View Full Version : Open carry in Oklahoma
Onkel Neal
11-02-12, 10:08 PM
Well, I have mixed feelings about this. Good lord, a diner packed with fat guys carrying guns. Is that really necessary? :haha:
Read more: http://newsok.com/open-carry-arrives-with-a-whimper-in-oklahoma/article/3724589#ixzz2B7p7i81M
Or maybe here....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIpLd0WQKCY
AVGWarhawk
11-02-12, 10:16 PM
Sure, if the food sucks.....
Stealhead
11-02-12, 10:28 PM
Funny the guy in the Air Force he would not be allowed to carry that weapon on base in such a manner.
The one fellow mentions that criminals according to the FBI fear an armed citizen more than the police I'm not so sure how accurate that is but if they do fear an armed citizen they are more likely to commit a crime using extreme violence of action to counter the threat kind of like special forces theirs foes are packing heat and expect them in most cases so they use violence of action to gain the upper hand.
In my opinion an unseen weapon is always an advantage and the wise person would not rely on just a firearm hell at very close range using a firearm as a blunt force weapon is a much better option rather than its bullets.When I sit in some place I think of all the possible weapons around me take a magazine roll that thing up and jam it into an attackers mouth or eyes once when I a teenager several guys from school that did not like my brother and I showed up at our house out numbering us so my brother threw the paper back Star Trek book he was reading at one guys face and broke his nose that was the most awesome display of blunt force I have ever seen he bleed pretty baldy maybe it broke his sinus as well he was the roughest of the crew so the rest lost heart.
The other problem with open carry is that every smug cop in the world is going to ask you about it.Another concern about open carry is weapon control is the person carrying alert enough to prevent someone from disarming him? And if so is his trained in hand to hand combat in able to gain control in a fight for control of the weapon?
I bet Joe Woods Arteries where in sheer terror with every bite of that burger hell most of the guys in that video need to open carry in a gym if you catch my drift.
I wonder how the federal law that bans firearms on schools applies in OK? Right now school property including parking lots and vehicles are banned.
DOD wise you are not allowed to carry a loaded fire arm on base unless you are actively carrying it as part of your duties and those living in barracks/dorms are not allowed to have firearms stored in the rooms or vehicles they are kept in an assigned base armory base housing they must provide a list of all firearms and the amount or ammunition owned this is stateside and in non combat locations,Germany,Japan.
For the military I think that it is reasonable based on a personal experience involving an off duty RAF MP that was allowed to carry his side arm.He deiced that he did not like the fact that a group of airman(US and RAF) was having a get together that was making a little noise but not outside the amount that Mr.RAF MP and his pals made.Anyway he came over with his uniform and his sidearm in its holster and a RAF member that was socializing asked if he was on duty and the MP said, "no" and his fellow airman said that he should not be carrying the sidearm then.
Anyway Mr.RAF MP started saying that he wanted us to shut up and was obviously using the sidearm in the holster as intimidation.Well a Texan did not take too kindly to this and said that he would shove that gun up Mr. RAF MPs rear sideways if he did not ask nicely for us to quite down and leave well this lead to some pretty heated words and Mr.RAF MP did leave but it was a slight bit harry to say the least anyway the RAF transferred the hot head to another base but that was all that happened to him.
Tribesman
11-03-12, 02:06 AM
Good lord, a diner packed with fat guys carrying guns. Is that really necessary? :haha:
It shall not be infringed.:03:
Catfish
11-03-12, 04:59 AM
Well, I have mixed feelings about this. Good lord, a diner packed with fat guys carrying guns. Is that really necessary? :haha:
But .. are there any other than fat guys left, in the US ? :hmmm:
Only joking :D
They will all feel much safer now, when all citizens carry guns while doing their job, or go shopping :hmm2:
Again, i'm feeling like an alien.
Betonov
11-03-12, 05:05 AM
As long as they're sober I'd feel safe
:hmmm:
Hard to know where to stand on this one. Open carry acts as a visual deterrent but then if the other guy also has a gun then you might as well clear the street and have a good old fashioned quick draw shoot-out.
But .. are there any other than fat guys left, in the US ? :hmmm:
Only joking :D
The picture is from a Pancake House. The chances of finding fat people there are about 300%. :)
Sailor Steve
11-03-12, 10:06 AM
Well, I have mixed feelings about this.
Then you might not want to think too much about this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States
Onkel Neal
11-03-12, 10:43 AM
I don't know. I am all for the 2nd amendment, but isn't it kind of silly, everyone packing a gun like it's a war zone? I have lived in Houston for 15 years now, and I come and go as I please, in shabby, dark sides of town often as not. Yes, there is crime, but I cannot say I have ever seen it firsthand, felt threatened, or really felt a need to be packing a firearm for my safety. :O: I think a big part of this is some people wanna play cowboy. Hey, a real cowboy doesn't constantly fret about his safety. Sheesh, grow a pair, people.
Disclaimer: If I had been mugged, attacked, or someone I know had been, say once a year or so, yeah, I could see it. I would be toting a .45 Colt in a holster, humming "Make My Day". But, seriously, the need ain't there. I may as well be carrying a portable sewing machine in the event my pants split open from too many trips to Dots Diner.
mookiemookie
11-03-12, 10:46 AM
I don't know. I am all for the 2nd amendment, but isn't it kind of silly, everyone packing a gun like it's a war zone? I have lived in Houston for 15 years now, and I come and go as I please, in shabby, dark sides of town often as not. Yes, there is crime, but I cannot say I have ever seen it firsthand, felt threatened, or really felt a need to be packing a firearm for my safety. :O: I think a big part of this is some people wanna play cowboy. Hey, a real cowboy doesn't constantly fret about his safety. Sheesh, grow a pair, people.
Disclaimer: If I had been mugged, attacked, or someone I know had been, say once a year or so, yeah, I could see it. I would be toting a .45 Colt in a holster, humming "Make My Day". But, seriously, the need ain't there. I may as well be carrying a portable sewing machine in the event my pants split open from too many trips to Dots Diner.
:Kaleun_Applaud: Well said.
Catfish
11-03-12, 10:52 AM
On one hand it is nice to have "freedom". Somehow i never connected that to firearms, but everyone has his own view.
It is prohibited to drink alcohol publicly (why b.t.w., because of the influence on children ?), but arms may be openly carried.
Well as we can see in those "Westerns", openly carrying shotguns in e.g. saloons has a long tradition in the USA .. :hmm2:
Sailor Steve
11-03-12, 10:54 AM
I completely agree with your feelings, Neal. On the other hand how often do you hear about "make my day" actually happening? As far as I know, never, though I'm sure it must happen sometime, somewhere. I don't see too many people doing it here, though Utah is an open carry state. I do imagine there are a lot of concealed carry people, though of course you can't see them doing it.
Every single time I ever hear of shootings in public, it is invariably some nutjob shooting down unarmed people. People who don't like the idea always say that if someone shoots back it "could" be a bloodbath, but in mass shooting cases it already is, so I have to ask how many lives might have been saved if someone did shoot back.
My bottom line is the handful of times I've seen someone on the streets of Salt Lake City with a gun displayed openly my first reaction is always surprise, because it is so rare, then a little worry, then relaxation with the knowledge that if such a person were to pull it out and start shooting he likely would already have done so, and as was pointed out the person who wants to do that will more likely keep the gun hidden until he's ready to use it.
99.99% of the people who own guns will never shoot one at another person, and the 0.01% who will cannot be predicted or even necessarily stopped; only prepared for as best you can.
Platapus
11-03-12, 12:45 PM
My concern with open carry is that I am one baseball bat away from not only having my weapon stolen but also one baseball bat away from arming a criminal for free.
Walking around with an expensive high quality handgun in the open is like walking down the street with wads of money sticking out of your pocket. It may attract the wrong type of attention.
Now in more rural areas, Open carry may work. But the more urban areas, concealed carry might be better.
Platapus
11-03-12, 12:47 PM
... I've seen someone on the streets of Salt Lake City with a gun displayed openly....
When I was stationed in Utah, that was my first time seeing open carry. Some old rustic type walking down the streets with a hog-leg on his hip.
It was an eye opener. :o
Armistead
11-03-12, 01:09 PM
Legal as it is in most states, the police will stop you, but nothing much they can do. Just watch open carry on youtube. I open carry during hunting season. It would be bad news for someone to rob the Waffle House 5 AM on a Sat. morning during deer season, everyone eating is armed.
geetrue
11-03-12, 01:26 PM
What if the fat guy falls off of his stool and the Glock 22 slips out of its hard leather holster on to the dirty resturant floor ...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Glock_22_surrounded_by_.40_Hydra-shok_bullets.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Glock_22_surrounded_by_.40_Hydra-shok_bullets.jpg/320px-Glock_22_surrounded_by_.40_Hydra-shok_bullets.jpg
with a fully loaded clip of hollow point bullets :yeah:
How many will bail and get hurt in the melee ... :hmmm:
You have to think of these things ahead of time before you go out to eat at a pancake house in Oklahoma:woot:
Well, that's where gun training should come in, if Fat Man comes off his stool, then hopefully his Glock will have its safety on and have an empty chamber.
Of course, this increases the time required between draw and fire, but stops you from shooting yourself in the arse.
That being said, I am rather rusty on the nature of modern pistols, and being a Brit we don't get into that really, we prefer knives... :dead: :nope:
At very worst the gun goes off once. It does not begin spraying a hail of bullets in all directions on it's own like them hollywierd guns. Also, since the guy is falling on it then chances are the only one who'd be hit is the tub of lard that dropped it. :)
Platapus
11-03-12, 01:47 PM
hopefully his Glock will have its safety on
That being said, I am rather rusty on the nature of modern pistols, and being a Brit we don't get into that really, we prefer knives... :dead: :nope:
Just a nit to pick until it bleeds.
Glocks do not have a separate safety in the context of many other semi-automatic pistols.
The Glock's inherent safety features are a double action only design and firing pin lock. There is also a trigger locking latch which, in my opinion, does not really do much.
But in any case, in the traditional sense, Glocks do not have a manually operated safety. Everything is internal.
Being a Yank, we DO get in to this stuff. :D
Platapus
11-03-12, 01:51 PM
It should be noted that high quality handguns are tested under these and more stringent drop tests.
Not firing when dropped is the rational behind locking firing pins: Two actions, 90 degrees apart in direction have to occur in the proper order and timing before the boom.
This is why police are naturally suspicious when people claim that they dropped their gun and "accidentally" killed their rich uncle/business partner/spouse...
Cheap handguns? Well that's another story.
I would not trust a manual safety on a cheap handgun at all.
geetrue
11-03-12, 02:02 PM
Wow! I learned something today ... thak you Platapus
your better than google
I remember when I bought my tarus 44 special and asked where the safety was at.
The gun shop owner said, "Try to pull the trigger"
It was very hard to do due to the 9lb pull
then he said, "That's the safety"
Here's a state they need open and carry legally due to it is already carry.
1. Flint, Michigan
Violent crimes per 1,000: 23.4
Population: 102,357
2011 murders: 52
Median income: $22,672
Unemployment rate: 18.9%
Just a nit to pick until it bleeds.
Glocks do not have a separate safety in the context of many other semi-automatic pistols.
The Glock's inherent safety features are a double action only design and firing pin lock. There is also a trigger locking latch which, in my opinion, does not really do much.
But in any case, in the traditional sense, Glocks do not have a manually operated safety. Everything is internal.
Being a Yank, we DO get in to this stuff. :D
Dammit man, will you stop picking my nits! That's the second you've got me on! :O: Gonna pass out from loss of blood at this rate!
But yeah, my knowledge of guns is pretty rusty, never fired anything bigger than an air rifle in reality, my Mother and Father have, but that was a long time ago when they were members of a gun club, so they probably know more than I about the practical matters around pistols. I do know a couple of vague things about the Glocks, their high rate of fire for one thing, but that's just from computer games which aren't exactly a substitute for the real thing :03:
Platapus
11-03-12, 02:14 PM
That's OK, as an American I don't have insight into things common in the UK: Roundabouts, Queuing, and being polite and stuff. :D
That's OK, as an American I don't have insight into things common in the UK: Roundabouts, Queuing, and being polite and stuff. :D
:haha: Touché :yep:
Sailor Steve
11-03-12, 02:44 PM
At very worst the gun goes off once. It does not begin spraying a hail of bullets in all directions on it's own like them hollywierd guns. Also, since the guy is falling on it then chances are the only one who'd be hit is the tub of lard that dropped it. :)
I take it you've seen the best of "those" movies then?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhe58xORWG0
Isaac Hayes and Jim Brown in the movie that made Keenan Ivory Wayans' career.
Hand gun i is 100% safe without safety.
Only moron would carry a gun with bullet in chamber in every day life.
Hand gun i is 100% safe without safety.
Only moron would carry a gun with bullet in chamber in every day life.
and there's none of them in Oklahoma is there?:D
CaptainHaplo
11-03-12, 05:28 PM
My concern with open carry is that I am one baseball bat away from not only having my weapon stolen but also one baseball bat away from arming a criminal for free.
Walking around with an expensive high quality handgun in the open is like walking down the street with wads of money sticking out of your pocket. It may attract the wrong type of attention.
What if the fat guy falls off of his stool and the Glock 22 slips out of its hard leather holster on to the dirty resturant floor ...
Anyone carrying needs to be responsibly carrying. That means not just training - but equipment. Retention holsters are an absolute MUST for any responsible open carrier.
Now regarding a baseball bat - if someone approaches me carrying a baseball bat - do you really think I am going to be not paying attention?
Training for how to carry is not just about how to draw rapidly or fire accurately. Every good training course will teach you - and drill you - on situational awareness.
If your jumped unaware by a guy with a baseball bat who can take your head off with it before you can react - its not going to matter if you are carrying openly, concealed or not at all.
Carrying - whether concealed or open (and I live in an open carry state) requires you to do so safely. That means not just you know how to use a firearm -but when and why you can legally do so - as well as HOW to keep yourself from having to. Its a right - AND when you exercise it - it becomes a RESPONSIBILITY.
If your jumped unaware by a guy with a baseball bat who can take your head off with it before you can react - its not going to matter if you are carrying openly, concealed or not at all.
I think what was meant by that, is that it would be easier to single out who to rob if they were going for guns.
I think what was meant by that, is that it would be easier to single out who to rob if they were going for guns.
You have a point although I think pick pockets would be a greater threat.
CaptainHaplo
11-03-12, 05:54 PM
You have a point although I think pick pockets would be a greater threat.
A baseball bat isn't really concealable. Approaching a visibly armed individual with a bat isn't a good way to stay alive if you have bad intentions. Carrying visibly is a warning - the person carrying is able - and willing - to defend himself against his/her person or their family, etc - with lethal force.
Not many criminals are looking for someone to kill them. They want an easy target. A helpless one if possible.
Regarding having your gun taken from you - again - situational awareness and proper tools. Carrying openly without a retention holster is just plain stupid. Just like carrying concealed and printing is.
Open/concealed carry laws makes no sense at all to me.
Unless carrying gun for deterrence there is no reason to open carry but also as said here this may also attract unwanted attention in other situations.
Yet in case the state trust you to carry a gun what is the point in making all those ridiculous laws.
