics that gun control activists choose to ignore.  Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually fired.  (Source)National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, BATF estimates on handgun supply

This indicates to me that firearms so have a somewhat utilitarian purpose.

S.

unsure.gif Uhh. . . maybe, if the argument per se is an "exercise". As for guns themselves, the more dispassionately they are used, the better.

Not to be a P.I.T.A., but are there any other aspects to those stats? Like, how many of those were legally owned? By competent operators? And for those 1100 murders prevented, for example (hard to gauge really) -- if the murder didn't occur, how can you be so sure it was going to? It seems to me there is still a non-trivial risk in displaying a weapon, intending that display to be a deterrant -- any stats on that? What about follow-up? Is the gun later taken off someone who displayed it, by a criminal? How many people are murdered by a robber BECAUSE they resisted by showing a weapon, for example? I believe that once you have displayed yourself as a person who is carrying, you can't go back in the closet again, so to speak. One has to be able to deal with that on a permanent basis from that point forward, as a changed status. In some places it's a given; in others, it could be very dangerous.

Again, I am not crying bans. I just prefer to see all possibilities covered, not just the ones intended to convince in one direction.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 29-Nov-2006, 04:08 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 29-Nov-2006, 01:45 PM)
QUOTE (Swanny @ 29-Nov-2006, 12:44 PM)
If you take passions out of the argument, it becomes a rather dull exercise, doesn't it?  Passion is what fuels the fire of debate.

There is another side to the statistics that gun control activists choose to ignore.  Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually fired.  (Source)National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, BATF estimates on handgun supply

This indicates to me that firearms so have a somewhat utilitarian purpose.

S.

unsure.gif Uhh. . . maybe, if the argument per se is an "exercise". As for guns themselves, the more dispassionately they are used, the better.

Not to be a P.I.T.A., but are there any other aspects to those stats? Like, how many of those were legally owned? By competent operators? And for those 1100 murders prevented, for example (hard to gauge really) -- if the murder didn't occur, how can you be so sure it was going to? It seems to me there is still a non-trivial risk in displaying a weapon, intending that display to be a deterrant -- any stats on that? What about follow-up? Is the gun later taken off someone who displayed it, by a criminal? How many people are murdered by a robber BECAUSE they resisted by showing a weapon, for example? I believe that once you have displayed yourself as a person who is carrying, you can't go back in the closet again, so to speak. One has to be able to deal with that on a permanent basis from that point forward, as a changed status. In some places it's a given; in others, it could be very dangerous.

Again, I am not crying bans. I just prefer to see all possibilities covered, not just the ones intended to convince in one direction.

Let me ask this, how many women are scared for life now because the didn't resist. How many people are dead now because they did actally what their assailant told them? The bottom line is "more guns = less crime in the sense of rape murder and home invasion. I can prove it. But so many people are just to afraid of guns to listen.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 29-Nov-2006, 04:11 PM
Oh. Storimeil, if you want ALL bases covered, just read John Lotts book. Called "More Guns, Less Crime". It will answer a lot of your questions. You can research Lott on line if you'd like.

Posted by: Shadows 29-Nov-2006, 04:55 PM
It all boils down to " more control " of the masses!
Let us regulate " stupid " out of the equation.
Let us control, who, how and why and forget the rights we all have to defend ourselves and our loved ones.


If the police and military are the only ones to own and use guns we may as well just turn over what is left of our constitutional rights right now!

WAKE UP!


Posted by: Swanny 29-Nov-2006, 08:04 PM
QUOTE
Is the gun later taken off someone who displayed it, by a criminal?


That is a fair question, but as near as I can tell it is an incredibly rare case. For over 10 years Darrell Mulroy researched the topic, and was unable to find a single case in which a gun was taken away from and used against a victim. He publicly offered a $10,000.00 cash prize to anyone who could find such a case. That prize was never claimed during Mulroy's life.

If that is truly a concern, I'd recommend doing a web search to see if you can find examples. I'm sure that if it did occur it would be widely reported in local news media, if not the national media organizations.

QUOTE
How many people are murdered by a robber BECAUSE they resisted by showing a weapon.


Another very good question that is difficult to answer. What I can tell you is that according to the National Crime Victim Survey published by the Department of Justice, 83% of robbery victims who resisted with a firearm were not injured, 88% of assault victims who defended themselves with a firearm were not hurt, and in 76% of all cases in which a firearm was used defensively no shots were ever fired.

According to the same source (which is available on-line for those who care enough to research the topic), of an average of 61,100 victims of attempted violent crimes who defended themselves with a firearm, an average of 12,100 (only 19.8 %) were injured in any way, and the other 50,000 (80.2%) were entirely unscathed.

So, even though we don't know how many people were murdered by a robber because they resisted with a weapon, we do know it is an average of something less than 19.8%, and I'd guess it is probably considerably less.

Check this out. I found a paper on-line that, albeit rather technical, provides the answers to most of your questions. You can view it here ->
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html


Posted by: Nova Scotian 30-Nov-2006, 04:57 AM
QUOTE (Swanny @ 29-Nov-2006, 09:04 PM)

That is a fair question, but as near as I can tell it is an incredibly rare case. For over 10 years Darrell Mulroy researched the topic, and was unable to find a single case in which a gun was taken away from and used against a victim. He publicly offered a $10,000.00 cash prize to anyone who could find such a case. That prize was never claimed during Mulroy's life.

If that is truly a concern, I'd recommend doing a web search to see if you can find examples. I'm sure that if it did occur it would be widely reported in local news media, if not the national media organizations.



Another very good question that is difficult to answer. What I can tell you is that according to the National Crime Victim Survey published by the Department of Justice, 83% of robbery victims who resisted with a firearm were not injured, 88% of assault victims who defended themselves with a firearm were not hurt, and in 76% of all cases in which a firearm was used defensively no shots were ever fired.

According to the same source (which is available on-line for those who care enough to research the topic), of an average of 61,100 victims of attempted violent crimes who defended themselves with a firearm, an average of 12,100 (only 19.8 %) were injured in any way, and the other 50,000 (80.2%) were entirely unscathed.

