Firearms refresher course

[CigarStone]

They can have my gun when they pry my cold dead fingers from around it.


Fish

I got a gun for my wife the other day......best trade I ever made

 

[tigger]

Just to play Devil's Advocate, how do you explain Japan, England and the EU gun deaths or lack thereof. ???

Lower murder rates to begin with. Likely an increase in edged and blunt weapon attacks.

How about Rwanda, Darfur, and the like? Gun ownership would have been plenty helpful to all the people who have been hacked to death with machetes, etc.

Edited for too many "and the likes"

 

[grateful1]

 

[CigarStone]

Let's just look at it from a common sense point of view.

Take a major city and divide it in half, exercise gun control in one half and educate the people in the other half on the proper use of guns and follow this up with punishment for those who abuse the use of guns.

You may think that the education and punishment is expensive to enact but actually it would be quite the opposite. Here is a logical look at what would happen. Let's call the gun control half of the city "A" and the educated half of the city " B":

The criminals from from half "B" would move to half "A" because it would be more profitable and safe (for them) to operate there.

Law abiding citizens would move from half "A" to half "B" to be safe.

The tax base in half "B" would grow exponentially because the law abiding citizens will live there and the police and law enforcement costs would plummet therefore reducing the need for increased taxes.

The tax base in half "A" would be non-existent because only non-tax paying criminals would live there, sorta like the bad side of most of our major cities which then get subsidized by us

I think I'll run for president :whistling:

 

[tsmckenney]

Thank you for that!!! In a time of more and more pressure to get rid of legally owned guns, it is good to see some people still have it right!!!

Don

I've got a pistol in my dresser drawer of which I have never felt any pressure of losing. I do not understand this statement. Who is applying this pressure? EDITED to remove possible political statement.

Since the US has more people in jail per capita then any other first world nation your guess about punishment doesn't seem to be correct.

True, we have more people per capita in jail than any other leading country which would "seem" to indicate that we punish our criminals, but what criminals do we punish?. We also turn a blind eye to virtually all crime and those who commit it unless there is money to be made by exploiting it. We therefore have more criminals on the street per capita than any other leading country. But.......................this discussion is going way beyond my ability to state factual stats so I will let it drop.

Jeff, my brother, that is just not true. The US Attorney's Offices throughout the country reprioritze the cases they try every year based on what's going on in the country. Right now they are prosecuting meth and crack cases (as always), white collar fraud cases, PSC-related cases (Project Safe Childhood), etc. I just don't understand your statement.

They can have my gun when they pry my cold dead fingers from around it.


Fish

Who's they? Again, I don't get it.

Just to play Devil's Advocate, how do you explain Japan, England and the EU gun deaths or lack thereof. ???

How about Rwanda, Darfur, and the like? Gun ownership would have been plenty helpful to all the people who have been hacked to death with machetes and the like.

You're talking about countries who are tribally divided and run by corrupt governments. You think they are going to allow opposing tribes to own guns? Nope. Although, perhaps it's better to be shot to death than slashed to pieces.

I'm all for gun ownership, like I said, I own guns myself; but most people shouldn't even handle fireworks.... The harder it is for people to own guns, IMO, the better. Nothing wrong with discouraging the stupid and lazy.

 

[tsmckenney]

Take a major city and divide it in half, exercise gun control in one half and educate the people in the other half on the proper use of guns and follow this up with punishment for those who abuse the use of guns.

Again bro, the sentencing guidelines for crimes committed with guns vs. crimes committed without: Far Higher. Example: Robbing a bank with a gun, having drugs together with a gun, etc.

You get caught with a bag of crack and you're in trouble. Get got with a bag of crack and a gun and you're f.cked.

 

[Mike33]

While gun advocates love to trumpet the 2nd, there has yet to be a U.S. Supreme Court case to decide what exactly it means. Contrary to popular belief, it does not give individual citizens the right to carry any weapon, much less assault rifles or RPGs

The current case coming up (can't remember the name, about the D.C. gun control law), should provide a better definition of what the court thinks of the 2nd. But, who knows, they may just side-step the issue

 

[tigger]

You're talking about countries who are tribally divided and run by corrupt governments. You think they are going to allow opposing tribes to own guns? Nope. Although, perhaps it's better to be shot to death than slashed to pieces.

Didn't say I thought it was going to happen, just that many innocent people have died throughout history because they weren't allowed the proper tools to defend themselves.

Mike33 - gonna send a PM your way, as this is getting very very close to being a political discussion now.

 

[CigarStone]

Take a major city and divide it in half, exercise gun control in one half and educate the people in the other half on the proper use of guns and follow this up with punishment for those who abuse the use of guns.

Again bro, the sentencing guidelines for crimes committed with guns vs. crimes committed without: Far Higher. Example: Robbing a bank with a gun, having drugs together with a gun, etc.