A baseball bat isn't really concealable. Approaching a visibly armed individual with a bat isn't a good way to stay alive if you have bad intentions. Carrying visibly is a warning - the person carrying is able - and willing - to defend himself against his/her person or their family, etc - with lethal force.
Not many criminals are looking for someone to kill them. They want an easy target. A helpless one if possible.
Regarding having your gun taken from you - again - situational awareness and proper tools. Carrying openly without a retention holster is just plain stupid. Just like carrying concealed and printing is.
Exactly that's why I think stealth would be more successful. If they can take a persons watch and wallet without them knowing it I don't see how that glock would be any more difficult.
Exactly that's why I think stealth would be more successful. If they can take a persons watch and wallet without them knowing it I don't see how that glock would be any more difficult.
If your gun can be taken from you without you knowing it then you do somthing wrong....:hmmm:
If your gun can be taken from you without you knowing it then you do somthing wrong....:hmmm:
Same thing for wallet and watch yet it happens.
CaptainHaplo
11-03-12, 07:24 PM
Exactly that's why I think stealth would be more successful. If they can take a persons watch and wallet without them knowing it I don't see how that glock would be any more difficult.
Which is why a retention holster should be considered standard.
A standard holster has no locking mechanism - a retention holster does. They come in multiple levels as well - and many manufacturers have different nuances. So its like the difference between sneaking a wallet out of someone's back pocket - and sneaking out the wallet - and the chain that is attached to a front belt loop.
LE use retention holsters for this exact reason. Sure - the rare case is that they get into a tussle with someone who goes for their gun. The fact is retention gives you the ability to not lose your firearm. Besides - if you let someone get that close - you damned near deserve to get your firearm taken away.
Red October1984
11-03-12, 07:55 PM
I'll get on my Redneck soapbox.
'Merica. Lightin' fires and burnin' tires since 1775.
*escorted off by Al Gore and police*
Around where I live, everyone owns a gun and everyone carries at the very least a knife. Crime isnt as high as the cities but it makes people feel safer. What i can't stand are those people who buy up guns and ammo because of the "Zombie Apocalypse." :/\\!!
Guns are a wonderful part of life, and in the hands of somebody who knows to keep the end with the hole pointed in a safe direction, they can be pretty darn safe. We use them for many things and self defense just happens to be one of them.
Which is why a retention holster should be considered standard.
A standard holster has no locking mechanism - a retention holster does. They come in multiple levels as well - and many manufacturers have different nuances. So its like the difference between sneaking a wallet out of someone's back pocket - and sneaking out the wallet - and the chain that is attached to a front belt loop.
LE use retention holsters for this exact reason. Sure - the rare case is that they get into a tussle with someone who goes for their gun. The fact is retention gives you the ability to not lose your firearm. Besides - if you let someone get that close - you damned near deserve to get your firearm taken away.
I've heard of chain wallets being lifted so I think you're underestimating the skill of a good pickpocket or team of pickpockets. After all we're talking about open carry for the general public which means open carry in situations like this:
http://www.safran-arts.com/art/photographs-new-york-crowded-street-48-53-12.jpg
You don't think a gun could be slipped off someones hip on this street? Remember once it is separated from the victim it can be concealed almost instantaneously. The victim might even feel it go but it's going to be tough to know who done it.
Stealhead
11-03-12, 11:36 PM
Well, that's where gun training should come in, if Fat Man comes off his stool, then hopefully his Glock will have its safety on and have an empty chamber.
Of course, this increases the time required between draw and fire, but stops you from shooting yourself in the arse.
That being said, I am rather rusty on the nature of modern pistols, and being a Brit we don't get into that really, we prefer knives... :dead: :nope:
Glocks do not have a "flick" safety they have a trigger safety one reason why I do not own one I dislike the idea of any weapon that has no true safety.If you look at a Glock trigger you'll see a protrusion in the center that must be depressed for the weapon to fire Glock calls it integrated trigger safety.I have no idea how likely they are to going off from being dropped.Most modern handguns when the safety is "on" the firing pin can not possibly strike the primer even if you cock that hammer and let it go or drop the gun. Glocks do have "drop safety" so it most likely about as safe as any other modern firearm if dropped with a round in the chamber in other words very unlikely to go off.
Safe to say that most people that carry open or concealed they carry it fully locked and loaded with hammer closed safety on and some even go hammer back safety on with a double action you have a harder trigger pull if the hammer is closed but aiming center mass that does not really matter.Someone said that only a moron would carry a gun with a round in the chamber well tell every coop that you see that he is a moron because they all carry with a round in chamber if the gun is on safe it is very safe.I think that any person who carries a firearm on a regualr basis who does not carry it fully loaded is a moron.If something does happen you have seconds to react it takes way too long to sit there and pull a slide back pretty much your numbers up if the other guy is already shooting at you or with in 15 feet or you charging with a knife your dead.The less steps to have the weapon ready to fire the better since you can carry with round in chamber with safety on safely why would you not? Safety on till you are ready to squeeze the trigger safety on when your done.
The best counter to someone grabbing a pistol from it holster is to have a holster that has a catch that must be tripped in order to release the gun some cops use these but they are not a requirement in most cases the other counter is to lanyard the gun to the holster which is very common with armed forces of course one could get strangled by the lanyard or the entire holster could get pulled off and then the dude has your gun with a holster and belt dangling from it.
Still in a crowded place like in August picture someone could still walk up behind you stick their gun or knife in your back and disarm you if they felt that a sneaky grab would fail.
In a rural area you are more likely to need to fend off an animal than another person as in rural areas the assumption that you are armed is high automatically everyone else will assume that you have a firearm and likely more than one.My friends dad he has an FN FNP-9 9mm in a fanny pack and in his truck seat he has a Bulgarian AK-74 in a case with two 30 round magazines sometimes it is an AR-15 instead but he always has a side arm and a long arm with him and that is not uncommon where I live out in Florida cracker country around here when a cop pulls you over he or she watches you like a hawk and looks into your windows very closely.
.Someone said that only a moron would carry a gun with a round in the chamber well tell every coop that you see that he is a moron because they all carry with a round in chamber if the gun is on safe it is very safe.I think that any person who carries a firearm on a regualr basis who does not carry it fully loaded is a moron..
Well...i hope you know what you sre doing.
Pulling a gun from holster and loading bullet into the chamber tskes aproximatly the same time as pulling the gun and droping safty....if you dont have time for that...beter just use your gun as brick.
Walking around in the city with loaded gun is stupid...even for a cop...unless on a way or in proximity of crime.
Platapus
11-04-12, 07:23 AM
I remember when I bought my tarus 44 special and asked where the safety was at.
Was that a Taurus Tracker?
Them's good shootin irons. I am not a fan of wheel guns, but the Tracker looks like a good un. :up:
Platapus
11-04-12, 07:25 AM
A baseball bat was only used an as an example.
I should have used a pointed stick instead
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwrCnrJOm-A
Red October1984
11-04-12, 10:22 AM
Ok. So a few of you are calling this stupid.
Carrying guns is an American thing. How many of you are from other countries? Of course you would have different viewpoints on this issue.
Ok. So a few of you are calling this stupid.
I call stupid walking in to the bar with loaded gun on safety
In may experience(depending on gun)safety has this freakish tendency to change position once in awhile for unknown reasons lol
You don't walk around with loaded gun unless you are aware of it all the time and/or have to.
mookiemookie
11-04-12, 11:02 AM
There must be a lot of guys with tiny peckers in Oklahoma, because there's a lot of overcompensation going on there. :har:
If you live your life in such fear that you have to wear a gun on your hip to feel safe in public, then that's just pitiful. I doubt someone's going to mug you while you eat your home fries at the Waffle House, or that a roving gang of thugs is going to descend upon the Tractor Supply Company and you'll have to defend yourself and have a shootout from behind a makeshift barricade of Purina dog food. :har:
Platapus
11-04-12, 11:15 AM
I doubt someone's going to mug you while you eat your home fries at the Waffle House, or that a roving gang of thugs is going to descend upon the Tractor Supply Company and you'll have to defend yourself and have a shootout from behind a makeshift barricade of Purina dog food. :har:
Everyone that has been a victim of a public shooting felt exactly the same way you do.
"It can never happen to me".
Carrying is a personal choice.
People who choose to legally carry are not pitiable for doing it.
People who choose not to carry are not pitiable for not doing it.
Sailor Steve
11-04-12, 11:20 AM
If you live your life in such fear that you have to wear a gun on your hip to feel safe in public, then that's just pitiful.
Why don't you take a walk through my neighborhood some night before you call me pitiful.
Why don't you take a walk through my neighborhood some night before you call me pitiful.
I don't know very much about bad neighbourhoods in USA but i would dare to say that if someone wants to jump you at night in such place, the gun will not be very useful.
It may actually give you sense of false security or save you from some drunk idiot, if you lucky ... nothing more.
Most definitely so if the bad guys are aware of you caring a gun.
Best solution is to leave the place if it is so bad to less bad place.
mookiemookie
11-04-12, 01:41 PM
Open carry, in a tactical sense, gives the bad guy information that he can use against you. It's not a deterrent to getting mugged, it's a deterrent to getting mugged from the front.
Steve, as someone who was once friends with plenty of drug addicts, I've been in plenty of bad neighborhoods. Many of them so bad that having a gun on my hip openly wouldn't have made a bit of difference. I still submit that for most of these guys, it's an ego thing. And that's pitiable.
Kptlt. Neuerburg
11-04-12, 01:44 PM
One really conserning thing about this is that is all it will take is some drunk guy who gets into a fight with another drunk and both pull their guns and start shooting and then the you-know-what would hit the fan, its both probable and possible. Either bar owners should ban the use of firearms from the establishment or it should be against the law to carry firearms in to places that serve alcohol, this is just my opinion.
What I'd like to know is why is the requirements for getting a licence to open carry a firearm only basic knowledge? Why aren't things like situational awareness part of the requirements to get an open carry licence too? I'd personally feel much safer knowing the person next to me has been trained by a cop or someone whos ex-military/ex-police (or better yet an ex-MP). If you don't know whats going on and/or whos who then there could be a lot of trouble.
Armistead
11-04-12, 03:03 PM
I don't know very much about bad neighbourhoods in USA but i would dare to say that if someone wants to jump you at night in such place, the gun will not be very useful.
It may actually give you sense of false security or save you from some drunk idiot, if you lucky ... nothing more.
Most definitely so if the bad guys are aware of you caring a gun.
Best solution is to leave the place if it is so bad to less bad place.
The bigger question is, if you get jumped by bad guys, would you rather or not have a firearm to protect yourself?
Sailor Steve
11-04-12, 03:18 PM
I don't know very much about bad neighbourhoods in USA but i would dare to say that if someone wants to jump you at night in such place, the gun will not be very useful.
I live near some gang-occupied places. I avoid them, but sometimes they wander. Mostly protection is for my home, not the streets.
It may actually give you sense of false security or save you from some drunk idiot, if you lucky ... nothing more.
And you say that as if you are an expert, when actually you are quoting the same old tired anti-gun lines I've been hearing for years. There have actually been situations in which an armed citizen saved the day, whether you like to believe it or not.
Most definitely so if the bad guys are aware of you caring a gun.
You're right there. Concealed is better. Surprise is better.
Best solution is to leave the place if it is so bad to less bad place.
You're just like the people who tell me the solution to my computer problems is to buy a new computer. If I could afford to move I would. I can't, unless you want to put money where your mouth is and help me out. Otherwise, stop making useless suggestions.
And you say that as if you are an expert, when actually you are quoting the same old tired anti-gun lines I've been hearing for years. There have actually been situations in which an armed citizen saved the day, whether you like to believe it or not.
Im not expert and not anti gun.
Read the post by Kptlt. Hellmut Neuerburg its sort of my view on the issue.
In my personal opinon getting guns in USA is too easy but it is really your business.
This is more realistic approach i think:
I live near some gang-occupied places. I avoid them, but sometimes they wander. Mostly protection is for my home, not the streets.
You're just like the people who tell me the solution to my computer problems is to buy a new computer. If I could afford to move I would. I can't, unless you want to put money where your mouth is and help me out. Otherwise, stop making useless suggestions.
Sorry for sounding like that yet in that case you are stuck with what you got.
Avoiding truble and bad areas is best solution instead crossing them just because you got the gun.
The bigger question is, if you get jumped by bad guys, would you rather or not have a firearm to protect yourself?
Yes.
Sailor Steve
11-04-12, 03:37 PM
One really conserning thing about this is that is all it will take is some drunk guy who gets into a fight with another drunk and both pull their guns and start shooting and then the you-know-what would hit the fan, its both probable and possible.
Really? I don't see too much open carry where I live, even though it's legal, but we have a lot of concealed carry. You say it's probable, yet, to my knowledge, it's never happened. Not once. Can you point to any of that happening? If not, then while it's certainly possible, it's not probable at all.
What I'd like to know is why is the requirements for getting a licence to open carry a firearm only basic knowledge?
Have you applied for a license? If not, how do you know what the requirements are? In fact you do have to pass a course given by a certified instructor.
Why aren't things like situational awareness part of the requirements to get an open carry licence too? I'd personally feel much safer knowing the person next to me has been trained by a cop or someone whos ex-military/ex-police (or better yet an ex-MP). If you don't know whats going on and/or whos who then there could be a lot of trouble.
Trained by a cop? Do you have any idea how many cops (and ex-military) have no idea what they're doing? I'm not speaking of all of either of those categories, but you would be amazed how many there are. Just because you had some training at one point doesn't mean you are any more quailified than someone who spends the time and money to qualify himself.
The bigger question is, if you get jumped by bad guys, would you rather or not have a firearm to protect yourself?
Exactly.
Have you applied for a license? If not, how do you know what the requirements are? In fact you do have to pass a course given by a certified instructor
It does not apply to all states right?
Also the training is very basic...like an hour or two at the range.?
mookiemookie
11-04-12, 05:04 PM
Originally Posted by Armistead
The bigger question is, if you get jumped by bad guys, would you rather or not have a firearm to protect yourself?
Exactly.
No, that's not exactly. Your conflating the issue of carrying a gun and openly carrying a gun. Anyone who wants to get a CHL and carry a firearm on their person is fine by me. I don;t see anything wrong with that in the slightest. But I still stand by my assertion that open carry is more about egoism than protection.
Platapus
11-04-12, 05:49 PM
Either bar owners should ban the use of firearms from the establishment
In every state where there is either open or concealed carry, the owner of a private business/residence has the right to ban the carrying of weapons.
or it should be against the law to carry firearms in to places that serve alcohol, this is just my opinion.
Is it the carrying in a bar or the carrier drinking that is your concern?
It is my opinion that if someone is carrying, there should be a zero tolerance for the consumption of alcohol.
However, a person legally carrying should be able to enter a restaurant that happens to have an ABC license and order food.
I guess I am making the distinction between just being in a bar and actually consuming alcohol.
Sailor Steve
11-04-12, 05:52 PM
It does not apply to all states right?
Also the training is very basic...like an hour or two at the range.?
I'm not sure, never having applied for a license myself. On the other hand, most gun owners spend a great many hours at the range, not because it's necessary but because they enjoy it.
No, that's not exactly. Your conflating the issue of carrying a gun and openly carrying a gun. Anyone who wants to get a CHL and carry a firearm on their person is fine by me. I don;t see anything wrong with that in the slightest. But I still stand by my assertion that open carry is more about egoism than protection.