So, even though we don't know how many people were murdered by a robber because they resisted with a weapon, we do know it is an average of something less than 19.8%, and I'd guess it is probably considerably less.

Check this out. I found a paper on-line that, albeit rather technical, provides the answers to most of your questions. You can view it here ->
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

Thank you Swanny. Those stats are excellent. You find those same stats in quoted in Lotts books. I still think that people won't listen to those facts because they're just afraid of guns. thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: Antwn 30-Nov-2006, 11:15 AM
QUOTE (Swanny @ 29-Nov-2006, 09:04 PM)







Another very good question that is difficult to answer. What I can tell you is that according to the National Crime Victim Survey published by the Department of Justice, 83% of robbery victims who resisted with a firearm were not injured, 88% of assault victims who defended themselves with a firearm were not hurt, and in 76% of all cases in which a firearm was used defensively no shots were ever fired.

According to the same source (which is available on-line for those who care enough to research the topic), of an average of 61,100 victims of attempted violent crimes who defended themselves with a firearm, an average of 12,100 (only 19.8 %) were injured in any way, and the other 50,000 (80.2%) were entirely unscathed.


Swanny, would you please provide the page where you found these stats? I could not locate them on the ncvs. Just a suggestion too, if you want people to look things up on sites that are large, you might want to include the page. You might inspire it more. Not everyone has the same amount of time available. Thanks.

While looking, I did however find some interesting paragraphs on the U. Texas site ABOUT the NCVS. Perhaps there are quite a number of variables that would temper any blanket conclusions one might draw from stats alone, as there often are. Here's one paragraph's final sentence, but please read the entire thing its not long.

"Thus, although using a gun will likely alter a situation, some incident-specific characteristics nonetheless apparently have a significant impact on the outcomes of armed resistance to crime." The operative adjective may be "significant".

http://www.la.utexas.edu/crimedata/page310.html

Here's another:

http://www.la.utexas.edu/crimedata/page290.html

"Recent research on the prevalence of defensive gun use has raised increased concern that U.S. government measures to regulate gun ownership and use may be doing more harm than good. The figures on defensive firearm use from the National Crime Victimization Survey seem to be too low, and the results from one-time telephone surveys seem too high." The second sentence suggests to me that the data may not entirely support conclusions at all.

The suggestion is made that "a better method might be to analyze the net effects of gun policies on rates of crime and injury directly." Talk about too many variables! I don't know how you'd do that without involving specious cause/effect assumptions, but that's just me.

Again, the bottom line may just center around personal preference and perception of need. My point is that just throwing out stats and expecting conclusions to be drawn from them in this case may show that the only conclusion which can be drawn is that we don't know enough to draw one.

Stats off the NCVS can also be used to support gun control. note:

"In 2005, 24% of the incidents of violent crime, a weapon was present.

Offenders had or used a weapon in 48% of all robberies, compared with 22% of all aggravated assaults and 7% of all rapes/sexual assaults in 2005.

Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2005, 55% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 14% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 11% with other weapons. " Over half compared to other implements.

Again, for the conclusions one wishes to draw, there can be found stats which support them. If you like guns so be it. If you percieve a need so be it. If you don't like them regulated, that's understandable give your predeliction. What more is there to discuss?

Posted by: Nova Scotian 01-Dec-2006, 10:22 AM
QUOTE (Antwn @ 30-Nov-2006, 12:15 PM)
[QUOTE=Swanny,29-Nov-2006, 09:04 PM]








"In 2005, 24% of the incidents of violent crime, a weapon was present.

Offenders had or used a weapon in 48% of all robberies, compared with 22% of all aggravated assaults and 7% of all rapes/sexual assaults in 2005.

Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2005, 55% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 14% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 11% with other weapons. " Over half compared to other implements.

Again, for the conclusions one wishes to draw, there can be found stats which support them. If you like guns so be it. If you percieve a need so be it. If you don't like them regulated, that's understandable give your predeliction. What more is there to discuss?

If you look at these stats one question can be raised. How many were done by people legally owning the gun? How many were drug related and gang related? My biggest thing is don't punish the law abiding citizen by taking away a defensive mearure that could save my life and or my families of friends. Justice is the biggest problem I think. They need to make stiffer penalties for commiting crime and make prision time for violent offenders harder. Also back in 1987 when Florida came out with the shall issue law meaning the state issues the conceled weapon permit and thats it. The person undergoes a background check and fingerprinting and if they clear, they get issued a permit. Also they attend a conceled permit class. Well the gun grabbers fought tooth and nail to stop it claiming that it will be the wild west in Florida. Well that has yet to happen. Actually in the first year I believe only 2 people lost their permits and it wasn't due to improper use of a handgun or a weapon. The American Association of pediactric Medicine trys to say that if you have a firearm in your house, get rid of it because it puts your child in danger. WELL! I had this talk with a Doctor/Pediatrician about the whole issue. I asked her if guns should be banned from households with small children then we need to ban swimming pools and cars since FAR more children are killed each year in automobile crashes and drowning in swimming pools then by accidents involving handguns. Those are children 0-5 years.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 01-Dec-2006, 10:29 AM
Here are the stats I'm quoting. I think the APMAs arguement is null and void when it comes to their arguement on guns. All from the national safty counsil.

Deaths Due to Unintentional Injuries, 2000 (Estimates) (Chart compiled by GunCite. Source of data, except as noted, National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 2001 Edition, pp. 8-9, 84)

Accident Type Age
0-4 5-14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 75+ Total
All Automobile 900 1,500 10,500 13,300 9,200 2,700 4,900 43,000
Falls 70 70 210 950 1,900 1,700 11,300 16,200
Poisoning by solids, liquids 60 40 800 6,800 3,200 300 500 11,700
Pedestrian1 250 300 750 1,300 1,400 450 850 5,300
Drowning 450 350 700 1,250 650 230 270 3,900
Fires, burns 400 260 240 700 800 500 700 3,600
Suffocation by ingested object 100 20 30 250 400 500 2,100 3,400
Firearms 20 60 150 190 110 30 40 600 : sad.gif
Poisoning by gases, vapors 10 10 70 120 80 40 70 400
All other causes 700 400 1,100 3,000 3,200 1,600 4,500 14,500
TOTAL 2,700 2,700 13,800 26,600 19,500 7,600 24,400 97,300


Posted by: Nova Scotian 01-Dec-2006, 10:38 AM
Correction. APMA is not the organizations right name. It's the AAP. American Academy of Pediatrics. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Antwn 01-Dec-2006, 06:18 PM
QUOTE (Swanny @ 29-Nov-2006, 12:44 PM)
There is another side to the statistics that gun control activists choose to ignore.  Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually fired.  (Source)National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, BATF estimates on handgun supply

This indicates to me that firearms so have a somewhat utilitarian purpose.


