Why a Gun?

[Lost Cause]

....When we have police that can protect us? The Banshees that shriek their anti-gun, socialist rants, never tell you this. Enjoy!

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:

(A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: " Courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community. . . ."

(B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.

(C) The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.

(D) Currently, there are about 150,000 police officers on duty at any one time.
(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following:

(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals-or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker.

**I think I'll go hug my twelve gauge!**

 

[mig]

In no way do I disagree with ownership of guns.

I do think however that one of your biggest problem is gun security.

There are many cases,within families,where 'accidents' with
guns are reported.Too many instances of little Billy playing with
Daddy's gun and shooting himself or his little sister or brother
or friend.

Have your guns by all means but at least take the trouble to
educate people in safe handling procedures.

 

[Azwed]

and train them how to use them.

A gun is completly worthless if you are not skilled in its use.

 

[WhiteRose]

I honor the cops out there (and by extension, our armed forces) who are willing to put their lives on the line to help protect our communities and our country. Do I depend on them for my own personal safety? No, that's what Smith & Wesson are here for.

Growing up in a house with guns and a family with fathers and uncles and cousins who are/were all cops and military, none of us ever had a problem with guns going off when they shouldn't, but then all of us kids were taught gun safety at an early age, and I still wish they'd enforce signed certificates from a gun safety course before allowing purchases of any firearm, though I suppose that wouldn't stop sales of used guns and definitely wouldn't have an impact on illegal guns, but most guns that end up going off in homes "accidentally" were purchased legally from stores, so maybe that would help a little.

(edited for spelling )

 

[Sillyman]

Before you read this keep in mind I am very much for the ownership of firearms of all sorts.

Bad things about guns-

1)Its way too easy for kids to get into shit and find your gun. Your options are to keep it locked away and unloaded where it won't do you any fucking good, or try to teach the kid gun safety and pray your DNA is worth survivng.

2)Someone breaks into your house when you are not there is now armed. This is very bad and how criminals get guns to begin with.

3)Too many people get a gun without knowing anything about them. You don't need a .357, your dick could not possibly be that small.

4)Hunting accidents really suck.

5)I live in a house full of crazy people. This isn't a problem for most, but for my household a gun would more than likely be used in a suicide threat or against another family member

6)Cops get really antsy around guns and they are trained to be able to kill you. Don't draw your wallet to fast.

7)If you draw a gun on a criminal who is also packing, they may feel the need to shoot you when they would have previously just threatened.

Keeping those in mind, remember kids, guns are fucking cool. Go NRA.

 

[scylis]

people who buy a handgun should realize that if they have it, they should damn well be prepared to use it. if you point it at somebody, you better be prepared to pull that trigger. bluffing may work on some, but not others, and it may very well make things worse.

and also, guns don't come with a handy "stun" setting, and "winging" an attacker is a lot harder than it sounds. if you shoot and you kill, you'll be charged with manslaughter as a minimum, no matter what events led up to the incident. you'll go before a judge and s/he will decide if the charges should be dropped or not. (at least, that's how they do it up here in AK)

 

[MechaBlade]

Wow, that actually changes a lot of things for me.

I'm still to scared to have a gun in my home at this point though.

 

[proff]

Gunz Gunz Gunz

I own a pistol. I have a permit to cary it concealed on me but I usually do not. I have been trained in the use of a pistol and treat them with the utmost respect. I dont wave it around like some retard. I also do not let anyone know where I keep it and have no kids. there have been times when I was threatened in my home and knowing I could reach my gun if it became necessary gave me the confidence to handle the situation and do what I had to. You must be comfortable with your weapon or it is more dagerous than not having one. If you chose to purchase a gun make the time to familiarize yourself and go to the range as much as possible. Its fun. Go. Do it.
But be safe!

 

[Synnerman]

and train them how to use them.

A gun is completly worthless if you are not skilled in its use.

Rather obvious conclusion. By extension of your theory your cock is useless if you are not skilled in it's use. Do you think we should ask to have it removed?

Automobiles kill more citizens each year than guns. I guess we need to ban cars also.

This could go on forever. Education is the answer not banning the missused product.

 

[Azwed]

Rather obvious conclusion. By extension of your theory your cock is useless if you are not skilled in it's use. Do you think we should ask to have it removed?

Automobiles kill more citizens each year than guns. I guess we need to ban cars also.

This could go on forever. Education is the answer not banning the missused product.