Point taken.
geetrue
11-04-12, 06:07 PM
Arizona is one of several open and carry gun laws.
Here's some facts for you:
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/arizona-gun-laws.html
Arizona has some of the loosest weapon restriction laws in the nation. Many things that are allowed in this state would get you arrested anywhere else. Because the penalties for weapons possession can be extremely severe, and differ drastically from state to state, keep in mind that the following rules apply only to the state of Arizona.
Open Carry Rule
Arizona is an "open carry" state, which means that anyone can legally carry any (legal) weapon in the open, without any permits, as long as the weapon is:
Kept in a holster or scabbard
At least partially visible on your person, or;
Kept in a container or the glove compartment of a vehicle (still must be holstered, however)
This means that it is perfectly legal to carry a loaded handgun or revolver on a belt holster, out in the open, while you walk down the street, and no special permits are required. You CANNOT, however, unholster that weapon without a very good reason, nor can you walk around holding a gun in your hand or tucked into your pants. You must have a bona fide holster or case to keep it in, and both the gun AND holster must be openly visible.
However, the cases do not have to be locked, unlike most states, nor even capable of locking.
Laws for concealed weapons are really neat ... you don't even have to be a resident to get a conceled weapons permit which is good in up to 25 other states:
Concealed Carry Permits
Known as "CCW's," concealed carry permits allow anyone to carry a weapon on their person out of sight. They are available to anyone who meets the state of Arizona's (rather lax) criteria:
Be at least 21 years of age
Have no felony convictions
Be in the country legally
Pass an Department of Public Safety approved firearm safety course (can be done in most community colleges)
It is important to note that Arizona does not distinguish between resident and non-resident, or indeed even between U.S. citizen and permanent resident. The only requirement is that you are NOT an illegal alien; any other person is eligible for a concealed carry permit. Also, the safety course, (8 hours long with a 2 hour renewal course every 5 years) MUST be taken within Arizona, regardless of whether you are a resident or not.
Pocket knives may be carried out of sight without a permit but the Attorney General's opinion is that this only includes pocket knives with blades that do not exceed four inches in length. Arizona statutes do not address the issue of switchblades but it is likely that the concealed carrying of any switchblade with a blade longer than four inches would also require a concealed weapon permit.
Will My Permit Be Recognized Anywhere Else?
Over 25 other states recognize Arizona's CCW permit, meaning you can carry a weapon concealed within those states as well, as long as you are there only temporarily.
Kptlt. Neuerburg
11-04-12, 07:02 PM
Really? I don't see too much open carry where I live, even though it's legal, but we have a lot of concealed carry. You say it's probable, yet, to my knowledge, it's never happened. Not once. Can you point to any of that happening? If not, then while it's certainly possible, it's not probable at all. Well heres three articals from the local news in the state I'm currently living in since we seem to go by where one is living. http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/21007576817219/2-dead-after-shooting-outside-bar/ http://www2.tbo.com/news/news/2012/jul/14/9/one-dead-another-critical-after-shooting-at-carrol-ar-431662/?referer=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&ved=0CEEQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftbo.com%2Far%2F431662%2F&ei=AfiWUMvaDoPm8QSoyIB4&usg=AFQjCNHhihTzlqaiuW6vNMoQ7TsHRNhKsQ&shorturl=http://tbo.ly/Ny6A7i
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-05-04/story/law-disorder-arrests-made-king-street-bar-shooting
Have you applied for a license? If not, how do you know what the requirements are? In fact you do have to pass a course given by a certified instructor. No I havn't applied for a license since Florida is not an open carry state.
Also from NewsOK.com
Q. How does a person gain a permit to carry a firearm in Oklahoma?
Any established resident who is a U.S. citizen, at least 21 years old and who has completed a firearms safety and training course can apply for a permit through the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation.
The bureau will review the application, conduct criminal and mental health background checks, and will approve or deny the permit within 60 days if no prohibitive records are revealed.
Read more: http://newsok.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-oklahomas-new-open-carry-gun-law/article/3724415#ixzz2BIfpf4f9
Now going off of this and similar articals one can make the assuption that it is basic firearms safety and training.
Trained by a cop? Do you have any idea how many cops (and ex-military) have no idea what they're doing? I'm not speaking of all of either of those categories, but you would be amazed how many there are. Just because you had some training at one point doesn't mean you are any more quailified than someone who spends the time and money to qualify himself. Yeah I do realize how many cops and ex-military persons have no idea what they're doing. Examples of that where the shootings in NYC (theres a thead about it here somewhere), the shooting of a disabled man in a wheelchair cause the cops though he had a knife when it was in fact a pen (souce http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/23/us/texas-amputee-shooting/index.html), and from the state where I used to live, a cop shot a Native American wood carver because he was walking down a Seattle street with a knife that he was using to make a some carving. (source http://www.komonews.com/news/local/112097619.html) Quick Edit:
LAKEWOOD, Wash. - Four uniformed police officers were shot and killed in a bloody Sunday morning attack at a Lakewood-area coffee shop, and investigators are seeking a person of interest in the killings, officials said.
Pierce County Sheriff's Office spokesman Ed Troyer said the person they are seeking is Maurice Clemmons, who is a fugitive from Arkansas with a lengthy criminal record. Investigators now believe the gunman also may have been shot during the cold-blooded assault, as one of the officers returned fire just before he died of his injuries. If four armed cops can be killed by one person with a gun whos to say it would of turned out differently if it was four armed civilans? (source: http://www.komonews.com/news/local/78088192.html)
@Platapus
In responce to the first quote of my previous post, thats good. In responce to the second part of my previous post, I would agree that if someone is carrying that it should be zero tolerance for the consuption of alcohol, as for carrying into a restaurant and ordering food I don't have a problem with that.
Sailor Steve
11-04-12, 09:21 PM
Well heres three articals from the local news in the state I'm currently living in since we seem to go by where one is living.
You're right. I apologize.
No I havn't applied for a license since Florida is not an open carry state.
There's no such thing as an "open-carry" permit. You get a permit to carry. My point was, do you know what the requirement is?
Also from NewsOK.com Now going off of this and similar articals one can make the assuption that it is basic firearms safety and training.
I believe that one can never assume anything. Here my point was that most people who feel the need to carry get their own training.
Quick Edit: If four armed cops can be killed by one person with a gun whos to say it would of turned out differently if it was four armed civilans?
Anybody can be killed by anybody. A gun isn't a guarantee, but it's better to have one than not.
On the other hand, I don't carry one with me. In such a situation I'm more likely to be a victim.
Kptlt. Neuerburg
11-04-12, 10:24 PM
There's no such thing as an "open-carry" permit. You get a permit to carry. My point was, do you know what the requirement is? A licence and a permit are two different things but a quite similar. Orginally you asked if I had applyed for a licence not a permit. Its like I could have a drivers permit which means that I passed the driving tests but its not exactly like having a drivers licence. Right? As for me knowing what the requirements are, no I do not but are probably similar to the requirements to get concealed firearms licence and/or permit in Oklahoma.
I believe that one can never assume anything. Here my point was that most people who feel the need to carry get their own training.
Point taken.
Anybody can be killed by anybody. A gun isn't a guarantee, but it's better to have one than not. A gun is never a guarantee, its the person who has the gun and knows how to use it that is.
On the other hand, I don't carry one with me. In such a situation I'm more likely to be a victim. Never underestimate yourself, its always depends on the situation.
Sailor Steve
11-04-12, 11:26 PM
A licence and a permit are two different things but a quite similar. Orginally you asked if I had applyed for a licence not a permit. Its like I could have a drivers permit which means that I passed the driving tests but its not exactly like having a drivers licence. Right?
I probably misspoke when I said "license". In this case they are the same. The terminology may change from place to place but as far as I know any any single place there is only one.
Onkel Neal
11-04-12, 11:32 PM
The bigger question is, if you get jumped by bad guys, would you rather or not have a firearm to protect yourself?
I know, but it's kinda like carrying a parachute everywhere I go just in case I fall out of a plane.
I know, but it's kinda like carrying a parachute everywhere I go just in case I fall out of a plane.
I think your analogy only really works if you're talking about wearing a parachute while you are in a flying plane. In that situation wearing one might not be considered a bad idea. After all this a license for carrying in public only, not everywhere you might go.
Onkel Neal
11-04-12, 11:54 PM
No, I think as often as I encounter crime that requires a firearm for my safety, it applies fine. Heck, who knows, I may nod off on the couch and be kidnapped, and wake up on a plane to Argentina. Then I will be GLAD! I have my chute, eh? :D
Stealhead
11-05-12, 12:13 AM
No, I think as often as I encounter crime that requires a firearm for my safety, it applies fine. Heck, who knows, I may nod off on the couch and be kidnapped, and wake up on a plane to Argentina. Then I will be GLAD! I have my chute, eh? :D
Like the Boy Scouts say "Always Be Prepared" which of course they stole from the Coast Guard "Semper Paratus" or "Always Ready". Of course if you had dozed off on the couch I reckon that you are not following either motto :har:
Tribesman
11-05-12, 03:02 AM
I suppose a good story in relation to open carry wouldbe that fat soccer mom who became a star feature of gun nut weekly over her insistance that she had to be openly armed at all times, even at her kids soccer matches.
She ended up getting her head blown off while sitting at the computer in her own home.
It pays to be prepared at all times.
Catfish
11-05-12, 06:16 AM
^ She should have been carrying a pistol at least, at home in front of her computer, and look around her every 5 seconds.
I wonder why you afford a government, militia and police ?
Yes i know, the coming Zombie apocalypse, your neighbour might be a serial killer, or you got to fight the mafia, the government and the miltary, alone, at some point of your life. Certainly paranoia does not mean they are not following and trying to kill you 24 hours a day.
I can imagine how people feel so much safer, like women pushing their baby buggy around, with all people around being armed including the women themselves. What a nice idea in a civilian society :hmm2:
It is strange, i never connected the term, or the very idea of freedom, with carrying firearms. For me this carrying is connected to military, police, criminals and (if carried as a civilian) ahem - milquetoasts.
It is strange, i never connected the term, or the very idea of freedom, with carrying firearms. For me this carrying is connected to military, police, criminals and (if carried as a civilian) ahem - milquetoasts.
Our system has worked for us for over 200 years. How long has your system worked for you? :hmmm:
Sailor Steve
11-05-12, 10:11 AM
I wonder why you afford a government, militia and police ?
Government is there to do things collectively we can't do as individuals. That's it.
By "militia" did you actually mean armed forces? "Militia" means a group of armed citizens, which is the opposite of what you seem to want. Armed forces, on the other hand, are there to defend the state or country as a whole.
Police are ostensibly there to protect us, but unless (as was pointed out earlier) you have one policeman for each civilian acting as a bodyguard, that is impossible. Aside from the two who seem to hang out at the local grocery store I haven't seen a cop in several weeks.
It is strange, i never connected the term, or the very idea of freedom, with carrying firearms.
Freedom means exactly that - the ability to do anything you want, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else's ability to do the same. While I too think open carry can be a little silly, but how many people you see on the street are criminals? You don't know. If people want to protect themselves, fine.
For me this carrying is connected to military, police, criminals and (if carried as a civilian) ahem - milquetoasts.
I used to work with an ex-cop whose favorite saying was "If guns are outlawed, only the police will have guns. Do you feel safer now?"
Freedom means exactly that - the ability to do anything you want, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else's ability to do the same. While I too think open carry can be a little silly, but how many people you see on the street are criminals? You don't know. If people want to protect themselves, fine.
\
Sorry for being picky but how many people do actually buy guns because they need to protect themselves and not because they want this cool object in their possession?
Common peaple buy AK 47s.
Do you have to prove that your line of work or place you living in require gun for protection for geting permit?
But yeah freedom can be vewed the way you describe it for the good and the bad that comes with it.
In USA guns are very much cultural thing.
Do you have to prove that your line of work or place you living in require gun for protection for geting permit?
2nd Amendment to the US Constitution:
"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".
"Well regulated" in the parlance of the time meant "competent in the use of" and "Militia" meant every adult citizen capable of bearing arms.
Onkel Neal
11-05-12, 12:20 PM
Like the Boy Scouts say "Always Be Prepared" which of course they stole from the Coast Guard "Semper Paratus" or "Always Ready". Of course if you had dozed off on the couch I reckon that you are not following either motto :har:
It's ok, just to be safe, I've hired a bodyguard! :har:
Tribesman
11-05-12, 01:11 PM
"Militia" meant every adult citizen capable of bearing arms.
Only white free adults, they don't want no negros with guns like, well not until 1862 after when militias had gone bad:03:
Sailor Steve
11-05-12, 01:14 PM
\
Sorry for being picky but how many people do actually buy guns because they need to protect themselves and not because they want this cool object in their possession?
Why should that matter? If someone wants a cool object in his possession, that's his business.
Common peaple buy AK 47s.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Fully automatic weapons are regulated, and you have to pay some good money for a special license to own one.
Do you have to prove that your line of work or place you living in require gun for protection for geting permit?
Nope.
In USA guns are very much cultural thing.
So are cars. By the way, a lot more people are killed by cars than by guns.
Why should that matter? If someone wants a cool object in his possession, that's his business.
So are cars. By the way, a lot more people are killed by cars than by guns.
Cant argue with that...just hate when gun fans talk about self defence as primary reason for getting guns.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Fully automatic weapons are regulated, and you have to pay some good money for a special license to own one.
:roll:
Armistead
11-05-12, 01:21 PM
\
Sorry for being picky but how many people do actually buy guns because they need to protect themselves and not because they want this cool object in their possession?
Common peaple buy AK 47s.
Do you have to prove that your line of work or place you living in require gun for protection for geting permit?
But yeah freedom can be vewed the way you describe it for the good and the bad that comes with it.
In USA guns are very much cultural thing.
The majority of people buy guns for protection and hunting. In the USA, we have too many criminals and nutjobs that like to go around mass shooting. Last year, I was across the street at a gas mart, when someone went on a shooting rampage at the store across the street. The guy shooting was a previous employee pissed off about getting fired. He shot one man pumping gas, two people inside the store and shot the owner point blank in the face with a shotgun. He then blew his head off. I could've easily pulled in there instead of the other store, so I started carrying concealed again for awhile.
You have to get a license for a handgun in my state, but only a permit to conceal carry. You can open carry any legal gun, shotgun, AK's, etc...However, anyone can buy a pistol, ect., on the street. People buy and trade firearms all the time under the table.
Sailor Steve
11-05-12, 01:27 PM
Cant argue with that...just hate when gun fans talk about self defence as primary reason for getting guns.
Fair point. Some do, some don't. A good friend of mine was a collector, but except for a couple of home-defense weapons none of his guns were less than one hundred years old.
:roll:
:06:
CaptainHaplo
11-05-12, 03:03 PM
If you outlaw guns - only outlaws will have them.
Tchocky
11-05-12, 03:06 PM
If you outlaw guns - only outlaws will have them.
Same with speeding.
And cocaine.
And murder.
And jaywalking.
Buddahaid
11-05-12, 03:07 PM
Does that mean if you inlaw guns, only inlaws will have them? :huh:
:06:
This is another bull myth that assault rifle is not assault rifle because it is not a machine gun therefore it is less lethal than assault rifle.