One more thing. I never said guns had no utility, but that they have only one. If you're going to wonder why people don't ban mop buckets, automobiles and swimming pools when there's a death associated with them, that's one reason. Sorry if I didn't make that clear in my first post. rolleyes.gif

Another point, according to the Bureau of Justice statistics and National Crime Victims Survey, violent crime has declined since 1994 reaching its lowest recorded level ever in 2005. Question: what does that say about the perception of need as opposed to the actual need for guns as protection, generally speaking? I know there are exceptions in various demographics/situations, okay?

I will be loyal to my own suggestion and provide the page:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm

Posted by: Nova Scotian 01-Dec-2006, 09:04 PM
QUOTE (Antwn @ 01-Dec-2006, 07:18 PM)
QUOTE (Swanny @ 29-Nov-2006, 12:44 PM)
There is another side to the statistics that gun control activists choose to ignore.  Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually fired.  (Source)National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, BATF estimates on handgun supply

This indicates to me that firearms so have a somewhat utilitarian purpose.


One more thing. I never said guns had no utility, but that they have only one. If you're going to wonder why people don't ban mop buckets, automobiles and swimming pools when there's a death associated with them, that's one reason. Sorry if I didn't make that clear in my first post. rolleyes.gif

Another point, according to the Bureau of Justice statistics and National Crime Victims Survey, violent crime has declined since 1994 reaching its lowest recorded level ever in 2005. Question: what does that say about the perception of need as opposed to the actual need for guns as protection, generally speaking? I know there are exceptions in various demographics/situations, okay?

I will be loyal to my own suggestion and provide the page:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm

Yes guns do kill. The are also a tool to protect you and me. If they ban all guns then the police in my opinion won't need them either. Oh, I forgot, the bad guys will still have the guns. So whos going to protect us then? The Police? They have at least a 15 min response time. A lot can happen in 15 min. You and your family could all be dead and the assliant is off and running and it's another cold case for the police. But if you have a gun and shoot the assliant, Your safe, your families safe. The only bad thing is having to live with it. The psycological part would be very painful. But I'd rather deal with that then be dead or see my family dead or badly injured. Since the crime rate is down, did you know that every state except Wisconsin and Illinois have a conceled carry permit law of some kind or another. So yes. Guns are really the problem. I'm a gun owner. It's MY RIGHT! The FACTS are before you in the justice dept. statictics and the National safty Counsel that guns are not the problem. Just read "More Guns Less Crime". You probably won't because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 01-Dec-2006, 09:07 PM
That is if your agenda is anti-gun. wink.gif

Posted by: Swanny 02-Dec-2006, 10:02 AM
QUOTE
Swanny, would you please provide the page where you found these stats?


Here you go. You'll have to chose the format you prefer from this page. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/hvfsdaft.htm

QUOTE
according to the Bureau of Justice statistics and National Crime Victims Survey, violent crime has declined since 1994 reaching its lowest recorded level ever in 2005. Question: what does that say about the perception of need as opposed to the actual need for guns as protection, generally speaking? I know there are exceptions in various demographics/situations, okay?


Generally speaking, I would guess that the perception of need is almost always greater than the real need. That's rather immaterial if you happen to be one of those people actually enmeshed in a life threatening situation. At that point in time and space, where perception and reality collide, all other arguments become rather moot.

Although there are exceptions in various demographics/situations, gun control laws don't recognize or accommodate those exceptions, they are applied and enforced regardless of demographics and situations. That is one of many reasons to oppose Federal gun control efforts, and look at local efforts with a rather jaundiced eye.

Swanny

Posted by: John Clements 02-Dec-2006, 11:05 AM
Hi all,
As most of you know by now. I can’t help myself; so once again here’s my two cents on gun control, except, this time it’s from a boy scouts point of view.
“BE PREPARED” an age old adage that’s gotten me this far, and be dammed with all the statistics.
JC

Posted by: Antwn 02-Dec-2006, 03:49 PM
QUOTE (Swanny @ 02-Dec-2006, 11:02 AM)
Generally speaking, I would guess that the perception of need is almost always greater than the real need.  That's rather immaterial if you happen to be one of those people actually enmeshed in a life threatening situation.  At that point in time and space, where perception and reality collide, all other arguments become rather moot.




I guess we could argue this indefinitely Swanny. The perception vs actual need is not the problem as much as what is done about or expected because of it, ie the ramifications. Your logic reminds me of what I hear from lottery players who say they realize the odds are 50 million to one against them winning, but if they don't play they'll have no chance. They also argue that someone usually wins, so it might as well be them. What they don't consider is that the 50 million to one odds are not against someone winning but that they will be that someone. Hence their perception of a favorable outcome is so excessive that some claim the lottery is "a tax on the mathematically challenged".

That being said, I have personally met two different people who had family members that won over $1 million in their state lotteries. Trouble is for every one of those, there are hundreds of thousands who've bought tickets for decades and never won enough to cover their costs, as you no doubt know. If lotteries don't build revenue the states wouldn't have them of course.

A point about your comment that in a life threatening situation, this argument is rather academic. Maybe not. One of my best friends whom I've known for over 30 years was once robbed at gunpoint on the street while walking to his car at night. Who knows what would have happened if he'd had a gun himself. Yet after this experience he still hasn't bought one and has no interest in doing so. Although he's more careful in the same part of town than he once was, his perception of need for a gun hasn't changed. One can't prepare for every potential risk since one doesn't know in advance what/when/where they'll be. One could get robbed like my friend and have left their pistol at home that day. Again, I have no issue with gun enthusiasts and I'm not a crusader for or against them.