Did I say anything about having guns banned?

Well I just reread my post and never said anything about banning. I have never ever said anything about banning guns in all my posts talking about guns.

I don't think guns need to be banned I think people need to be required to take a saftey course along with a profficency course when they buy a gun.

Nothing too advanced just the basics so they know how to shoot.
Aiming for center of mass or aming for the X-ring depnding on your shooting vocabulary. How to draw a weapon from a holster and fire quickly with accuracy and precision. This is something many people don't know how to do and it is a very important skill if you are going to defend yourself.

I used to shoot a fair amount. I have a lot of natural skill and I know a fair amount about different types of fire arms because I have studied them. I don't however have much experience with many different type of firearms. Just a 9mm berrata a .22 Rueger and a few various types of rifles/shotguns. I have a lot of natural skill but not a lot of experience. I personaly would not feel comfortable owning a gun for my own protection that I carried around with me concealed. I would not feel comfortable doing that untill I had trained for a very long time. First to brush up on my shooting skills which are pretty rusty and then to become intimatley familar with the new gun and the holster I was using.

I would probably ask a couple of people I know to teach me how to shoot in various situations. I have always shot on a range where I am either already holding the gun or the gun is sitting on the table before I shoot. Drawing a gun while on the move, from a concealed position in a recidence or in public is much different.

I could go on and on but I don't feel like it because I am tired. You jumped to a stupid conclusion about banning weapons when I only talked about people being trained to use them.

Have you not noticed my multiple gun AV's. My last one had one of the 16 inch guns from the Wisconsian firing with a perfect sphere of fire at the tip and my title was fire flower at the time. Before that I had a couple of other 16 inch gun shots and a shot of the Thunderbolt II/Warthog's main cannon. I like guns. My title before Fire Flower was Big Guns are Cool.


Maybe we should remove your brain because your logic function does not seem to be working.

 

[SINthysist]

Spaces. We have lots of spaces. The sherriff almost always responds (hell, most of the time, it's family...), but our 911 response time is not exactly measured in minutes, more likely, "Did you get to it after lunch."

Guns are a way of life. So is learning to handle them.

Azwed is right. He is a gun lover. Probably fondling it now. He has got one of those new goo guns that are supposed to immobilize the attacker with a big wad. Of course, he's still working on the fine adjustments to the trigger...

 

[Guest]

I said it before - here it is again......

If I had the magic power to 'make go away' all obvious man-made implements of life distruction - non-sport guns, military bombs and missles, none cooking/kitchen knives - you get the idea - all 'obvious' weapons - I would do so.

But - that's magic. I doesn't happen. No magic in our lives. Nope.

So, these weapons are here. And, no matter how many folks, today/currently might 'ban together' to 'outlaw' guns - and even if they might partially succeed - I would think it logical that there would still be many, many guns out there in the world in the hands of people who very well might want to do me and my family harm. I don't believe that any attempt at banning guns in any way - any where - would be effective in protecting my family. It just doesn't seem mathmatically feasible.

So, I own some guns for that primary reason - security. My secondary reason is that I'm a great shot and I have fun with my guns. Yes fun. It feels good to do something well. Thirdly - I love the power of a personal firearm. Yep - sounds a bit off but what can I say - I like the feeling of power. Fourthly - I like the engineering and craftsmanship of a well designed and built weapon. I'm interested in ballistics, design materials - it's simple technology - and I find it interesting.

I just picked up my Kel-Tec Subrifle 2000 in 9mm yesterday. And I'm saving for a SigSauer in .357 Sig and extra barrel in .40S&W.

I shot my first firearm at age 8, trained by my father. The Marines took my training yet further. Both my older sons have been trained. The Shebabe is in the process. I beleive that like swimming or riding a bicycle - everyone should be 'familiarized' in the safe handling and power of firearms. Everyone! A much more practical approach than banning guns - to me.

And if we could do that - the world would be a far safer place.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

That was me Sparky.

Board foolin' with me again.

 

[SINthysist]

I bet you libs would mind your p's & q's with an armed Sparky in the room...

 

[BustyTheClown]

Re: I said it before - here it is again......

If I had the magic power to 'make go away' all obvious man-made implements of life distruction - non-sport guns, military bombs and missles, none cooking/kitchen knives - you get the idea - all 'obvious' weapons - I would do so.

But - that's magic. I doesn't happen. No magic in our lives. Nope.