It is just cleaver work around the laws.....
Put it simply in the perspective....US citizen has right to own military high power assault rifle.
You can view it as constitutional freedom or whatever but don't say that it is something else......just innocent semi auto gun for home defence. or whatever.
It is a gun for gun nuts mostly...unless you live in relay really nasty place.
It is a gun for gun nuts mostly...unless you live in relay really nasty place.
Don't generalize like that. There are 300 million of us. Some buy them for target practice, others for defense and still others for just about any lawful reason you could think of.
I bought mine for all of those reasons.
Stealhead
11-05-12, 03:52 PM
It's ok, just to be safe, I've hired a bodyguard! :har:
I can see the want add for that bodyguard:
Bodyguard wanted must be female
please send resume listing work experience and training
please also include a photo of yourself and body measurements
...for fitting of body armor. EEOE/FO:har:
Platapus
11-05-12, 04:01 PM
When seconds count
The police are only minutes a way.
The police are there to enforce the law after the crime has been committed. The police are not there to protect people or to prevent crimes from being committed.
As soon as the police can guarantee that they will be there to prevent crimes from being committed, then I will start to believe that responsible citizens no longer need to keep weapons for self defense.
Tribesman
11-05-12, 04:29 PM
If you outlaw guns - only outlaws will have them.
Meaningless parrot fodder:doh:
Penguin
11-05-12, 04:47 PM
The police are there to enforce the law after the crime has been committed. The police are not there to protect people or to prevent crimes from being committed.
What about "to serve and protect" - or is this only valid in LA? ;)
Policework is also pre-emptive, they don't have to wait till a crime is committed to take action.
Actually I'm only nitpicking, since I agree with your last sentence:
As soon as the police can guarantee that they will be there to prevent crimes from being committed, then I will start to believe that responsible citizens no longer need to keep weapons for self defense.
:yep:
Though the discussion went on a tangent, from the issue about open carry, over concealed carry, over the right to own guns and now we arrived at weapon ownership on principle.
Sailor Steve
11-05-12, 05:07 PM
This is another bull myth that assault rifle is not assault rifle because it is not a machine gun therefore it is less lethal than assault rifle.
By that token my ought-three Springfield bolt-action rifle is an assault rifle, since that was what it was designed for all those years ago. For that matter so is my friend's 1865 muzzle-loader. Whether it's "bull" or not is your opinion, so please don't state it as a fact you know and everyone else denies.
By definition an Assault Rifle is capable of fully automatic fire. Your calling it "bull" doesn't make it so.
Put it simply in the perspective....US citizen has right to own military high power assault rifle.
Arguably that is correct. The American revolutionary war started when the local Colonial governor sent troops to confiscate a citizen-owned armory full of cannons. During the war of 1812 the government hired privately owned warships to prey on British shipping. The government looked to citizens who were as well armed as any army or navy.
You can view it as constitutional freedom or whatever but don't say that it is something else......just innocent semi auto gun for home defence. or whatever.
Who exactly is saying that? Fully automatic weapons are indeed illegal. Semi-autos are not. Some people want to ban them as "assault rifles", mainly because they look like their fully automatic counterparts.
It is a gun for gun nuts mostly...unless you live in relay really nasty place.
I could just as easily call your argument "bull", since it seems that you hate guns in general and are looking for an excuse to push that opinion. Since you won't get much attention by going that far, you limit yourself to jumping on one case you think people will listen to. Your argument then becomes no more valid than the one you are challenging.
Tchocky
11-05-12, 05:09 PM
When seconds count
The police are only minutes a way.
The police are there to enforce the law after the crime has been committed. The police are not there to protect people or to prevent crimes from being committed.
As soon as the police can guarantee that they will be there to prevent crimes from being committed, then I will start to believe that responsible citizens no longer need to keep weapons for self defense.
I see your point. I disagree about the necessity for citizens to be armed as a general civic ideal, but this is where the rub comes in regarding the US.
I don't see the country as being legislatively or socially willing to disarm the populace. THat's because the way it is now is how it's been for a very long time. Any change in this is incremental at very best, so talking up aggressive gun control or outright popular disarmament is just blowing smoke - I treat the same way I look at laws declaring "state guns" or suggesting that firearms be compulsory. When people start advocating that the government try to take all the weapons off the streets, it makes no sense. Like it or not, it's in the Constitution and that's difficult to change, which is both good and bad.
I wonder how the issue of reforming the Constitution will fare, given that there is now a not-insignificant chance that President Obama could be re-elected while losing the popular vote. The Electoral College system will come under scrutiny if it has delivered a counter-intuitive result twice in three elections. Whether this produces an appetite for constitutional reform is anyone's guess.
I think just making the system a little safer at a time, a little more responsive at a time, is the only way to go. The population will follow slowly.*
*=Maybe. Who knows. Not me.
By that token my ought-three Springfield bolt-action rifle is an assault rifle, since that was what it was designed for all those years ago. For that matter so is my friend's 1865 muzzle-loader. Whether it's "bull" or not is your opinion, so please don't state it as a fact you know and everyone else denies.
By definition an Assault Rifle is capable of fully automatic fire. Your calling it "bull" doesn't make it so
.
Nice and very powerful gun you got there.
When it comes to modern guns disabling a feature which is not used very much in military does not make the gun a civilian gun.
It is still the same gun using same ammo which can pump out 30 rounds as fast as you can press the trigger...if one is into rage killing.
Actually it may make it more efficient.
So it is just a matter of definition and laws involved.
NeonSamurai
11-06-12, 02:47 AM
Who exactly is saying that? Fully automatic weapons are indeed illegal. Semi-autos are not. Some people want to ban them as "assault rifles", mainly because they look like their fully automatic counterparts.
There are several reasons for wanting to ban them that have nothing to do with their look, including that they are just as dangerous as the full auto versions (skilled operators will often not use full auto, or fire very short bursts of a couple of rounds) due to the quantity of ammunition they can shoot without reloading (up to 100 rounds with a c-mag), certain models can be easily converted back to full auto, and they serve no purpose as hunting weapons since the rounds they use are designed to cause casualties not kill outright.
Full auto weapons are also not illegal in some states, and lots of people have illegally modified weapons.
Armistead
11-06-12, 03:10 AM
I use to own a few so called assault weapons, sold them because I had no use for them other than shooting fun. In reality, so called assault rifles may look mean, but they function exactly as your standard hunting rifles. Ammo has nothing to do with it, I can buy a vast array of ammo for my semi hunting rifles.
The issue is clips, but about any gun can be rigged. The problem is when you start banning assault rifles, about every semi auto would be effected, so gun owners have no give on the issue.
If someone wants to do mass and quick damage, a simple 12 gauge minus the plug would cause havoc.
We're a nation of guns, no amount of laws would solve the issue, just take guns out of the hands of legal owners. Even the Dems ignore the issue now.
Platapus
11-06-12, 03:22 AM
I have been a big supporter of gun control for over 30 years
1. Modified Weaver Stance
2. Breath control
3. Smooth trigger pull
In my opinion, gun control is a must. :up:
There are several reasons for wanting to ban them that have nothing to do with their look, including that they are just as dangerous as the full auto versions (skilled operators will often not use full auto, or fire very short bursts of a couple of rounds) due to the quantity of ammunition they can shoot without reloading (up to 100 rounds with a c-mag), certain models can be easily converted back to full auto, and they serve no purpose as hunting weapons since the rounds they use are designed to cause casualties not kill outright.
First, nobody calls our military "operators" except no nothing civilians and media shills. The Special Forces themselves hate the term.
Second, the purpose of the 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, therefore the suitability of a firearm in that regard is irrelevant.
Third, bullets are bullets. Even a 30-06 is "designed" to wound instead of kill outright if the target is large enough. Trust me, against Prairie Dogs and other varmints up to a Deer a 5.56 or 7.62mm is definitely a killing bullet.
antikristuseke
11-06-12, 08:47 AM
What August said, also full auto fire does not really increase leathality unless you are at point blank range, it is used for suppression, pin down the enemy while others manouver to a position to take them out. People tend to have an aversion to sticking their head up with bullets cracking by over their head.
In the context of most shootings done by a lone gunman it would be a liability rather than an advantage, with organized groups though that changes quite a bit but assault rifles have a very short time where they are capable of providing supressing fire since the weapon overheats and seizes up, even with maschine guns designed for that role have to have frequent barrel changes t allow hot barrels to cool off while maintaining suppressing fire.
Second, the purpose of the 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, therefore the suitability of a firearm in that regard is irrelevant.
...but
My issue is that people who campaign for guns too often try to down play lethality of "civilian" assault rifles.
It sort of makes me wonder about those guys....who also own all those guns.
Sailor Steve
11-06-12, 11:38 AM
Full auto weapons are also not illegal in some states, and lots of people have illegally modified weapons.
To purchase a fully automatic weapon requires a Class 3 Federal Firearms License. It doesn't cost much ($200) but there are some serious interviews to pass first. Also, a Class 3 FFL means you are a licensed dealer of firearms, which means you come under quite a bit of scrutiny, and are considered responsible if anything untoward happens.
When I said "illegal" I meant that it's not like you can go to a gun show or shop and pick one up just because you want it. You have to jump through some fairly serious hoops.
...but
My issue is that people who campaign for guns too often try to down play lethality of "civilian" assault rifles.
Well it might seem that way but remember when you hear such statements that they're almost always responding to someone who is going out of their way to play up their lethality in order to get them banned.
In fact the very term "assault weapon" was rather obscure until it was brought into the public vernacular by people with an anti-firearms ownership agenda. After all I carried an M16 for seven years in the Army and not once did I ever hear anyone call it an "assault weapon" yet now it's practically a household word.
Bottom line here is aside from cosmetics there is nothing to distinguish a so called (civilian type) assault weapon from any semi-auto rifle. It's just easier to demonize them in the media.
Sailor Steve
11-06-12, 12:03 PM
...but
My issue is that people who campaign for guns too often try to down play lethality of "civilian" assault rifles.
It sort of makes me wonder about those guys....who also own all those guns.
Very true, but it also works the other way. Those of us who support gun ownership see a lot of alarmist yelling from the other side, rather than reasoned arguments. A lot of people who want to ban guns are of the "all guns are evil" variety, and talk of "assault rifles" and similar turns as part of a larger agenda.
As for "all those guns", polls of various types indicate that somewhere between 30% and 40% of all American households contain at least one gun.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/25/gun-ownership-us-data
If we assume the lowest number (30%) and assume that no household has more than one gun (certainly not true, but taking the lowest possible numbers), that would mean that there are currently ninety million (90,000,000) privately owned guns in the United States. To someone who doesn't like guns that number might be truly alarming. To the gun-owner the next question would be "And how many of them were used to shoot somebody last year?"
The simple fact is that most people are responsible citizens and have no desire to kill anyone else, even in the heat of an argument.
Meaningless parrot fodder:doh:
Most trite cliches are, but in this case it also happens to be true. Ban all guns. Good sheep will go along. Criminals will still find a way to get one. Also a majority of violent criminals tend to be young, strong and male. Weaker beings like women and us older guys become easy prey.
Here's another trite cliche for you: "God made men. Colonel Colt made them equal."
Buddahaid
11-06-12, 12:45 PM
Perhaps but a lot of formerly good sheep will then become criminals like me. Only three of my guns were purchased over the counter. The others I inherited. Do you have any idea how many millions of guns are in that category? They will never be all accounted for.
Sailor Steve
11-06-12, 03:42 PM
:yep:
There are also millions of perfectly serviceable guns that are no longer classified as "firearms" at all. Due to age or type of mechanism a great many are now classified as "relics" or "curios".
Tribesman
11-06-12, 03:50 PM
Most trite cliches are, but in this case it also happens to be true.
Not at all since there has never been any serious call to ban all guns which means it is a meaningless phrase that some people parrot as though it means something.
Buddahaid
11-06-12, 04:03 PM
:yep:
There are also millions of perfectly serviceable guns that are no longer classified as "firearms" at all. Due to age or type of mechanism a great many are now classified as "relics" or "curios".
All of mine actually. 1916, 1919, 1943, 1945, and 1945.
Sailor Steve
11-06-12, 06:23 PM
Not at all since there has never been any serious call to ban all guns which means it is a meaningless phrase that some people parrot as though it means something.
Really? Maybe you don't think Brady is serious, but several states have tried. For most of us it was pretty alarming wondering which way the Supreme Court would go in the case of the Washington ban.
And the saying is indeed true on it's bare face. If guns were to be banned then there would be two classes of gun owners - those who already are willing to obtain them illegally (since it is against the law for convicted felons to own one) and those of us who would become outlaws because we would not submit to such a law. Either way, it is true.
Stealhead
11-06-12, 06:33 PM
All of mine actually. 1916, 1919, 1943, 1945, and 1945.
That is just to be considered a relic it has to be from pre-1898 to be basically "fare game" so to speak even if it still functions that is why you see lots of antique shops selling pre-1898 firearms it is because they don't need a firearms license to sell but they will not buy post 1898 firearms unless they have a license.
I have seen some say x round is a "wounding" round x round is a "killing" round... news flash any bullet can kill you and the whole notion that military weapons use "wounding" bullets is an urban myth anyone that thinks this has clearly not seen what a modern 5.56mm similar bullet will do to the human body some of the heavy grain one used by elite forces have been mistaken by pathologists to have been caused by 7.62x51mm rounds.This myth is caused I believe by the Hague Convention which bans certain types of warfare one of the the things that it bans or perhaps discourages is the better word is causing unnecessary pain and suffering that does not mean to encourage wounding over killing but more the use of weapons that are likely to cause long painful death or a needlessly painful injury.In other words you should kill the enemy quickly if he is displaying the will to be a combatant(even if he is retreating).
The goal of a well made weapon/round/munition is to be as deadly as possible and then if failing to kill to cause the most injury possible killing is always most important who wants a wounded enemy still able to fight being able to use his weapon to kill you?
Buddahaid
11-06-12, 06:55 PM
People have been killed with a BB gun too.
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml02/02029.html
NeonSamurai
11-06-12, 08:52 PM
First, nobody calls our military "operators" except no nothing civilians and media shills. The Special Forces themselves hate the term.
Never said I was exclusively referring to the military, they are not the only organizations or individuals that use such weapons "professionally", hence my choice of the word operator.
Second, the purpose of the 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, therefore the suitability of a firearm in that regard is irrelevant.
True, but proponents of such weapons sometimes justify ownership for hunting reasons, which I don't think is a valid argument.
Third, bullets are bullets. Even a 30-06 is "designed" to wound instead of kill outright if the target is large enough. Trust me, against Prairie Dogs and other varmints up to a Deer a 5.56 or 7.62mm is definitely a killing bullet.
You would consider using a 5.56 for hunting deer? As that would not be a round I would choose. 7.62 is a full length rifle cartridge, and not quite so popular as an assault rifle round due to the recoil and size. It is a popular hunting and sniping round due to its ballistics and better kill probability.
Rounds like the 5.56 were in many ways designed to maximize casualties to overload the enemy with (like the 5.56's tendency to tumble on entry), more so than the older style rounds.
What August said, also full auto fire does not really increase leathality unless you are at point blank range, it is used for suppression, pin down the enemy while others manouver to a position to take them out. People tend to have an aversion to sticking their head up with bullets cracking by over their head.