Thanks for posting the webpage. Although the stats show how many crimes involved handguns etc, it doesn't show how many total violent crimes there were per 100,000 population - a statistic which would be important in assessing need realistically I should think.

Posted by: Swanny 03-Dec-2006, 10:28 AM
Although I don't have a web page for it, the crime rate per 100,000 population is published annually in the FBI Uniform Crime Report. I imagine it may be available on the FBI website. I suspect the number is higher than you expect, but not nearly so high as you may fear. Like the NCVS those numbers are considered to be lower than actual occurrences because they are based on reported crimes, and it is estimated that as much as 25% of all violent crimes go unreported.

Since your friend is "more careful in the same part of town than he once was" his desire to possess a firearm may not have changed, but his perception of the potential for danger certainly has. Otherwise, he would not feel a need to be more careful. I doubt that he feels any consolation from the fact that his actual risk is no greater than it was before his robbery.

We all have different comfort levels. It just happens that I am more comfortable when armed than when unarmed, and I have a deep seated desire to preserve my right to be more comfortable.

I have never advocated enacting laws requiring everyone to arm themselves, and I resent those who advocate laws requiring everyone to disarm themselves.

Swanny

Posted by: John Clements 03-Dec-2006, 11:18 AM
Well said. Swanny.

Posted by: Antwn 03-Dec-2006, 01:45 PM
QUOTE (Swanny @ 03-Dec-2006, 11:28 AM)
Like the NCVS those numbers are considered to be lower than actual occurrences because they are based on reported crimes, and it is estimated that as much as 25% of all violent crimes go unreported.

I doubt that he feels any consolation from the fact that his actual risk is no greater than it was before his robbery.




Yes Swanny, you're probably right about the percentage that go unreported. Actually my friend is very philosophical about it, since that's the type of person he is. His caution is more prudent than fearful.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 03-Dec-2006, 03:50 PM
Yes Swanny. Well said and JC, always expect the unexpected. refering to your post on being prepaired

Posted by: Nova Scotian 11-Dec-2006, 08:29 PM
I have to ask all those who think we need gun registration, just what good would it do? Canada has admitted that hardly any crimes have been solved thanks to gun registration. I think its just a way for the government to make more money and make it harder for the lawabiding citizen to get a legal gun. I think it's strange how some folks in Government, Democrat and Republican, push for these laws and still say they are all about helping the people. Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Bloomberg, just to name a few. Diane Feinstein has voiced her feelings about guns and how she wants them banned eventhough she's a concelled weapons permit holder. I'd say she's nothing more then an elitist and hypocrit. Rosie O'Donnell is another one. So voicturious against guns but has two private armed body guards. hoever these folks think God forbid anyone "below us" be armed. Or they just want to make it harder and more expensive for the average joe like myself to own and carry a gun to defend me and my family. sad.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 11-Dec-2006, 08:35 PM
QUOTE (Antwn @ 01-Dec-2006, 07:18 PM)
[

[/QUOTE]
One more thing. I never said guns had no utility, but that they have only one. If you're going to wonder why people don't ban mop buckets, automobiles and swimming pools when there's a death associated with them, that's one reason. Sorry if I didn't make that clear in my first post. rolleyes.gif

I know what you are implying. Guns are a tool for defense. So yes they do have a utility purpose. There are a lot of law abiding people who are alive today because they used a gun to defend their right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I'm sure you weren't trying to quote the lies the Brady people try to tell everyone that guns have only one purpose and that is to kill.

Posted by: maisky 12-Dec-2006, 06:13 AM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 11-Dec-2006, 08:35 PM)
I'm sure you weren't trying to quote the lies the Brady people try to tell everyone that guns have only one purpose and that is to kill.

Guns are also useful for pounding nails in the wall. Handguns make GREAT paperweights! laugh.gif

Posted by: stoirmeil 12-Dec-2006, 08:12 AM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 11-Dec-2006, 09:35 PM)
I'm sure you weren't trying to quote the lies the Brady people try to tell everyone that guns have only one purpose and that is to kill.

If you start out by using the word "lies," the rest of the debate is pointless and a waste of virtual ink. They are not lies, they are a forceful expression of a sincerely held point of view. They may be wrong -- in your view they clearly are -- but there is the matter of intention to "lie" that I don't think you can demonstrate in the case of the Brady contingent.

OK -- the use of a gun is:
a.) to fire a lethal or potentially lethal projectile.
b.) to maintain and/or display the potential of firing such projectile, or actually threaten to do so, with the intent of coercing someone to do something, or deterring someone from doing something you don't want them to do.

Anything else?

Posted by: Swanny 12-Dec-2006, 10:38 AM
QUOTE
Anything else?


A firearm is nothing more nor less than a machine for throwing a projectile. The use of that machine it totally contingent upon the operator.

My firearms are most frequently used recreationally in target practice, to help develop a high degree of concentration and hand-eye coordination. I also use my firearms frequently to harvest food. Once in a great while I use my firearms for defense against dangerous or potentially dangerous animals. Thus far in my life I've never had need to use it to protect myself against humans, though one can't say how frequently the presence of my openly carried sidearm has deterred some one from initiating an assault.

Would you prefer the term "intentional misinformation" to "lies" in reference to the Brady Campaign? A common trait among many activist groups is to misrepresent information to paint a situation in the worse possible light. When information is taken out of context, statistics are intentionally inflated or data is gathered by including groups that are not applicable to the issue at hand (i.e. describing people between 18 and 26 years of age as 'children'), it might not be a "lie", but it certainly is misinformation and in the case of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, it is certainly intentional.

Swanny

Posted by: Nova Scotian 12-Dec-2006, 10:43 AM
QUOTE (maisky @ 12-Dec-2006, 07:13 AM)
Guns are also useful for pounding nails in the wall. Handguns make GREAT paperweights! laugh.gif

Yes. I like the paper weight idea. You can protect yourself and keep the papers from blowing away at the same time! tongue.gif tongue.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 12-Dec-2006, 11:00 AM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 12-Dec-2006, 09:12 AM)


OK -- the use of a gun is:
a.) to fire a lethal or potentially lethal projectile.
b.) to maintain and/or display the potential of firing such projectile, or actually threaten to do so, with the intent of coercing someone to do something, or deterring someone from doing something you don't want them to do.