So, these weapons are here. And, no matter how many folks, today/currently might 'ban together' to 'outlaw' guns - and even if they might partially succeed - I would think it logical that there would still be many, many guns out there in the world in the hands of people who very well might want to do me and my family harm.

After reading the first post in this thread, I'd have to agree with most of what you said, Sparky. I've been strongly "anti-gun," and I'd love to get rid of all "man-made implements of destruction"... But with time I've realized how narrow-minded that can be. I'm not sure how accurate the statistics are about how many people defend themselves with guns and all that, and I will take those numbers with a grain of salt, but I'd never realized that the police didn't have an obligation to protect individuals.

Does that seem at all strange to the rest of you? <scratches her head> Hm, it does to me. I know there is a difference between society and an individual, but at the same time, society is made up of individuals. I guess it just seems wierd to me that they would protect society as a whole, but not sometimes have an obligation to protect the components of that society. Honestly, it gives me a little less faith in the police.

Anyway, I agree with most people here -- which is something I never thought I'd do. Firearms are ok, just train people with them and make it a lot safer to have them around. I won't go out and buy any guns anytime soon, but I don't think people should be banned from purchasing them if they feel the need to own them.

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: I said it before - here it is again......

After reading the first post in this thread, I'd have to agree with most of what you said, Sparky. I've been strongly "anti-gun," and I'd love to get rid of all "man-made implements of destruction"... But with time I've realized how narrow-minded that can be. I'm not sure how accurate the statistics are about how many people defend themselves with guns and all that, and I will take those numbers with a grain of salt, but I'd never realized that the police didn't have an obligation to protect individuals.

Does that seem at all strange to the rest of you? <scratches her head> Hm, it does to me. I know there is a difference between society and an individual, but at the same time, society is made up of individuals. I guess it just seems wierd to me that they would protect society as a whole, but not sometimes have an obligation to protect the components of that society. Honestly, it gives me a little less faith in the police.

Anyway, I agree with most people here -- which is something I never thought I'd do. Firearms are ok, just train people with them and make it a lot safer to have them around. I won't go out and buy any guns anytime soon, but I don't think people should be banned from purchasing them if they feel the need to own them.

There ya go Busty.

You might want to read this. And the rest of you too.

http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

Ishmael

 

[Quisath]

I will defend.................

All that is meaningful and Loved. I have never been anti-gun and never will be. I will prepare my children and my childrens Children in the SAFE USE of Firearms. I will defend my Countries Freedom and I will NEVER SURRENDER to MY ENEMY. This is my Right as an AMERICAN and for you bleeding heart Liberals................BE COWARDS if you must................but leave the Rest of us Alone. I may have strayed from the original thread and I apologize. Just wanted to make perfectly Clear my Thoughts and Opinions.

 

[Azwed]

So sin do you do a search for al lof PP's posts are mine every morning?

Oh and you are probably just jealous cause I have all my hair.

 

[Ishmael]

HeHe

I bet you libs would mind your p's & q's with an armed Sparky in the room...

Bet you Sparky would be nervous if he knew I was anywhere within 1000 meters or so.

Ishmael

 

[SINthysist]

Az. You are barely coherent. My hair, judging by your avatar, is longer and thicker, black...

yes, p_p_ is a favorite friend from way back, another time, another name, lost in the mists, speaking of Mist, I need to go pour another...

 

[SINthysist]

Ishmael

Militiaman unrepentant...

 

[JazzManJim]

Re: Re: I said it before - here it is again......

Does that seem at all strange to the rest of you? <scratches her head> Hm, it does to me. I know there is a difference between society and an individual, but at the same time, society is made up of individuals. I guess it just seems wierd to me that they would protect society as a whole, but not sometimes have an obligation to protect the components of that society. Honestly, it gives me a little less faith in the police.

I"m guessing that the reason for that is an important bit of legal semantics.

I have a lot of experience with the police. I can safely say two things about them. First, they do everything in their power to protect the public and property, as is their mission. Second, there's not even close to enough of them to do the job most of us think they ought to be doing. their burden gets tougher and tougher as much more of their time gets consumed in paperwork and administrative garbage which leaves less for patrol and enforcement work.