In the context of most shootings done by a lone gunman it would be a liability rather than an advantage, with organized groups though that changes quite a bit but assault rifles have a very short time where they are capable of providing supressing fire since the weapon overheats and seizes up, even with maschine guns designed for that role have to have frequent barrel changes t allow hot barrels to cool off while maintaining suppressing fire.
Full auto can be used in terror shootings to increase casualty numbers. Drive by shootings and terrorists opening up on crowds demonstrate that. Of course someone can spray and pray with a semi auto as well, but you can put more rounds out in a shorter time with full auto. These guys are not trying to suppress the targets, they are trying to cause as many civilian casualties as they can, barrels overheating and stuff like that are the least of their concerns as this is not a firefight.
Very true, but it also works the other way. Those of us who support gun ownership see a lot of alarmist yelling from the other side, rather than reasoned arguments. A lot of people who want to ban guns are of the "all guns are evil" variety, and talk of "assault rifles" and similar turns as part of a larger agenda.
As for "all those guns", polls of various types indicate that somewhere between 30% and 40% of all American households contain at least one gun.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/25/gun-ownership-us-data
If we assume the lowest number (30%) and assume that no household has more than one gun (certainly not true, but taking the lowest possible numbers), that would mean that there are currently ninety million (90,000,000) privately owned guns in the United States. To someone who doesn't like guns that number might be truly alarming. To the gun-owner the next question would be "And how many of them were used to shoot somebody last year?"
I think a better question would be, how many more murders occurred because of easy access to firearms. Also how many legal weapons ended up in criminal hands and later used in the commission of a crime?
The simple fact is that most people are responsible citizens and have no desire to kill anyone else, even in the heat of an argument.
Maybe, but how many guns get stolen from "responsible citizens" each year? How do we know which people are going to be responsible with them and which are going to suddenly snap and use those weapons in a not so responsible way? Do we need to pull out the statistics comparing countries with easy access to guns vs countries without? Basic logic says that easier access increases the likelihood of use.
Most trite cliches are, but in this case it also happens to be true. Ban all guns. Good sheep will go along. Criminals will still find a way to get one. Also a majority of violent criminals tend to be young, strong and male. Weaker beings like women and us older guys become easy prey.
The statistics say otherwise in general. The notion that having armed citizens will keep the criminals at bay is laughable. Look at gang warfare for example, these kids will readily shoot at each other, and they know the other side is packing the same kind of weaponry they are and will definitely shoot back. Does that stop them in the slightest from attacking each other? Not one little bit. If anything it will only more likely increase the casualty rates as the criminal element will be even more inclined to shoot first.
As far as the criminals getting one, that is both true and false. In Canada for example it is more difficult and expensive to get the more heavily regulated/outlawed weapons (non hunting weapons or weapons with more than 5 rounds), and most criminals particularly street hoodlums do not have them. The only criminals that reliably have them are organized crime groups such as the mafia, hells angels, etc. but they are into major smuggling (guns and drugs), which is why they have them. Most of these weapons are smuggled in from the USA (and this is how the internal US policies on firearms affect more than just American citizens, most murdered committed with firearms that were obtained illegally in Canada came from the United States, and I wont even go into Mexico). The simple fact is that decreased public availability does affect criminal availability, particularly if the same is true for the surrounding countries (In Japan for example, guns are very difficult to acquire).
Here's another trite cliche for you: "God made men. Colonel Colt made them equal."
Ya, too bad that isn't true either. Still comes down to training, skill, experience, and willingness to shoot first. That generally tends to put the ball in the criminal's court particularly with the more recent trend with them entering the military for the training.
The thing is, is that I am not particularly anti-gun, I am ambivalent. In some ways I like guns and wouldn't mind owning an MP-5, an M4A1 and some other military weapons. But on the other hand I really have to strongly question the need for civilians to own such weapons, particularly given the costs associated with them to society. I also think most of the arguments put forth to justify ownership as being absurd when held up to rational scrutiny. Sure the idea of being able to defend oneself is a nice idea in theory, but does it really work that way most of the time? Most evidence seems to show that the safer countries are those that don't have piles of guns everywhere, particularly if the country also has strong social systems in place to help prevent crime in the first place (such as fairer distributions of wealth, equality, and opportunity).
NeonSamurai
11-06-12, 09:17 PM
I have seen some say x round is a "wounding" round x round is a "killing" round... news flash any bullet can kill you and the whole notion that military weapons use "wounding" bullets is an urban myth anyone that thinks this has clearly not seen what a modern 5.56mm similar bullet will do to the human body some of the heavy grain one used by elite forces have been mistaken by pathologists to have been caused by 7.62x51mm rounds.This myth is caused I believe by the Hague Convention which bans certain types of warfare one of the the things that it bans or perhaps discourages is the better word is causing unnecessary pain and suffering that does not mean to encourage wounding over killing but more the use of weapons that are likely to cause long painful death or a needlessly painful injury.In other words you should kill the enemy quickly if he is displaying the will to be a combatant(even if he is retreating).
The goal of a well made weapon/round/munition is to be as deadly as possible and then if failing to kill to cause the most injury possible killing is always most important who wants a wounded enemy still able to fight being able to use his weapon to kill you?
There is a ton of research done on the effectiveness of different rounds by the military. The 5.56x45mm NATO for example can cause a lot of trauma to the human body due to its tendency to tumble and break apart on impact (depends on load, weapon, and distance) and cause increased amounts of hydrostatic shock. It's kill probability per shot though, is much lower than say the 7.62x51mm NATO, though the wounds the 5.56 create tend to be much harder to treat surgically. Hence its reputation as a wounding round.
From a military theory perspective it is more advantageous to seriously cripple or wound your adversary rather than kill them, this is with the idea that the enemy will have to deal with the casualties by either trying to treat them, or having to dispose of them. In fact several bullets since the 5.56mm (that one happened to be more of a fluke in the design) were designed with the intent that they tumble and fragment on impact to increase the trauma and severity of the wounds caused. They have all tended to be smaller lightweight rounds that also have lower first shot pk ratios.
Stealhead
11-06-12, 10:29 PM
There is a ton of research done on the effectiveness of different rounds by the military. The 5.56x45mm NATO for example can cause a lot of trauma to the human body due to its tendency to tumble and break apart on impact (depends on load, weapon, and distance) and cause increased amounts of hydrostatic shock. It's kill probability per shot though, is much lower than say the 7.62x51mm NATO, though the wounds the 5.56 create tend to be much harder to treat surgically. Hence its reputation as a wounding round.
From a military theory perspective it is more advantageous to seriously cripple or wound your adversary rather than kill them, this is with the idea that the enemy will have to deal with the casualties by either trying to treat them, or having to dispose of them. In fact several bullets since the 5.56mm (that one happened to be more of a fluke in the design) were designed with the intent that they tumble and fragment on impact to increase the trauma and severity of the wounds caused. They have all tended to be smaller lightweight rounds that also have lower first shot pk ratios.
What the military theorist thinks is a good idea and what the person actually fighting is a good idea can greatly differ.What you say about the 5.56mm round in comparison to the 7.62x51mm round is true but the reasoning has much more to do with ballistics than anything a heavy round is naturally going to have more effect than a light weight one.More rounds are always better which is why smaller calibers are popular with armed forces mainly because a solider can carry many more small caliber rounds in the same amount of weight as a larger round.
I would argue that what is best killing or wounding is a matter of what foe you are facing for the US and our allies in Afghanistan it is much better to kill for the Taliban to a certain extent is better for them to wound enemy troops because of its negative morale effects and the effect.
Taliban dead fighter no longer a problem.Taliban wounded fighter he goes and inspires others to fight you or comes back to fight you again directly.
Now you take two large industrialized nations and the cost of dealing with wounded mounts up.At the same time Many nations suffered a lot of losses to casualties but that did not stop thier will to might there are always more young men somewhere after all.
You would consider using a 5.56 for hunting deer? As that would not be a round I would choose. 7.62 is a full length rifle cartridge, and not quite so popular as an assault rifle round due to the recoil and size. It is a popular hunting and sniping round due to its ballistics and better kill probability.
People hunt deer with pistols but yeah a deer would be on the upper end of the scale of things i'd hunt with the 5.56. It's a fine coyote round though, even the slower 55 grain version.
The point is the AR series are indeed valid hunting weapons though again that is not the purpose of the RKBA.
Sailor Steve
11-06-12, 11:21 PM
I think a better question would be, how many more murders occurred because of easy access to firearms. Also how many legal weapons ended up in criminal hands and later used in the commission of a crime?
How is that a better question? It's a fair question of course, but criminals will always figure out ways to make their crimes easier. Yes, we have a high gun crime rate, and reducing the number of guns would obviously reduce the number of uses in crimes, but how does our overall violent crime rate compare with that of other countries? Here's what one British source has to say.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
It's interesting to me that within the confines of the US, the states with the highest gun ownership rates are also the states with the lowest gun crime rates.
http://flowingdata.com/2011/01/19/states-with-the-most-and-least-firearms-murders/
Maybe, but how many guns get stolen from "responsible citizens" each year? How do we know which people are going to be responsible with them and which are going to suddenly snap and use those weapons in a not so responsible way?
Good questions. How many times has either one happened? Tens? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? Enough to make a statistical difference? I quoted ninety million guns in America as a conservative estimate; a source I looked at suggested a gun for every American is more likely. Not that everyone has one, but that there may be three hundred million privately owned guns in our country. My question still stands: How many of them were used to kill someone, or even rob someone last year?
Don't forget to ask the other questions. How many robberies are thwarted each year because the robber heard the sound of a slide working and ran for his life. I've heard first-hand accounts of several such incidences over the years, and that's just from people I've known or worked with.
Do we need to pull out the statistics comparing countries with easy access to guns vs countries without? Basic logic says that easier access increases the likelihood of use.
Basic logic avoids the point that people without access to firearms still manage to kill, harm and rob in creative ways. If someone comes into my home with intent to do any of the above, a gun is my best bet for defending my home and my life.
The statistics say otherwise in general. The notion that having armed citizens will keep the criminals at bay is laughable.
Really? Which statistics are those? I already asked how many home invasions have been thwarted by armed homeowners. Just google "armed homeowner stops invasion". There are hundreds of them. Not a fair trade? Maybe not, but hardly "laughable". Try "armed citizen foils robbery". Same thing. No, they don't keep criminals at bay, but then neither do armed police, or prisons, or courts. They do, however, stop a great many crimes.
Look at gang warfare for example, these kids will readily shoot at each other, and they know the other side is packing the same kind of weaponry they are and will definitely shoot back. Does that stop them in the slightest from attacking each other? Not one little bit. If anything it will only more likely increase the casualty rates as the criminal element will be even more inclined to shoot first.
Do you think that trying to ban all guns will make a difference in that. They'll still get them, and once again that trite saying will be true.
As far as the criminals getting one, that is both true and false. In Canada for example it is more difficult and expensive to get the more heavily regulated/outlawed weapons (non hunting weapons or weapons with more than 5 rounds), and most criminals particularly street hoodlums do not have them. The only criminals that reliably have them are organized crime groups such as the mafia, hells angels, etc. but they are into major smuggling (guns and drugs), which is why they have them.
And having more restrictions here will change that? They (and we) will get them elsewhere.
Ya, too bad that isn't true either. Still comes down to training, skill, experience, and willingness to shoot first. That generally tends to put the ball in the criminal's court particularly with the more recent trend with them entering the military for the training.
On that we agree. A gun is not a magic wand, to be waved at a criminal to make him go away. If you're going to have one, know how to use it and be willing to use it; otherwise don't have it. As to the "equality" idea, yes it is true. I'm old and have a hard time getting around sometimes. If someone breaks into my home, and I'm sure he intends more than just taking some stuff and leaving, how am I going to stop him? I have some handy weapons, but a gun is much more sure.
I also think most of the arguments put forth to justify ownership as being absurd when held up to rational scrutiny. Sure the idea of being able to defend oneself is a nice idea in theory, but does it really work that way most of the time?
I think I've shown enough real-life stories to indicate that it does. Most of the time? That's hard to judge, since we don't know how many times it has occured but not been reported. I mentioned personal knowledge of a few such events. Not all of those were reported to the police.
Most evidence seems to show that the safer countries are those that don't have piles of guns everywhere, particularly if the country also has strong social systems in place to help prevent crime in the first place (such as fairer distributions of wealth, equality, and opportunity).
Except of course for Switzerland.
Stealhead
11-07-12, 12:12 AM
People hunt deer with pistols but yeah a deer would be on the upper end of the scale of things i'd hunt with the 5.56. It's a fine coyote round though, even the slower 55 grain version.
I agree with you on that and it explains why a lot of people use .270
for deer rather than a .223 of course with the .270 you have enough power to
take down elk of course here in Florida a .270 is about all the power you need for any deer.
Tribesman
11-07-12, 02:47 AM
Really? Maybe you don't think Brady is serious, but several states have tried.
Name one state that has even proposed attempting to ban all guns.
Even the brady bunch don't do that.
Sailor Steve
11-07-12, 08:26 AM
I agree with you on that and it explains why a lot of people use .270
for deer rather than a .223 of course with the .270 you have enough power to
take down elk of course here in Florida a .270 is about all the power you need for any deer.
The last time I went hunting I was still using my good old .30-06. :sunny:
Sailor Steve
11-07-12, 09:09 AM
Name one state that has even proposed attempting to ban all guns.
No state legislature has tried to ban all guns, but members have tried to bring it up. Georgia tried to ban most handguns as far back as 1837. This seems to have been more of a racial thing, as one of the provisions was barring any gun ownership to free blacks. That said, DC has tried to ban all handguns, and you always have to worry about what might slip by.
If you think I'm being a reverse alarmist, maybe you should read what gun-control advocates have said on the subject.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnobody.html
Even the brady bunch don't do that.
Like any political organization, Brady has to put on a public face that doesn't always reflect its real goals. Individual members are a little less subtle.
We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily - given the political realities - very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal
-Nelson Shields, Handgun Control (later Brady Campaign) Founder
Tribesman
11-07-12, 11:51 AM
No state legislature has tried to ban all guns
Exactly, and there has never been any serious attempt to do anything even remotely like it which is why the original line was parrot fodder.
Nice link, I would normally reject out of hand anything citing Kleck as he is a bigger idiot than the brady bunch are, but all your link managed to deliver as "evidence" to back up that claim was a single quote from one complete nobody who is appointed to do health programs on cigarettes.
The reason I call Kleck a bigger idiot than the Bradys is that he did a propoganda piece were he falsly claimed two specific countries had banned all guns and somehow proved his theory about it increasing problems by adding in figures from another state entirely which surprisingly had even laxer gun regulations than the other two countries, though to be fair I do understand his need to add a warzone to his fiction to pad out the numbers as his claims were so ludicrous to start with.
Individual members are a little less subtle.
Yet even that quote doesn't back up the claim does it.
Sailor Steve
11-07-12, 12:49 PM
I guess you're right. I'll be turning in my guns tomorrow.
Armistead
11-07-12, 12:57 PM
I guess you're right. I'll be turning in my guns tomorrow.
You can ship them to me for proper disposal..
Sailor Steve
11-07-12, 01:08 PM
Actually I was thinking I might send them to her.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/WomensRight.jpg
Sailor Steve
11-07-12, 01:22 PM
Exactly, and there has never been any serious attempt to do anything even remotely like it which is why the original line was parrot fodder.