Anything else?

Ok. I think you missed my point. They defend. My motto is you shoot to stop the attack. You don't shoot to kill or mame. Yes someone is more likely to die after being shot by a gun. But if my life is in danger or I'm in danger of bodily harm, or my families life is in danger, I'm going to stop the attack. If I don't need the gun, ie. if the person is unarmed and I can easily overpower them, then I won't even consider the gun. But in the most serious scenario, the person is in my house and I don't know if they intend to harm me or my family, I can gaurentee they'll think twice before they ever try it again. That is if they survive. I hope to God that will NEVER happen. So many people try to say, "just give them what they want". Yes there are time when you do do that. But if they want to kidnap my daughter, and yes that has happened, or rape my wife, they definatly arn't going to get what they want. Some women who have been raped say they'd rather their attacker had killed them. I hope anyone who owns and carries a gun will never have to use it. It's a psycologically painful experence.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 12-Dec-2006, 11:09 AM
QUOTE (Swanny @ 12-Dec-2006, 11:38 AM)


Would you prefer the term "intentional misinformation" to "lies" in reference to the Brady Campaign? A common trait among many activist groups is to misrepresent information to paint a situation in the worse possible light. When information is taken out of context, statistics are intentionally inflated or data is gathered by including groups that are not applicable to the issue at hand (i.e. describing people between 18 and 26 years of age as 'children'), it might not be a "lie", but it certainly is misinformation and in the case of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, it is certainly intentional.


Thank you Swanny. I was talking about this before. How the AAP, American Acadmedy of Pediactrics, like to say how grave the danger is for a child who lives in a house where there's a gun. I'd say they are probably on the Brady Bill payroll since guns rank very low on the list of dangers kids face in homes. As a paramedic, in 12 years I've yet to run on any kid ages 0-15 who's been accidently shot. Now I've had to place a sheet over or have had to work more then a dozen from the #1 killer, automobles.

Posted by: Swanny 12-Dec-2006, 12:40 PM
Nova, I'm also a paramedic - 30 years last month. (yep, I'm old) I've run six calls to children under age 15 who were shot. 3 of them fatalities. All were 11 to 15 years of age. None younger than 11. One was a result of horseplay, one an intentional act during an argument, and the others were cases of "show and tell." When you consider all of the pediatric calls I've run thus far in my career those cases truly are rarities, but they nonetheless do happen and represent issues that deserve to be addressed - by the PARENTS of those children who did not properly secure their firearms.

Of calls that I've run on people age 16 to 26, there have been considerably more firearms incidents, although they still represent a very small proportion of my historical call volume. I can only recall one incident involving these older "children" that was not an intentional act of violence. In that case a 21 year old male alleges he was cleaning his .357 magnum revolver when it discharged.

That was a sweet case, though. This dude centerpunched himself right between the eyes (literally). When we contacted him he was sitting upright on the edge of his bed awake, alert, oriented to person, time, place and circumstances. His chief complaint was neck pain and he also complained of ringing ears. Turns out the bullet struck the orbital ridge, penetrated the skull at an upward angle and followed the skull between dura and bone to exit just caudal to the spine at the level of the third cervical vertebra. He lived with no apparent damage to the central nervous system. I don't know if he deserves the Darwin award, or the World's Luckiest Idiot award.

When I consider the GSW calls I've run (gun shot wound for non-medics), the majority of victims were wounded/killed by a hunting arm, either rifle or shotgun. The suicides were most frequently by shotgun (messy - ugh). I can't recall ever running a call in which the victim was injured by a military or para-military style firearm and actually only a couple or maybe three in which the firearm inflicting the damage was a handgun.

Before someone hollers that my experience is predominately in rural and/or frontier census zones and therefore is not applicable to urban "society", I'll mention that the first 6 years of my career were spent on the Front Range of Colorado, in Denver and Colorado Springs. I worked Denver in the mid-80s when South Colfax was referred to as "the Saturday Night Knife and Gun Club" by the media.

Swanny

Posted by: Nova Scotian 14-Dec-2006, 04:58 AM
I want to apoligize for the post where I refered to the Brady bill and calling it a bunch of lies. However, misinformation seem to be what they specialize in. thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: John Clements 14-Dec-2006, 08:28 AM
First I want to say, that I’m always open to apologies.

This may not sway this debate in one direction, or the other, but I think that you may find it interesting. When I broke into the advertising business some 40 years a go, I did it with 2 speculative, public service, gun control ads in my portfolio. One of the ads showed a photo of a youngster running down the sidewalk, holding his toy six shooter high, while playing cowboys and Indians. (If you’re old enough, you might remember the photo, because I think swiped it from Life Magazine.) Anyway, the headline said, “Today he killed ten, and tomorrow he may kill you.” Then of course the tagline said, “Support Gun Control.” The other ad showed a photo of a GI, taking aim from a fox hole, and the headline simply asked, “Will he stop killing, when he comes home?” Of course this ad also paid off with the same tagline, “Support Gun Control.” I guess what I’m trying to say is, that some things just don’t change.

Posted by: Shamalama 14-Dec-2006, 04:15 PM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 14-Dec-2006, 09:28 AM)
The other ad showed a photo of a GI, taking aim from a fox hole, and the headline simply asked, “Will he stop killing, when he comes home?”

Is the implication here that once a soldier returns from combat that they're more likely to be a danger to civilized society than someone that didn't see combat?

That is absolutely grossly unfair.

I have never heard a statistic that shows that to be true. I would feel far safer surrounded in my neighborhood with combat vets than:

- urban gangsters
- youth gangs
- suburban drunk drivers

Don't these last three groups cause 100x more carnage than a law-abiding citizen that owns a legal firearm? They kill more and more, yet it's far easier to blame an inanimate object - a gun - for committing crimes.

Very few guns have ever killed anyone. The death is usually caused by the person operating the gun. So why isn't our focus on the operator?

When you read news stories, and look at verified statistics, you'll notice a dozen, maybe, cases where a licensed gun owner used his or her firearm in a reckless or illegal manner. Yet using those same news stories and verified statistics you'll see hundreds of gun-related crimes in that same time period that were perpetrated by individuals already prohibited by state or federal laws from possessing firearms.