Here's an example. There was a recent court decision that required police departments to keep detailed records on the racial makeup of the offenders on whom they made traffic stops. It's not entirely an unreasonable demand on them, regardless of my own personal feelings. One department with which I have experience decided to handle this by having the officers fill out a one-page form with all sorts of information on it. They have to fill out a separate form for each traffic stop they make and submit that form attached to the citation or warning they've issued for that stop. The c/w goes to one office at their Headquarters and the form goes to another (though each office is in the same building). Each gets entered into a separate database once it arrives.

There's little difference in the information that's captured on the c/w and the new form. What we're talking about here is the duration of the traffic stop and whether or not there was a search of the vehicle or people. It would have been a fairly simple matter to have the officer add those pieces of information to the c/w in the comment section. Of course, they didn't do that.

The new form takes about ten to fifteen minutes to fill out, and about that long for their supervisor to check for accuracy (things like spelling and other obvious mistakes). Let's assume that the officer makes 15 vehicle stops in an 8-hour period (a pretty low number for most departments around me). That adds up to about 150-225 minutes every day that the officer has to spend filling out this form. let's be conservative and assume that it only takes 90 minutes, because the officer is fast, doesn't write neatly, and has some sort of system to help him fill these forms out more easily. That still means that they have to take 90 minutes out of their day to do this new paperwork. That's 90 minutes that they're not out patrolling the roads and neighborhoods or responding to a call for service or dealing directly with the public.

This is a common thing. Often, new demands are placed on patrol officers that whittle away at their time until they have precious little time to do the actual job we have entrusted to them.

 

[OUTSIDER]

and train them how to use them.

A gun is completly worthless if you are not skilled in its use.

I haven't read the whole of this thread so forgive me if someone has already said this but one of the most highly armed peoples in the world are the Swiss, they have 90% gun ownership and one of the lowest murder rates around..........but they also have to attend compulsory training about every two years I believe.

 

[Texan]

I just wanted to post to express my thanks to Ishmael for putting up the link to that article. That was an excellent read.

I believe in safety in all things.... especially guns. I have children so I have a gun safe behind a concealed door, and I use it.

I also believe in the rights and responsibility of the individual to defend his life, family and property.

My dad was career "Dept of Justice" and carried a gun every working day. He was also a competitive pistol shooter. I grew up around guns and spent MANY Saturdays at the range. I bought my first Remington single shot .22 when I was 11, with money I made mowing neighborhood lawns.

There was a different culture 35 years ago in this country; at least in the cities. When I was in school, and two kids had a dispute, it was settled after school with bare hands. Now, too many kids settle their disputes with Saturday night specials. NO!!!, that does not mean we should ban handguns in an effort to keep them out of the hands of criminals. It means we should guarantee the rights of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against the "new" criminality.

I am surprised not to have seen the "gun registration" issue come up in this thread. Gun registration is happening without ever having been passed by any legislature. The "right to carry" laws are actually another method of registering gun ownership. Background checks prior to purchase are good, and understandable, but a permanent record is kept by government of every firearms purchase.

The anti-gun loby (HGI) is incrementally eroding the right to bear arms. At first, it was assault weapons. Those of you who know guns probably know HOW an assault weapon was defined. It was defined by "physical characteristics" of the gun. Clip capacity, the color of the gun, and if the stock was nylon were the three main characteristics mentioned. STUPID!!!

Now, the anti-gun loby is going after "semi-automatics". Have you noticed that EVERY news story that talks about a gun being used in a crime, uses the term "semi-automatic" over and over again. Hell, nearly half the firearms sold in this country are semi-automatics. And I can fire a revolver almost as fast as a semi-automatic anyway. Most non-gun owners have no idea what semi-automatic means. I'm guessing many of them think it's just a machine, gun only slower. Of course, the anti-gun loby knows that if they can instill enough fear of the dreaded semi-automatics, and get them outlawed, then they can eliminate half the guns in America with one law. THEN, they'll start working on the rest of the guns..... and gun owners.

It costs $25 per year to be a member of the NRA. That's a very small price to support the ONLY serious opposition to the very powerful anti-gun loby.

None of my guns are registered, nor will they EVER be. I don't have a "concealed carry" permit, but I carry when I feel it is necessary. I live in Texas, so I can carry any gun so long as it's out in the open for anyone to see. Damn, I love this state....

I am a middle of the road, pro-choice, social moderate. The gun issue is one of the reasons that I am a strongly supportive Republican.

 

[Weevil]

I'll tell you why I carry a gun, the damn government isn't letting me carry around that tupperware jar full of anthrax anymore.

Flash that to a fucker who's stepping to you an he backs down right quick.