DC doesn't count? Members of legislatures have proposed bans. Just because it was rejected doesn't mean the threat isn't real.
Nice link, I would normally reject out of hand anything citing Kleck as he is a bigger idiot than the brady bunch are,
Are you saying the quotes from that site are all lies?
Yet even that quote doesn't back up the claim does it.
That one of the founders of HC/Brady said the ultimate goal was exactly that? I've seen Brady people talk, and I am firmly convinced that what they claim on their site is a flat-out lie.
Hottentot
11-07-12, 01:31 PM
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/WomensRight.jpg
Meh. As far as theories go, I prefer this...
http://i.imgur.com/e2NvF.jpg
Stealhead
11-07-12, 01:34 PM
The last time I went hunting I was still using my good old .30-06. :sunny:
Yeah the .30-06 is still a very popular round it is still a good round too.Some guys like those .300 mags and .308s but you still see many sticking with the .30-06 because it works another old but still very good round is the Russian 7.62x54R one of my personal favorites it has good power but it does not rip your arm off.Some guys claim that the .300s are much better at longer range.A friend of mine got an elk with a .30-06(Blaser Jaeger) on a trip a few years back from 820 yards by his sons spotting estimate he showed me the scope photos it looked to be at least 800yds based on his scope dopeage.
That one of the founders of HC/Brady said the ultimate goal was exactly that? I've seen Brady people talk, and I am firmly convinced that what they claim on their site is a flat-out lie.
I've talked to some of them as well and I have to agree. Total civilian disarmament is their not so secret agenda.
Tribesman
11-07-12, 03:16 PM
DC doesn't count?
It would count if it had banned all guns or even attempted to, but it hasn't so it doesn't.
Members of legislatures have proposed bans.
Name one.
Just because it was rejected doesn't mean the threat isn't real.
You have to cite the attempt first and make sure it has all the specifics that would ban all guns.
Are you saying the quotes from that site are all lies?
No, I am saying Kleck is a frequently used source but has been known to simply invent crazy "facts", I am also saying that nothing there backs up the claim.
That one of the founders of HC/Brady said the ultimate goal was exactly that?
Look at the quote you posted, it doesn't even say anything like it.
Now if that quote said all guns then you might have a point, if it said all guns without exceptions then you definately would have a point, but it certainly doesn't say that, so all you are left with in that link is that single quote from a nobody in Florida.
I suppose a good story in relation to open carry wouldbe that fat soccer mom who became a star feature of gun nut weekly over her insistance that she had to be openly armed at all times, even at her kids soccer matches.
She ended up getting her head blown off while sitting at the computer in her own home.
It pays to be prepared at all times.
^ She should have been carrying a pistol at least, at home in front of her computer, and look around her every 5 seconds.
I might be wrong, but I recall she was shot by her husband with that very
same pistol she was carrying to all those soccer games, before he killed himself. :doh:
As for the topic, someone already said how I think about it earlier: carry a gun
in open isnt a deterrant to those who REALLY want that free gun. They'll just use
more force to get it.
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/552268_394567853946960_1904778309_n.jpg
:)
[PICTURE]
:)
That's how it goes in the perfect world. :03:
Say, someone wants to threathen someone with a knife, he probably closes
to 1.5-2m before showin his intentions. Try to pull a gun out from your holster/pocket
and you MIGHT get a shot out, but evenso, that knife will very likely be stuck
in some part of your body, in worst case, lethally.
Many in this thread seem to think that criminals are stupid, dont know why.
But if someone wants to rob you and they see the gun, they wont't be
coming at you from the front. Baseball bat/other hard object, or in worst case
a bullet to the back of the head is what they do.
EDIT: Of course, I dont live in the US, but to me this just means more guns for the bad guys who really need them (gangs and such). :hmmm:
Many in this thread seem to think that criminals are stupid, dont know why.
That's because the kind of criminals we're talking about are stupid, or they wouldn't have to be out robbing people who might shoot them.
But if someone wants to rob you and they see the gun, they wont't be
coming at you from the front. Baseball bat/other hard object, or in worst case
a bullet to the back of the head is what they do.
I'd say that depends on the situation. Doing those things in a location like that in the picture I posted above would only provide plenty of witnesses at their murder trial.
But this is Oklahoma we're talking about. The Lone Prairie.
pretty difficult to sneak up on someone out there... :)
Sailor Steve
11-07-12, 07:50 PM
It would count if it had banned all guns or even attempted to, but it hasn't so it doesn't.
Sec. 201. Registration Required, (a) Except as otherwise provided
in this act, no ])erson or organization shall within the District receive,
possess, have under his control, transfer, offer for sale, sell, give, or
deliver any destructive device, and no person or organization shall,
within the District possess or have under his or its control any firearm,
unless such person or oi^anization is the holder of a valid registration
certificate for such fireaim. In the case of an organization, a registra-
tration certificate shall be issued (1) only to an organization which
has in its employ one or more commissioned special police officers or
other employees licensed to carry firearms, and which arms sucli
employees witli firearms during such employees duty hours and (2)
only to such organization in its own name and in the name of its
president or the chief executive.
Name one.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09700SB0681sam001&GA=97&LegID=55510&SessionId=84&SpecSess=0&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=0681&GAID=11&Session=
Look at the quote you posted, it doesn't even say anything like it.
Now if that quote said all guns then you might have a point, if it said all guns without exceptions then you definately would have a point, but it certainly doesn't say that, so all you are left with in that link is that single quote from a nobody in Florida.
This quote?
We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily - given the political realities - very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.
-Nelson Shields, Handgun Control (later Brady Campaign) Founder
I would say that the founder of HCI was hardly a nobody. His statement reflects accurately what I've heard from other HCI/Brady members.
Onkel Neal
11-07-12, 10:18 PM
Oh wow, you know what? I realized I forgot, the motorcycle shop where I work part time, it was robbed about 4 months ago. :88) Yeah, a guy was waiting by the back door and when the store closed, one of the two employees opened the back door to take out the trash, and the robber shoved a gun in his face and marched him to the back. There, the robber had the keyholder open the safe and then made both guys lay on the floor. He took the cash, and then ordered them into the front, where he took two $800 helmets and a few other items.
Yes, how odd that this did not occur to me when I made this post and stated how I have not seen any crime or knew of anyone who had directly been involved in this kind of thing. We watched it the next day on the video playback, every bit of it.
I know it sounds pretty cavalier, but it really did not alarm me. I work there frequently and I don't worry about it (shrug).
Stealhead
11-07-12, 10:31 PM
Oh wow, you know what? I realized I forgot, the motorcycle shop where I work part time, it was robbed about 4 months ago. :88) Yeah, a guy was waiting by the back door and when the store closed, one of the two employees opened the back door to take out the trash, and the robber shoved a gun in his face and marched him to the back. There, the robber had the keyholder open the safe and then made both guys lay on the floor. He took the cash, and then ordered them into the front, where he took two $800 helmets and a few other items.
Yes, how odd that this did not occur to me when I made this post and stated how I have not seen any crime or knew of anyone who had directly been involved in this kind of thing. We watched it the next day on the video playback, every bit of it.
I know it sounds pretty cavalier, but it really did not alarm me. I work there frequently and I don't worry about it (shrug).
When I was teenager I worked for this locally owned pharmacy and the two Pharmacists that owned it they where pretty big into guns they each always had a handgun concealed and they had designed the layout of the store very well no cash registers where in the front everything was in the back and the work area was a few feet above floor level and looked down over the entire store and the cash registers the upper counters and work area had a U shape the U facing the front of the store.Hidden under the counters of the work area where two 12 gauge pump action shotguns they where both Ithacas and the store policy was that someone always was to stand up there in the work area so they could quickly grab one of those Ithacas. I don't know why because the heat packed inside that store was not known to many people my friends father was one of the owners and I did know until I started working there about the guns but no one ever tried to rob that pharmacy or even to shoplift from it so maybe they just sensed it was not a place to mess with.
It could be worse my uncle who used to live in Detroit from the late 60's to early 80's he parked his car once and had some guy run up and stick a gun in his back the guy took his wallet and his car and for what ever reason made my uncle strip down to his underwear and took his clothes and drove off.Needless to say my uncle was very angry him being a fairly large and tough person but at least the guy did not shoot him.
Tribesman
11-08-12, 03:04 AM
Sec. 201.
Registration Required, (a) Except as otherwise provided
in this act
what does except mean? what does registration mean?
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/full...AID=11&Session (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09700SB0681sam001&GA=97&LegID=55510&SessionId=84&SpecSess=0&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=0681&GAID=11&Session)=
what does permit and licence mean?
This quote?
No. I mean the quote from a health official in florida, he is the only one quoted calling for a ban on all guns.
His statement reflects accurately what I've heard from other HCI/Brady members.
Yet he says nothing about all guns does he, and even says about exceptions on those specific firearms he does talk about.
Sailor Steve
11-08-12, 09:24 AM
Registration Required, (a) Except as otherwise provided
in this act
what does except mean? what does registration mean?
That you get to own a gun if I say so.
what does permit and licence mean?
That you get to own a gun if I say so.
Yet he says nothing about all guns does he, and even says about exceptions on those specific firearms he does talk about.
He did specifically say "all handguns". They make exceptions for approved hunting rifles. The handgun exceptions are usually pointed out to be for licensed and approved bodyguards and private detectives.
As I say, I've talked to some of these people, and what they say they want in public and what they say they want in private are not always the same.
CaptainHaplo
11-08-12, 09:32 AM
That's how it goes in the perfect world. :03:
Say, someone wants to threathen someone with a knife, he probably closes
to 1.5-2m before showin his intentions. Try to pull a gun out from your holster/pocket
and you MIGHT get a shot out, but evenso, that knife will very likely be stuck
in some part of your body, in worst case, lethally.
Many in this thread seem to think that criminals are stupid, dont know why.
But if someone wants to rob you and they see the gun, they wont't be
coming at you from the front. Baseball bat/other hard object, or in worst case
a bullet to the back of the head is what they do.
EDIT: Of course, I dont live in the US, but to me this just means more guns for the bad guys who really need them (gangs and such). :hmmm:
Dowly,
I see where your coming from. The thing is - more civilians on the street with guns actually assumes that criminals are smart. You see - its not the guy they choose to rob necessarily. Its about all the other people that might be around when they stab or shoot a victim -because if MORE people are armed - and they start stabbing or shooting someone - they are not likely to live long enough to enjoy the "fruits" of their nefarious actions. You see - its one thing to say "I can pop the guy in the back of the head and steall his stuff" - its another to have to worry about getting capped from 5 different directions if you try......
Most criminals don't want to die. So the issue of an armed citizenry - willint to protect itself - every man protecting himself and his neighbor - is the worst fear of the "physical" criminal.
Tribesman
11-08-12, 11:28 AM
That you get to own a gun if I say so.
So no different from how it is then, unless of course you can name a state that has no regulations at all, or find any period in your nations history where terms and conditions have not applied.
That you get to own a gun if I say so.
So it doesn't ban them then.
He did specifically say "all handguns".
All handguns(with exceptions) isn't anything like all guns is it.
Lets make it easy and turn the initial meaningless parrot fodder statement into a statement that has meaning.
"If they outlaw a certain type of gun then only outlaws will have that type of gun, apart for all the people who are exempt or have permits or have a version of that certain type of gun which is itself exempt....and everyone else not already covered will have to use a different type of gun instead or get a permit or become exempt or buy a gun of that type that is itself exempt"
It kinda loses all its "Oh the drama" impact in reality doesn't it
Rights are not rights if you need the governments permission to exercise them. That is in effect what the government is attempting to do with licensing and registration schemes.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/08/deputies-nm-woman-shot-intruder-in-her-home/1691475/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28News+-+Top+Stories%29
ALCALDE, N.M. (AP) — A 35-year-old woman says she shot and killed a man after he allegedly barged into her Alcalde home and tried to undress her at knife point.The Santa Fe New Mexican reports that search warrant affidavits say the shooting Saturday occurred when 33-year-old Taos resident Lawrence Sandoval forced his way into the woman's home. She told deputies that she believed he followed her home from a gas station.
According to deputies, the woman says Sandoval grabbed a knife, put the knife to her chin and told her to take off her clothes. The woman told deputies she then reached under her pillow, grabbed a loaded gun and shot him. She fled from her home and called 911.
Officials say Sandoval died at the scene.
Sailor Steve
11-08-12, 12:28 PM
So no different from how it is then, unless of course you can name a state that has no regulations at all, or find any period in your nations history where terms and conditions have not applied.
Here in Utah, a dealer has do do an instant criminal background check. A concealed carry permit card voids that. A buyer only has to show proof of Utah residence. That's for hand guns. A rifle buyer doesn't even have to be a resident.
In Vermont there are no restrictions or requirements, period.
So it doesn't ban them then.
Any government that requires permission can ban them any time it wants.
All handguns(with exceptions) isn't anything like all guns is it.
You can play this game all you want. There are people who want to ban all guns, and they are doing everything within their power to accomplish that. Luckily there are people who stand against them.
Lets make it easy and turn the initial meaningless parrot fodder statement into a statement that has meaning.
"If they outlaw a certain type of gun then only outlaws will have that type of gun, apart for all the people who are exempt or have permits or have a version of that certain type of gun which is itself exempt....and everyone else not already covered will have to use a different type of gun instead or get a permit or become exempt or buy a gun of that type that is itself exempt"[/quote]
Now you really are playing games. The key word is "if". "Outlawed" means totally outlawed. Has that happened? No, but folks have tried. Since you narrowed it to "certain types of guns", I am now free to talk about "assault weapons". People have indeed tried to ban certain categories, mostly based on what they imagine those categories to entail. The logical extension of the saying is also true: If anything is banned then only outlaws will own those things. This is true both of criminals who will do anything and of good people who don't see those things as evil.
It kinda loses all its "Oh the drama" impact in reality doesn't it
It's not about drama. It's about freedom.
Tribesman
11-08-12, 12:32 PM
Rights are not rights if you need the governments permission to exercise them.
Terms and conditions always apply.
Tribesman
11-08-12, 01:08 PM
Here in Utah....
You have regulations:yep:
In Vermont there are no restrictions or requirements, period.
Bull, if it were true Vermont wouldn't have a agency for unlawful firearms would it, it wouldn't have a commision for the siezing of unlawful firearms and a process for disposing of unlawful firearms or an appeals process concerning firearms that are deemed illegal, they certainly wouldn't make registered gun salemen register handgun sales would they if there are no restrictions or requirements.
Nice try though:03:
You can play this game all you want. There are people who want to ban all guns, and they are doing everything within their power to accomplish that.
And you link managed to contain a single example of a nobody, how much power does an anti smoking doctor have regarding firearms legislation?
Now you really are playing games. The key word is "if". "Outlawed" means totally outlawed. Has that happened? No, but folks have tried.
No the keyword if you want the line to work is "all", so thats all guns which seems to have escaped you as you keep going on about only handguns. Not to mention that you havn't managed to provide a single example of an attempt to ban all handguns let alone all guns.
Since you narrowed it to "certain types of guns", I am now free to talk about "assault weapons".