No, we really don't need more and more draconian laws that only affect those that follow the law, but rather establish a justice system that adequately punishes or removes those that break our existing laws.

And we go into hysteria by the illegal actions of a minuscule percentage (n) of the population committing the majority of the crimes by passing law upon law that will be obeyed only by the remaining (100-n)% of us.

Posted by: John Clements 14-Dec-2006, 04:59 PM
Well done Shamalama, that’s exactly what the ad was implying, and I couldn’t agree with you more, about enforcing the laws we already have.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 14-Dec-2006, 09:01 PM
AMEN to both of you!!!!! thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: maisky 15-Dec-2006, 07:41 AM
DARN! It's no fun when Brother Shamalama talks sense! tongue.gif

Posted by: Shamalama 15-Dec-2006, 12:15 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ 15-Dec-2006, 08:41 AM)
DARN! It's no fun when Brother Shamalama talks sense! tongue.gif

Hey, who's been pirating my logon and posting messages in my name!!!

'Cuz I never makes no sense.


Posted by: Nova Scotian 17-Dec-2006, 09:56 PM
Some people have asked me "why" do I have to have a gun in my house? If I've never been a victim of a violent crime? I ask them, why do you have smoke alarms in your house if you've never had a fire? Or a security system if they've never been robbed? unsure.gif

Posted by: Antonio 18-Dec-2006, 01:45 AM
Hello everyone, Very compelling subject Gun Control is, it's a nasty beast. We have all heard all the cliche's about gun control!! like guns don't kill people people kill people, gun control is hitting your target at 900 meters. Those statements are true, I don't take gun control lightly, but if I chose to own firearms be it for sport or self preservation that is my right and choice. Not some law maker who can't protect my family!!!, (by the way most of them have concealed weapons permits and carry at all times) and are willing to put stupid gun laws into effect that handcuff the law abiding citizen from protecting himself. In the case of property , if someone is walking out my front door with my tv I'm going to be really ticked off , I would never consider using a firearm in that situation maybe a nice bat! unless of course he had one and was willing to use it! then of course it's not a property issue the it's my life which means my families lives.

I spent most of my life in the Marine Corps and would have to say accidents with firearms do happen but in 24 yrs. I can only remember one, and I don't think it's an accident when your on a live fire line with a loaded weapon and you squeeze a round off!! because you thought you had the weapon on safe. Thats either a stupid or an on purpose take your pick.

I have 2 times in my life had to pull out a firearm in other than work related incidents. Once while my youngest soon and I were fishing and the other time a drug dealer kicked in my back door (he should not use his own drugs) he was about 4 blocks from one of his suppliers yes wrong house wrong neighbor hood, He was armed and so was I. I think he realized that I would have no compunction about saving my own life. So yes in that incident A firearm was used to coerce someone into doing exactly what I wanted which was through the gun down and lay down and wait for the Police. The fishing incident, happened out in the San Joaquin River Delta. We were night fishing from the bank, we had a camp fire going the lantern was hanging on it's stand when a pickup pulled up across the river from us 3 people got out we don't give them much thought there are people fishing both sides on any given night. When one fired, the first shot it hit about 2 ft. to the left of me and about 6 in. to the right of my son then about 5 more shots very fast. I grabbed my rifle and fired one shot at the bed of the pickup the gun fight was over because like most of those people they are pure breed coward and it's no fun when the target shots back. I can only imagine what might have happened had I not been armed. And it had never really occurred to me to take a firearm with me for that reason I always took one because of critters.

Gun control and firearm safety belongs to each of us!! and laws won't make use safe from stupid. The key is "TEACH EACH" safety. If your going to have firearms keep it safe, if you have children lock it up.

Antonio
Semper Fi rolleyes.gif



Posted by: Nova Scotian 19-Dec-2006, 02:42 PM
QUOTE (Antonio @ 18-Dec-2006, 02:45 AM)
Hello everyone, Very compelling subject Gun Control is, it's a nasty beast. We have all heard all the cliche's about gun control!! like guns don't kill people people kill people, gun control is hitting your target at 900 meters. Those statements are true, I don't take gun control lightly, but if I chose to own firearms be it for sport or self preservation that is my right and choice. Not some law maker who can't protect my family!!!, (by the way most of them have concealed weapons permits and carry at all times) and are willing to put stupid gun laws into effect that handcuff the law abiding citizen from protecting himself. In the case of property , if someone is walking out my front door with my tv I'm going to be really ticked off , I would never consider using a firearm in that situation maybe a nice bat! unless of course he had one and was willing to use it! then of course it's not a property issue the it's my life which means my families lives.

I spent most of my life in the Marine Corps and would have to say accidents with firearms do happen but in 24 yrs. I can only remember one, and I don't think it's an accident when your on a live fire line with a loaded weapon and you squeeze a round off!! because you thought you had the weapon on safe. Thats either a stupid or an on purpose take your pick.

I have 2 times in my life had to pull out a firearm in other than work related incidents. Once while my youngest soon and I were fishing and the other time a drug dealer kicked in my back door (he should not use his own drugs) he was about 4 blocks from one of his suppliers yes wrong house wrong neighbor hood, He was armed and so was I. I think he realized that I would have no compunction about saving my own life. So yes in that incident A firearm was used to coerce someone into doing exactly what I wanted which was through the gun down and lay down and wait for the Police. The fishing incident, happened out in the San Joaquin River Delta. We were night fishing from the bank, we had a camp fire going the lantern was hanging on it's stand when a pickup pulled up across the river from us 3 people got out we don't give them much thought there are people fishing both sides on any given night. When one fired, the first shot it hit about 2 ft. to the left of me and about 6 in. to the right of my son then about 5 more shots very fast. I grabbed my rifle and fired one shot at the bed of the pickup the gun fight was over because like most of those people they are pure breed coward and it's no fun when the target shots back. I can only imagine what might have happened had I not been armed. And it had never really occurred to me to take a firearm with me for that reason I always took one because of critters.

Gun control and firearm safety belongs to each of us!! and laws won't make use safe from stupid. The key is "TEACH EACH" safety. If your going to have firearms keep it safe, if you have children lock it up.

Antonio
Semper Fi rolleyes.gif

Great post Antonio. It seems that those who are against guns have never benn in a situation where they needed one and either did or didn't have gun. thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 20-Dec-2006, 07:56 AM
Here's an article from Ohio. They overturned a Governors veto of gun control.

The Wednesday Dispatch article "Local gun laws fall as veto is rejected," on the legislature’s override of Gov. Bob Taft’s veto of House Bill 347, makes an excellent case for why we don’t simply scrap our representative government and decide all public policy by means of polling. People who have no particular personal stake or interest in an issue are highly manipulable by media sound bites and meaningless emotional arguments.

Pollsters should take the time to ask some serious probing questions, such as, "How likely do you think a guncontrol law is to stop a career criminal whose life revolves around robbery, murder or drug peddling from using a prohibited gun?"

People who never give any deep thought to the issue are likely to answer superficial poll questions out of pure emotion or attitudes they have assimilated by listening to the biased mainstream media’s constant drumbeat against guns. Any person who gives serious thought to the gun issue would realize that gun laws restrict only lawabiding citizens’ access to weapons they could use to protect themselves and their loved ones.

Since men such as Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman are assumed to be of above-average intelligence, I can conclude only that their constantly equating gun ownership by their most law-abiding citizens with a threat to public safety is purely political and intellectual dishonesty. The real threat to public safety is not allowing law-abiding people the means to protect themselves. An additional point worth noting is that Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, has committed a cardinal sin for any pollster, injecting his own apparent political opinions into the results of the poll.

He engaged in a great leap of logic when he said, "There is clear consensus that Ohioans don’t want to relax current gun-control laws and don’t want to roll back the tougher laws passed by some cities."

That is an incredible conclusion to reach on the basis of 46 percent of respondents in his poll answering that Ohio’s laws are about right and indicates Quinnipiac’s own bias.

The bottom line is that no gun-control law ever has served to reduce crime, and this should be pointed out to people before they answer poll question on this controversial issue.

MARK WINTERS


Way to go Ohio!!!!!!! biggrin.gif

Posted by: maisky 21-Dec-2006, 06:37 AM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 20-Dec-2006, 07:56 AM)

The bottom line is that no gun-control law ever has served to reduce crime, and this should be pointed out to people before they answer poll question on this controversial issue.
MARK WINTERS



Not true, crimes involving guns are very rare in the UK, where handguns are not allowed. I dont know if this is the case in Canada, which has similar controls on handguns. The fact is that most "illegal" handguns in the hands of criminals have their source in thefts from the homes of "legal" gun owners.

Posted by: Swanny 21-Dec-2006, 08:27 AM
QUOTE
The fact is that most "illegal" handguns in the hands of criminals have their source in thefts from the homes of "legal" gun owners.


Interesting "fact". Would you please provide a reference to document it?

QUOTE
crimes involving guns are very rare in the UK, where handguns are not allowed. I dont know if this is the case in Canada, which has similar controls on handguns.


According to the BBC, crimes of violence have been increasing significantly in the U.K. A 2004 article on the BBC's website reported a 14% increase in violent crimes in a single year. "Offences of violence against the person rose 17%, serious violence such as killings were up 18%, and serious wounding and sexual offences rose 8%."

During the year reported, the BBC article noted a 34% reduction in gun crimes, but a 46% increase in crimes involving imitation guns. Source http://www.bbc.co.uk/home/d/

A bit more recently (September 2005), an article in Times Online noted that Scotland is the most violent nation in the developed world, with a per capita assault rate that is three times that of the United States. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1786945,00.html

"The study, by the UN’s crime research institute, found that 3 per cent of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2 per cent in America and just 0.1 per cent in Japan, 0.2 per cent in Italy and 0.8 per cent in Austria. In England and Wales the figure was 2.8 per cent."

Apparently in the U.K., knives, swords, ice picks, screw drivers, rocks and common household items have taken the place of firearms as tools of choice in the hands of the violent.

Swanny


Posted by: maisky 21-Dec-2006, 09:12 AM
QUOTE (Swanny @ 21-Dec-2006, 08:27 AM)



A bit more recently (September 2005), an article in Times Online noted that Scotland is the most violent nation in the developed world, with a per capita assault rate that is three times that of the United States. 


Not surprising, since the Scotts are even more violent than the Irish. I ascribe this to the fact that the Irish are usually too drunk to fight. biggrin.gif

By the way, Swanny. I feel gratified that I was able to draw blood with that one. laugh.gif

Posted by: stoirmeil 21-Dec-2006, 10:03 AM
It's distressing. isn't it? sad.gif

The Scotsman has been covering this issue periodically. The biggest violence escalation in Scotland recently is as you mention, Swanny, not gun violence, it's knives and other blades (even swords). Bears some interpretation, perhaps -- throwback nationalism, to when the claymore was kingmaker? Or just easier to get hold of, and quieter.

Posted by: Patch 21-Dec-2006, 05:31 PM
I "stumbled onto this thread" and I have strong feelings re: the matter. I promoted "OFCC" and Buckeye Firearms untill the concealed cary law was passed in Ohio and I am still working to iron out the "wrinkles" in the law. A lot of people read the various ammendments, including the second, and make their decision as to the meaning. To truly understand what our forefathers intended, one needs to read the "Federalist Papers". The founding fathers had a deep fear of Government. Instead of a strong central government (which we now have and what they left Europe to get away from) In reading the Constitution I believe you will find that there 23 instances where the government is prohibited from involvment. There are a small number of powers granted to the Federal
Government. All other powers (which are most) are to lie with the states. That is no longer the case. All Federal electees swear in their oath of office to"uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and to defend it against ALL enemies both foriegn and domestic." What happened? the government was to be "of the people, by the people and for the people." Our "representatives were supposed to serve in Washington for a specified period of time then return home and another citizen would do his patriotic duty. We now have "professional" politicians. To quote Thomas Jefferson, "once the public finds that it can vote itself lagress from the public treasury, the Republic is lost!" Look around you! It is frightening! I fear we have left our children and grandchildren nothing.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 21-Dec-2006, 08:28 PM
QUOTE (Patch @ 21-Dec-2006, 06:31 PM)
I "stumbled onto this thread" and I have strong feelings re: the matter. I promoted "OFCC" and Buckeye Firearms untill the concealed cary law was passed in Ohio and I am still working to iron out the "wrinkles" in the law. A lot of people read the various ammendments, including the second, and make their decision as to the meaning. To truly understand what our forefathers intended, one needs to read the "Federalist Papers". The founding fathers had a deep fear of Government. Instead of a strong central government (which we now have and what they left Europe to get away from) In reading the Constitution I believe you will find that there 23 instances where the government is prohibited from involvment. There are a small number of powers granted to the Federal
Government. All other powers (which are most) are to lie with the states. That is no longer the case. All Federal electees swear in their oath of office to"uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and to defend it against ALL enemies both foriegn and domestic." What happened? the government was to be "of the people, by the people and for the people." Our "representatives were supposed to serve in Washington for a specified period of time then return home and another citizen would do his patriotic duty. We now have "professional" politicians. To quote Thomas Jefferson, "once the public finds that it can vote itself lagress from the public treasury, the Republic is lost!" Look around you! It is frightening! I fear we have left our children and grandchildren nothing.