:rotfl2:
Sorry Steve, you failed to spot that I hadn't narrowed it at all which was why your own narrow "handguns" attempts were all off target.
Its not like you to miss words and I have repeatedly used the two words throughout the topic so they shouldn't have been hard to spot.
If anything is banned then only outlaws will own those things.
No, as exceptions always apply. Opiates are illegal, lots of non-outlaws can posess opiates can't they.
It's not about drama. It's about freedom.
If it was about freedom then a meaningfull arguement would be made not that parrot fodder which I initially pointed out
Most criminals don't want to die. So the issue of an armed citizenry - willint to protect itself - every man protecting himself and his neighbor - is the worst fear of the "physical" criminal
That is also a reason for a criminal to arm himself to his teeth to steal your TV.....you know be prepared just in case.
Things can go downhill very easily here with people get killed over TV or 20$ and not necessarily the bad guys.
I wonder what would be statistics for cases where good citizen save a day vs getting shot orv shoot bystanders.
It a bit unfair question because it is individual choice weather to pull out the gun or not in given situation but still interesting to see if guns really save lives of good guys statistically.
Sailor Steve
11-08-12, 02:42 PM
You have regulations:yep:
Showing a driver's license?
Bull, if it were true Vermont wouldn't have a agency for unlawful firearms would it, it wouldn't have a commision for the siezing of unlawful firearms and a process for disposing of unlawful firearms or an appeals process concerning firearms that are deemed illegal, they certainly wouldn't make registered gun salemen register handgun sales would they if there are no restrictions or requirements.
Convicted felons aren't allowed to own guns. Therefore any guns in their possession are unlawful.
Nice try though:03:
You're playing games again.
And you link managed to contain a single example of a nobody, how much power does an anti smoking doctor have regarding firearms legislation?
I wasn't talking about that link. I was talking about people I have talked to, conferences I've attended, people I've seen on TV. It's real.
No the keyword if you want the line to work is "all", so thats all guns which seems to have escaped you as you keep going on about only handguns. Not to mention that you havn't managed to provide a single example of an attempt to ban all handguns let alone all guns.
But the quote is true: If "all" guns were to be outlaws then only outlaws would have guns. Prevarication aside, is that concept true or not?
:rotfl2:
Sorry Steve, you failed to spot that I hadn't narrowed it at all which was why your own narrow "handguns" attempts were all off target.
Its not like you to miss words and I have repeatedly used the two words throughout the topic so they shouldn't have been hard to spot.[/quoted]
The man I quoted (the founder of HCI, not whoever it is that you keep refering to) said that his stated goal was to eventually outlaw all handguns. You'll again point to "with a few exceptions". Their exceptions are always heavily licensed and regulated, "approved" special people, not any normal citizen.
[quote]No, as exceptions always apply. Opiates are illegal, lots of non-outlaws can posess opiates can't they.
No, they can't. If you are in possession of an illegal substance, you are by definition a criminal, and therefore outside the law.
If it was about freedom then a meaningfull arguement would be made not that parrot fodder which I initially pointed out
You keep playing games. Do you have anything real to discuss?
Sailor Steve
11-08-12, 02:44 PM
It a bit unfair question because it is individual choice weather to pull out the gun or not in given situation but still interesting to see if guns really save lives of good guys statistically.
I've shown stories that would indicate that yes, armed citizens have on many occasions stopped crimes. Not always, but in my own home I'm better off with a gun than without one.
I've shown stories that would indicate that yes, armed citizens have on many occasions stopped crimes. Not always, but in my own home I'm better off with a gun than without one.
Yeah sure ...the question rather is how often people get shot needlessly over stupid issues (property or 50$)while exercising their right to self defence.
Or....the good citizens actually make some situations worse while exercising the right, escalating robberies into shoot outs with casualties..
Tribesman
11-08-12, 03:32 PM
Showing a driver's license?
:hmmm:an instant criminal background check?
Or...A concealed carry permit card voids that....thats a gun license isn't it.
Do you get one of those by showing a driving licence or is there more to it in terms of regulations?
Regulations eh.:yep:
Convicted felons aren't allowed to own guns. Therefore any guns in their possession are unlawful.
Same as Utah then...regulations:yep:
Plus don't forget the mentals and the underage. Not to mention places where you cannot have a gun or places you can only have a gun with written permission plus of course the regulations for buying guns out of state and the other regulations for out of state buyers.
For a place with no regulation "period" they seem to have a hell of a lot of statutes regulating firearms in the State don't they.
You're playing games again.
You shouldn't have tried an absolute when it wasn't valid.
You should have gone with "Vermont has fairly liberal gun laws in comparison with other states"...but that lacks the impact you were trying for doesn't it.
I wasn't talking about that link.
I was, after all it was the link you posted to back up the claim wasn't it.
I was talking about people I have talked to, conferences I've attended, people I've seen on TV. It's real.
Which comes back to the same question, do they have more or less power than the doctor from Florida who has no power?
But the quote is true: If "all" guns were to be outlaws then only outlaws would have guns. Prevarication aside, is that concept true or not?
A concept built on a false premise cannot be true.
The man I quoted (the founder of HCI, not whoever it is that you keep refering to) said that his stated goal was to eventually outlaw all handguns. You'll again point to "with a few exceptions". Their exceptions are always heavily licensed and regulated, "approved" special people, not any normal citizen.
Exceptions are exceptions, all is all, you cannot have both.
No, they can't. If you are in possession of an illegal substance, you are by definition a criminal, and therefore outside the law.
Oh dear:nope:
Think how many well qualified upstanding pillars of the community you have just called criminals because of their proffession.
Some opiates are illegal, but there are a lot of exceptions.
You keep playing games. Do you have anything real to discuss?
Of course, try the first post I put in this topic.
I have asked several times for you to provide actual examples of real bans yet each time you came up short.
So take that first post and find a single example from any period from before or after the ink was dry on the 2nd when there havn't been regulations applying terms and conditions to possesion of firearms.
Because if you have never actually had something how can it somehow be taken away?
That is also a reason for a criminal to arm himself to his teeth to steal your TV.....you know be prepared just in case.
Or more likely to eliminate any witnesses to their crime.
Sailor Steve
11-08-12, 04:21 PM
:hmmm:an instant criminal background check?
Or...A concealed carry permit card voids that....thats a gun license isn't it.
No, it's verification that you're not a criminal. After that it's done.
Do you get one of those by showing a driving licence or is there more to it in terms of regulations?
Regulations eh.:yep:
No, it's a license not to own a gun, but to carry it concealed in public, just as I don't need a drivers license to drive a car on private property.
Same as Utah then...regulations:yep:
Only for felons, who also aren't allowed to vote or hold certain jobs.
Plus don't forget the mentals and the underage. Not to mention places where you cannot have a gun or places you can only have a gun with written permission plus of course the regulations for buying guns out of state and the other regulations for out of state buyers.
I also can't carry a gun into a friend's house if he doesn't want me to, at least not if I want to remain friends. On the other hand the University of Utah tried to ban guns on campus and the courts said they couldn't. The state doesn't want us carrying guns into a courthouse, and that's their right. It's not a regulation for ownership.
For a place with no regulation "period" they seem to have a hell of a lot of statutes regulating firearms in the State don't they.
I didn't say "regulation", I said restrictions or requirements. Yes, certain people are prohibited from owning firearms because they are not considered safe. Ordinary citizens do not have to prove their competence, the governing body has to prove incompetence first. I see a big difference. For the ordinary citizen there are no restrictions or requirements.
You shouldn't have tried an absolute when it wasn't valid.
You should have gone with "Vermont has fairly liberal gun laws in comparison with other states"...but that lacks the impact you were trying for doesn't it.
No permit to puchase. No registration. No licenses required. No "assault weapons" law. Free carry, open or concealed. Yes, it is forbidden to sell guns to children. Yes, dealers must have a record of the sale.
Some regulation.
I was, after all it was the link you posted to back up the claim wasn't it.
You keep bringing that up. I don't even know about this guy in Florida.
Which comes back to the same question, do they have more or less power than the doctor from Florida who has no power?
Doesn't matter. They try to get the people in power to listen. That's all that counts.
A concept built on a false premise cannot be true.
But the premise is true and the logic is valid.
Exceptions are exceptions, all is all, you cannot have both.
Government-assigned exceptions mean that the government is excercising absolute control. And absolute is absolute.
Oh dear:nope:
Think how many well qualified upstanding pillars of the community you have just called criminals because of their proffession.
Playing games again.
Some opiates are illegal, but there are a lot of exceptions.
And if it's illegal for you to be in possession of a particular one, then you are breaking the law, and are therefore a criminal. If it's legal for you to be in possession, i.e. a doctor or a patient with a prescription, then it is not illegal and you are not breaking the law.
Of course, try the first post I put in this topic.
Fair point. On the other hand I wasn't sure at that time if you were serious or mocking.
I have asked several times for you to provide actual examples of real bans yet each time you came up short.
Not really. I've seen it tried. That you choose to see it as not absolute doesn't mean the threat isn't real. On the other hand I said that the saying was a cliche, but it is still true. You've tried to qualify that, but, trite or not, it's still true.
So take that first post and find a single example from any period from before or after the ink was dry on the 2nd when there havn't been regulations applying terms and conditions to possesion of firearms.
Because if you have never actually had something how can it somehow be taken away?
And that's why we question every single regulation, because one thing can indeed lead to another, and we don't want that to happen.
Sailor Steve
11-08-12, 04:44 PM
Yeah sure ...the question rather is how often people get shot needlessly over stupid issues (property or 50$)while exercising their right to self defence.
Or....the good citizens actually make some situations worse while exercising the right, escalating robberies into shoot outs with casualties..
That's a fair question. How often does that happen? I've heard that argument used, but I've never found anyone who has an answer. One study has been done, but everyone has a differing opinion on its validity.
I can only say that people have used guns to kill other people, including family members, and mistakes have been made, tragic mistakes. Compared to the number of legally-owned guns, the number is still fairly small. Would outlawing guns make the problems go away? Mistakes, probably. Homicides and suicides? Not by much.
Tribesman
11-08-12, 05:45 PM
No, it's verification that you're not a criminal. After that it's done.
So its a regulation for firearms.
No, it's a license not to own a gun, but to carry it concealed in public
So its not a driving license, it a regulation for firearms.
Only for felons, who also aren't allowed to vote or hold certain jobs.
Regulations again.
I didn't say "regulation", I said restrictions or requirements. Yes, certain people are prohibited from owning firearms because they are not considered safe. Ordinary citizens do not have to prove their competence, the governing body has to prove incompetence first. I see a big difference. For the ordinary citizen there are no restrictions or requirements.
Restrictions or requirements are covered by regulations, in fact the regulations define them.
No permit to puchase. No registration. No licenses required. No "assault weapons" law. Free carry, open or concealed. Yes, it is forbidden to sell guns to children. Yes, dealers must have a record of the sale.
Some regulation.
Some regulation not no regulation period then.
You keep bringing that up. I don't even know about this guy in Florida.
Yet he was the only one in your link wanting all guns banned.
Doesn't matter. They try to get the people in power to listen. That's all that counts.
Millions of fruitcakes try to get people in power to listen to all sorts of nonsense. Should you worry about those fruitcakes or should you consider that they are just barking at the moon?
But the premise is true and the logic is valid.
Not if there has never been or ever will be any credible call for it at all.
Government-assigned exceptions mean that the government is excercising absolute control. And absolute is absolute.
It is what governements do, nothing in politcs is absolute unless you are in a dictatorship.
Playing games again.
Its the same theme. Terms and conditions apply which are set out in regulations.
And if it's illegal for you to be in possession of a particular one, then you are breaking the law, and are therefore a criminal. If it's legal for you to be in possession, i.e. a doctor or a patient with a prescription, then it is not illegal and you are not breaking the law.
Exactly, exceptions.
Fair point. On the other hand I wasn't sure at that time if you were serious or mocking.
It was both. It goes with the nature of the subject as so many people take very extreme views on the 2nd.
Not really. I've seen it tried.
Yet you havn't come up with anything on it.
That you choose to see it as not absolute doesn't mean the threat isn't real. On the other hand I said that the saying was a cliche, but it is still true. You've tried to qualify that, but, trite or not, it's still true.
No, you shifted from HC to get to the angle which would cover the initial statement, which was the angle I was on all along, which angle is on something that simply doesn't exist and has no real possiblity of ever existing. Which is why the statement cannot be true as it is meaningless
And that's why we question every single regulation, because one thing can indeed lead to another, and we don't want that to happen.
I agree with that.
Though we should also question any lack of regulation as well as every single regulation.
BTW this is the person who was on your link calling for all guns to be banned.
The goal is an ultimate ban on all guns
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Joyner_Sims
Yeah sure ...the question rather is how often people get shot needlessly over stupid issues (property or 50$)while exercising their right to self defence.
Or....the good citizens actually make some situations worse while exercising the right, escalating robberies into shoot outs with casualties..
I don't buy that argument. Defending yourself and your property is never wrong. People have been killed just to keep them from identifying the robber and often for mere pocket change so trusting a criminal to spare your life because you hope that he'll just take the money and run is foolish.
I'd much rather see a hundred of these stories in the newspaper:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/92-year-old-wwii-vet-shoots-and-kills-home-intruder-as-soon-as-he-got-inside-it-was-all-over/
Than even one of these:
http://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index.ssf/2012/06/quick_verdict_finds_latonia_be.html
http://murderpedia.org/male.T/t/towery-robert.htm
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-01-29/news/30676991_1_alabama-home-robbery-bodies
Sailor Steve
11-08-12, 08:16 PM
So its a regulation for firearms.
No, it's a regulation for criminals.
So its not a driving license, it a regulation for firearms.
The ownership of the gun isn't regulated, just the ability to carry it concealed in public.
Regulations again.
Again, not for the gun, for the criminal. One with which I disagree, by the way.
Restrictions or requirements are covered by regulations, in fact the regulations define them.
Only for people who are proven to be incompetent to be trusted with them.
Some regulation not no regulation period then.
Only for the dealer, not for the owner.
Yet he was the only one in your link wanting all guns banned.
No, the HCI guy wants to do that too. He just wants to start small.
Millions of fruitcakes try to get people in power to listen to all sorts of nonsense. Should you worry about those fruitcakes or should you consider that they are just barking at the moon?
If they stir up people to take away any liberties, then yes.
Not if there has never been or ever will be any credible call for it at all.
As a point of logic, yes, the premise is true, whether you consider it credible or not.
It is what governements do, nothing in politcs is absolute unless you are in a dictatorship.
Which is why we have to remain vigilant, no matter how small you claim the threat is.
Its the same theme. Terms and conditions apply which are set out in regulations.
Not at all. You said I was calling pillars of society criminals. Since if they illegally own proscribed drugs then they are indeed criminals, they you were just playing word games.
Exactly, exceptions.
Not at all. I said that if you illegally have something that is illegal then you are technically a criminal. If you are licensed to have the illegal substance then you are not. That's not an exception, it's a different rule altogether. having it illegally still makes you a criminal.
It was both. It goes with the nature of the subject as so many people take very extreme views on the 2nd.
I see.
Yet you havn't come up with anything on it.
I think Nelson Lewis is more than enough. As I keep saying, I've talked to many more like him, and I believe the danger is real.