This is all very true. It's sad that a lot of people don't realize this or try to say it doesn't mean what it says. SOme people have told me that the 2nd amendment doesn't grant us the right to bear arms. But in what I believe to be 45 state constitutions, it says it clear as day. Here in Florida it says it clear as day that we have the right to bear arms in order to defend ourselves. I don't think the fed can touch that one. OHHH! I'm sure some of the cronnies would love to. Feinstein, and Pelosi are to name just 2.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 21-Dec-2006, 08:58 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ 21-Dec-2006, 07:37 AM)



The fact is that most "illegal" handguns in the hands of criminals have their source in thefts from the homes of "legal" gun owners.

So swanny is that if the law abiding citizen isn't allowed to have a gun, then the bad guys can't get the guns? That is ridicules! Illegal drugs still make it across the border. As in England. Guns still make it into the wrong hands.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 21-Dec-2006, 09:00 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 21-Dec-2006, 11:03 AM)
It's distressing. isn't it? sad.gif

The Scotsman has been covering this issue periodically. The biggest violence escalation in Scotland recently is as you mention, Swanny, not gun violence, it's knives and other blades (even swords). Bears some interpretation, perhaps -- throwback nationalism, to when the claymore was kingmaker? Or just easier to get hold of, and quieter.

Yes. Violence is everywhere. It's not going away either. sad.gif

Posted by: Nova Scotian 27-Dec-2006, 05:28 AM
Second Amendment is worth protecting
Back in the 1990s some 80 people were murdered in New York City. It only took one man to commit these murders.
His weapon — a gallon of gasoline.
This was the "Happyland" club fire, and he was able to commit this crime because his victims were disarmed and defenseless. Who disarmed all these victims? The New York politicians.
If the victims at Foxy Lady had only had some small "Saturday Nite Specials" on their persons, they could have immediately opened fire on their attacker and maybe have stopped the murders.
Disarmed and defenseless victims cannot do this.
Many confused people believe that only the military and police should have guns. Remember the two military attacks on the White House by military persons, one in a plane and the other in a helicopter?
How about the New Bedford police selling drugs out of their cars while off duty?
Should we get rid of the military and New Bedford police based on these crimes?
Always remember, the Second Amendment acknowledges an unalienable right of the People, not of the "militia" or the "State," for artificial entities like the militia or state do NOT have unalienable rights.
Show me where in the Constitution it allows for the creation of a "police department"?
The U.S. Supreme Court in South V Maryland, 59 US 396, as cited by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, tells every American, the police are NOT responsible for your safety.
You cannot sue the police if you are a victim of crime that the police could have even prevented!
If the police are not mandated to protect you, you are lawfully acknowledged to be able to protect yourself.
Those who cannot protect you, cannot allow you to be disarmed and defenseless either.


This is something I whole heartily believe in. I still can't understand why politicians from both side think taking guns from citizens is the answer.

Posted by: Swanny 27-Dec-2006, 08:16 AM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 21-Dec-2006, 05:58 PM)
QUOTE (maisky @ 21-Dec-2006, 07:37 AM)



  The fact is that most "illegal" handguns in the hands of criminals have their source in thefts from the homes of "legal" gun owners.

So swanny is that if the law abiding citizen isn't allowed to have a gun, then the bad guys can't get the guns? That is ridicules! Illegal drugs still make it across the border. As in England. Guns still make it into the wrong hands.

???

I'm not sure I understand your question, Nova. I was asking Maisky to provide documentation for his alleged "fact", which he has not yet done. It may be intuitive to think that most "illegal" firearms were stolen from private residences, but I'm not willing to accept "intuitive" at face value.


Posted by: Nova Scotian 27-Dec-2006, 08:32 AM
QUOTE (Swanny @ 27-Dec-2006, 09:16 AM)
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 21-Dec-2006, 05:58 PM)
QUOTE (maisky @ 21-Dec-2006, 07:37 AM)



  The fact is that most "illegal" handguns in the hands of criminals have their source in thefts from the homes of "legal" gun owners.

So swanny is that if the law abiding citizen isn't allowed to have a gun, then the bad guys can't get the guns? That is ridicules! Illegal drugs still make it across the border. As in England. Guns still make it into the wrong hands.

???

I'm not sure I understand your question, Nova. I was asking Maisky to provide documentation for his alleged "fact", which he has not yet done. It may be intuitive to think that most "illegal" firearms were stolen from private residences, but I'm not willing to accept "intuitive" at face value.

I was asking him if he thinks the solution is to remove the guns from private citizens so the bad guys can't steel the gun and use it. It sure sounded like that was what was implied.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 27-Dec-2006, 08:35 AM
Oh also Swanny, Bro. Maisky has been asked to provide documentation before but never seems to come up with it. I don't know why. unsure.gif

Posted by: maisky 27-Dec-2006, 11:31 AM
Why would I quote sources you wont belive? It's like trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig. rolleyes.gif

Powered by Invision Power Board (https://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (https://www.invisionpower.com)