No, you shifted from HC to get to the angle which would cover the initial statement, which was the angle I was on all along, which angle is on something that simply doesn't exist and has no real possiblity of ever existing. Which is why the statement cannot be true as it is meaningless
There I have to disagree. It could happen.
I agree with that.
Though we should also question any lack of regulation as well as every single regulation.
I agree as well. Everything should be questioned. Everything.
BTW this is the person who was on your link calling for all guns to be banned.
The goal is an ultimate ban on all guns
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Joyner_Sims
Okay, so he is a real person, and people listen to him.
Sailor Steve
11-08-12, 08:22 PM
People have been killed just to keep them from identifying the robber and often for mere pocket change so trusting a criminal to spare your life because you hope that he'll just take the money and run is foolish.
A funny side-note to that. You know the saying from the other side, "If you have a gun the bad guy will just take it away and use it on you."? I agree that's true if you try to use a gun as a magic wand. You can see in someone's eyes if they really mean to use it or not. Well, quite a few years back we had an interesting story in the Salt Lake newspapers:
It seems a young thug broke into the home of an elderly couple in the middle of the night. He hit the old man over the head and started to ransack bedroom drawers for jewelry and such. The old woman started screaming, so the burglar went to the bed and started to strangle her. In her panic she was scrabbling at his chest and stomach when she felt the gun he had stuck in his waistband. The old lady pulled out the bad guy's gun and shot him with it. I don't remember if he lived or not.
Platapus
11-08-12, 08:31 PM
It was in Utah, when I was stationed at Hill AFB that I interrupted an armed burglar inside my apartment. That was a scary incident. Fortunately, all he wanted to do was leave and I was not about to stop him.
For about a year, I never entered my apartment without my handgun. That sort of stuff leaves an emotional mark on a person.
I think I was a very lucky person that day. :yep:
Cybermat47
11-08-12, 08:51 PM
Interesting discussion.
I can't really add anything to it though, but I can see that America has very different gun rules to Australia.
For example, Australians aren't allowed to use semi-automatic weapons, after some lunatic killed 35 people and wounded 23 at Port Arthur on the 28 April 1996.
Also, I just don't think that Australians really need guns to defend themselves as much as Americans.
Tribesman
11-09-12, 10:25 AM
No, it's a regulation for criminals.
It is one of many regulations concerning firearms.
The ownership of the gun isn't regulated, just the ability to carry it concealed in public.
So it isn't a drivers licence and it is governed by firearm regulations of which it is one.
Again, not for the gun, for the criminal. One with which I disagree, by the way.
It is still a firearms regulation, interestingly enough there is another regulation in Vermont on the same vein where you don't even have to be convicted, just accused.
Only for people who are proven to be incompetent to be trusted with them.
No they cover a wide range of people and situations.
Only for the dealer, not for the owner.
who has to satisfy the dealer by providing the information?
If every person who buys or sells to the dealer has to furnish him with all the information on themselves and the firearm then all those people are covered under the reguations not just the dealer.
No, the HCI guy wants to do that too. He just wants to start small.
So you say, but all you have provided is him talking about only some handguns, not even all handguns let alone all guns.
If they stir up people to take away any liberties, then yes.
Thats highly conditional isn't it.
Not at all. You said I was calling pillars of society criminals. Since if they illegally own proscribed drugs then they are indeed criminals, they you were just playing word games.
But you did, you didn't think about what was written.
Of course it was word games, after all the theme is why a phrase was meaningless as written.
Not at all. I said that if you illegally have something that is illegal then you are technically a criminal. If you are licensed to have the illegal substance then you are not. That's not an exception, it's a different rule altogether. having it illegally still makes you a criminal.
Read it through again.
Instead of writng "No, they can't." you should have written "Yes they can as there are lots and lots and lots of exceptions"
I suppose it like gun control where there are lots of regulations about guns, opiates are a controlled substance where there are lots of regulations about opiates.
I think Nelson Lewis is more than enough.
Yet his quoted statement doesn't cover it does it.
There I have to disagree. It could happen.
Name a single example from history, after all in hundreds of years in hundreds of countries there should at least be an example which would show that to be a credible possibility.
Okay, so he is a real person, and people listen to him.
Do they though?
The only people that seem to be listening is gun nut weekly, which is on par with the Brady bunch but the other side of the field.
Onkel Neal
11-09-12, 10:49 AM
It was in Utah, when I was stationed at Hill AFB that I interrupted an armed burglar inside my apartment. That was a scary incident. Fortunately, all he wanted to do was leave and I was not about to stop him.
For about a year, I never entered my apartment without my handgun. That sort of stuff leaves an emotional mark on a person.
I think I was a very lucky person that day. :yep:
Yeah, a lot of people who oppose gun ownership change their mind when this happens. :ping:
mookiemookie
11-09-12, 10:51 AM
I was burglarized a few years ago. The emotional feeling afterwards is terrible.
I have no problem blasting a hole in anyone I catch in my home.
On the other hand, having been mugged, burglarized, and having lost a family member to random crime before, I've never really felt that owning a gun would somehow make me or my family safer. Carefully chosen neighbourhoods, solid metal doors in crappy neighbourhoods, and a bit of street-wisdom on the other hand have made me feel safer. And I say that as someone who's trained with firearms. I just honestly don't think that the problems of taking a gun into those situations outweigh the benefits, and in fact it's my opinion that a gun is as likely to escalate violence as prevent it in many cases.
Ultimately though, I have 0 problems with responsible gun ownership - I think people who think there is no such thing just need to go out to a firing range and meet some civil, gun-owning folks.
At the same time, the US does have a serious problem with gun crime. That is a statistic fact. I think this is a cultural problem rather than simply a matter of "guns are too legal", but when you compare gun crime (and generally violent crime) statistics between the US and Canada, or the US and most of Europe, some very uncomfortable questions come up. But solving them requires a much broader mindset than "guns vs. no guns".
Sailor Steve
11-09-12, 01:08 PM
It is one of many regulations concerning firearms.
Wrong. It regulates what convicted criminals can do. We're talking about honest citizens. Done.
So it isn't a drivers licence and it is governed by firearm regulations of which it is one.
Wrong again. I've explained it. Done.
It is still a firearms regulation
Wrong. There is a difference between regulating criminal activity and honest citizens.
interestingly enough there is another regulation in Vermont on the same vein where you don't even have to be convicted, just accused.
That is interesting. What does it say?
No they cover a wide range of people and situations.
No, they cover people considered to be unsafe to own a deadly weapon. The burden of proof is on the state, not the individual.
who has to satisfy the dealer by providing the information?
If every person who buys or sells to the dealer has to furnish him with all the information on themselves and the firearm then all those people are covered under the reguations not just the dealer.
The dealer is required to conduct an instant background check. If I'm a criminal he has to report it. If not, then all I have to do is give him my money.
So you say, but all you have provided is him talking about only some handguns, not even all handguns let alone all guns.
"Our ultimate goal, total control of all handguns, is going to take time". What part of "total" and "all" did you miss?
Thats highly conditional isn't it.
How so?
But you did, you didn't think about what was written.
Of course it was word games, after all the theme is why a phrase was meaningless as written.
No.
Read it through again.
Instead of writng "No, they can't." you should have written "Yes they can as there are lots and lots and lots of exceptions"
I suppose it like gun control where there are lots of regulations about guns, opiates are a controlled substance where there are lots of regulations about opiates.
Now you're telling me how I should have phrased my response to you? I phrased it perfectly well.
Yet his quoted statement doesn't cover it does it.
Commented on above.
Name a single example from history, after all in hundreds of years in hundreds of countries there should at least be an example which would show that to be a credible possibility.
Lexington and Concord, Massachussetts, April 19, 1775.
Do they though?
The only people that seem to be listening is gun nut weekly, which is on par with the Brady bunch but the other side of the field.
Your opinion is as valid as anyone's, but that's all it is.
Overall, I think we're done here.
CaptainHaplo
11-09-12, 01:37 PM
At the same time, the US does have a serious problem with gun crime. That is a statistic fact. I think this is a cultural problem rather than simply a matter of "guns are too legal", but when you compare gun crime (and generally violent crime) statistics between the US and Canada, or the US and most of Europe, some very uncomfortable questions come up. But solving them requires a much broader mindset than "guns vs. no guns".
Valid point.
I wonder - how many of the gun crimes that occur are committed by owners who legally have the gun in question? Compare that with the number of gun crimes committed by people who have a firearm illegally. I would bet that it would change many perspectives on the whole "gun/no gun" debate.
Tribesman
11-09-12, 01:42 PM
Wrong.
Which set of statutes does it come under.
Wrong again. I've explained it. Done.
Bollox there is nothing in that statement that is wrong.
Wrong.
Which set of statutes?
That is interesting. What does it say?
indicted for a felony.
No, they cover people considered to be unsafe to own a deadly weapon. The burden of proof is on the state, not the individual.
Not at all since there are several blankets, the burden of proof then goes to the individual.
The dealer is required to conduct an instant background check. If I'm a criminal he has to report it. If not, then all I have to do is give him my money.
Oh dear:nope: you keep getting confused, would you like to refresh your memory?
Remember that was about handguns in vermont.
"Our ultimate goal, total control of all handguns, is going to take time". What part of "total" and "all" did you miss?
Was it the part that goes all handguns with exceptions?
Or is that the part you missed:yep:
How so?
Because its a bloody big IF.
Now you're telling me how I should have phrased my response to you? I phrased it perfectly well.
No you phased it to perfectly walk into it.
Commented on above.
Dealt with above
Lexington and Concord, Massachussetts, April 19, 1775.
Doesn't cover all guns does it.
Tribesman
11-09-12, 01:47 PM
I wonder - how many of the gun crimes that occur are committed by owners who legally have the gun in question?
If a gun is used for a crime or intended to be used in a crime it is not legally held, another regulation:yep:
And yet another side to it is the fact that lack of guns does not mean lack of violent crime. Some parts of Britain for example are having a pretty serious problem with knife crime, something that is ultimately very difficult to regulate. Most of my own experience with violent crime was in Russia where despite guns being illegal and rarely used outside in crime of gang warfare, the murder rate was through the roof during the 90s, and most of said murders were committed with knives or blunt objects. Like gun crime in America, I think those things reflect cultural and social problems more than they do attitude to weapons.
While I have no principled connection between guns and freedom like some US citizens do, I do see how the idea of taking guns away from, say, your average guy who lives up in the hills of Tennessee is pretty absurd. It's almost like taking knives away from housewives or hunters - all it is is just another tool in the shed, one that they might be just a little attached to culturally, but honestly it's not the insane thing that some people seem to take it for. Handgun bans in DC or Chicago may make some sense, but at the same time, whether/how well they worked is still pretty difficult to say. The US is a big and complex country, culturally-speaking. No single solution to crime problems is ever going to work on a federal, or even state level. I think people need to pay less attention to guns, though, and more to what causes violent crime and how it can be dealt with better on a community level.
Armistead
11-09-12, 03:30 PM
And yet another side to it is the fact that lack of guns does not mean lack of violent crime. Some parts of Britain for example are having a pretty serious problem with knife crime, something that is ultimately very difficult to regulate. Most of my own experience with violent crime was in Russia where despite guns being illegal and rarely used outside in crime of gang warfare, the murder rate was through the roof during the 90s, and most of said murders were committed with knives or blunt objects. Like gun crime in America, I think those things reflect cultural and social problems more than they do attitude to weapons.
While I have no principled connection between guns and freedom like some US citizens do, I do see how the idea of taking guns away from, say, your average guy who lives up in the hills of Tennessee is pretty absurd. It's almost like taking knives away from housewives or hunters - all it is is just another tool in the shed, one that they might be just a little attached to culturally, but honestly it's not the insane thing that some people seem to take it for. Handgun bans in DC or Chicago may make some sense, but at the same time, whether/how well they worked is still pretty difficult to say. The US is a big and complex country, culturally-speaking. No single solution to crime problems is ever going to work on a federal, or even state level. I think people need to pay less attention to guns, though, and more to what causes violent crime and how it can be dealt with better on a community level.
Some good points! Guns are much more humane than being gutted with a knife or battered to death with a club. Imagine a world without guns, even knives, where people would have to resort to forks and spoons to kill.
and spoons to kill.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PpNKNkdKU6g/TNDpaYMnPDI/AAAAAAAACFs/bOy5n0dXjM4/s1600/Sheriff_Of_Nottingham.jpg
LOCKSLEY!!!!
Onkel Neal
12-29-12, 06:38 PM
Well, it happened again, our cycle shop was robbed a month ago, but this time the robber just grabbed an armful of Go Pro cameras and ran.
Then last week, in the Verizon store next door, two bandits held them up at gunpoint. It just so happened there were two off duty cops in that store, so a gunfight ensued. As far as I know, neither the cops nor the tards hit each other or anyone, but one of their stray bullets did penetrate the wall in our store and take out a full-face helmet.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=1&pictureid=6177
So, I am applying for hazard pay :know:
soopaman2
12-29-12, 08:18 PM
Just replying to Oberon.
Alan Rickman is god of all bad guys, you should see him as Rasputin in the HBO original film of the same name, awesome.
"no, a spoon will hurt more, you twit"
On gouging eyes out, and what implements would work better.
I bow before Alan!
Gee I wonder why there is so much crime :hmmm: isn't the wealth getting spread around enough,:hmmm: what people ain't getting their fare share so they just take it from others :hmmm: . Maybe they ought to think about banning subway trains.:hmmm: Didn't they just lift the pay freeze on federal employees this last friday, some got a raise , heard uncle Joe got a raise by executive order ,, how do you like that they get a raise and we get taxed that is just about, as bad as that super strom Sandy Pork fest bill they where trying to pass with 21 billion dollars weaved into it, on non storm related prodjects. No wonder I got hired as an armed door man at a gunshop.
Cybermat47
12-29-12, 09:55 PM
Gee I wonder why there is so much crime :hmmm: isn't the wealth getting spread around enough,:hmmm: what people ain't getting their fare share so they just take it from others :hmmm: . Maybe they ought to think about banning subway trains.:hmmm:
:hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::h mmm::hmmm: :hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm:
Tribesman
12-30-12, 05:35 AM
No wonder I got hired as an armed door man at a gunshop.
Coming soon to a elementary school near you Yubbaguard:har::har::har::har:
geetrue
12-31-12, 03:54 PM
Well, it happened again, our cycle shop was robbed a month ago, but this time the robber just grabbed an armful of Go Pro cameras and ran.
That looks like a perfect (almost) cut from a glass cutter and then a long sleeved arm premeditated quick grab on the side of the store without much traffic.
A real or a fake security camera you can see from every window should cure the problem ... then send the improvement to your insurance company for a rate deduction. :yep:
Onkel Neal
01-05-13, 08:23 AM
http://www.click2houston.com/news/Robbery-suspects-officers-exchange-gunfire/-/1735978/17891356/-/on69oy/-/index.html
http://www.click2houston.com/image/view/-/17891466/medRes/1/-/maxh/360/maxw/640/-/1ukluhz/-/Verizon-Wireless-shooting-jpg.jpg
Tribesman
01-05-13, 10:32 AM
You gotta love this story from Neals link
http://www.click2houston.com/news/Men-hospitalized-after-shootout-over-tractor/-/1735978/17988480/-/266x8/-/index.html
Meanwhile in Arizona:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20923201
*sigh*
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.