You get caught with a bag of crack and you're in trouble. Get got with a bag of crack and a gun and you're f.cked.

Mick, my crazy brother, you are talking about the crimes that come to trial (again where there is a financial feather in someones cap for addressing that crime or sector of crime) . How about the rampant crime that exists every second of every day in the inner cities where gangs run free because cops won't even think of going up against the gangs? Talk to cops who patrol the bad side of any major city and they will tell you that for every crime that goes to trial there are a hundred that are never seen on the news and another hundred that simply aren't even reported.

 

[tsmckenney]

Take a major city and divide it in half, exercise gun control in one half and educate the people in the other half on the proper use of guns and follow this up with punishment for those who abuse the use of guns.

Again bro, the sentencing guidelines for crimes committed with guns vs. crimes committed without: Far Higher. Example: Robbing a bank with a gun, having drugs together with a gun, etc.

You get caught with a bag of crack and you're in trouble. Get got with a bag of crack and a gun and you're f.cked.

Mick, my crazy brother, you are talking about the crimes that come to trial (again where there is a financial feather in someones cap for addressing that crime or sector of crime) . How about the rampant crime that exists every second of every day in the inner cities where gangs run free because cops won't even think of going up against the gangs? Talk to cops who patrol the bad side of any major city and they will tell you that for every crime that goes to trial there are a hundred that are never seen on the news and another hundred that simply aren't even reported.

On that first point, not really. 95% of the cases that come in to US Attorney's Offices plead out, never go to trial. That's an actual number (btw). Evidence is usually pretty damning, and often there are big fish you can rat out to get a smaller sentence (not always a guarantee).

Second point: I talk with those cops all the time. I work in those neighborhoods. I'll be at a community meeting tonight mediating issues between the community, the cops and the Feds. I'm not just talking out of my ass here.

Gangs are a big, big time problem. Man, do I hear you there. Again though, the county and federal offices here take all the cases they can and then some. There's only so much you can do, and I don't see gangs going anywhere until more parents start loving their kids and giving them the support they need at home. That has always been the clear reason for kids getting into gangs: acceptance and support.

 

[CigarStone]

Mick:

I think you are talking more about our corrupt and failing legal system here than gun control.

 

[grateful1]

.....this is getting very very close to being a political discussion now.

Chicken!

 

[Devil Doc]

The District of Columbia has the stricktess gun control in the US. It has the highest per capita violent crime rate in the country, at 1.379 per 100 people. Vermont has no gun control laws, only Fish and Game regulations. It ranks No. 49 at 0.112 per 100 people. Linky I think that says it all.

Doc.

 

[Cooke]

I think there should be some safeguards from certain people from handling some firearms. However, there are some guns that serve no purpose except to kill people: Example. That is a completely legal rifle. You can try all you want to try and convince me that the Barrett .50 should be owned by everyday people but I don't think it will work. It is overkill for both hunting and self-protection purpose. No need to forget that if you pick up some armor-piercing rounds for that sucker, it will go in one window of the presidential limo and out the other from 500yds.

 

[CigarStone]

I think there should be some safeguards from certain people from handling some firearms. However, there are some guns that serve no purpose except to kill people: Example. That is a completely legal rifle. You can try all you want to try and convince me that the Barrett .50 should be owned by everyday people but I don't think it will work. It is overkill for both hunting and self-protection purpose. No need to forget that if you pick up some armor-piercing rounds for that sucker, it will go in one window of the presidential limo and out the other from 500yds.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Is there a waiver you must sign committing to use this weapon on people only?

I would love to own this gun and I would never turn a gun on a person unless it was in self defense.

 

[tigger]

.....this is getting very very close to being a political discussion now.

Chicken!

LOL! :laugh:

 

[grateful1]

.....this is getting very very close to being a political discussion now.

Chicken!

LOL! :laugh:

Remember - these don't mix either!

 

[PetersCreek]

While gun advocates love to trumpet the 2nd, there has yet to be a U.S. Supreme Court case to decide what exactly it means. Contrary to popular belief, it does not give individual citizens the right to carry any weapon, much less assault rifles or RPGs

A quibble. The Constituion doesn't "give" rights, excepted those granted to government by the the people.

Another quibble. True assault weapons, RPGs, and other destructive devices are already restricted by the National Firearm Act of 1934 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

Popular belief notwithstanding, the issue isn't nearly so settled on the side you seem to indicate: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Fortunately, we don't have to rely soley on the 2nd Amendment up here...

§ 19. Right to Keep and Bear Arms

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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. [Amended 1994]

Additionally, if it were ruled that the 2nd doesn't specifically protect an individual right, the question would still bear answering under the 10th...

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As for trumpeting...I'm also quite fond of the 1st, 3rd, 4th...hell, I think all of 'em are pretty damn spiffy.

 

[PetersCreek]

However, there are some guns that serve no purpose except to kill people: Example. That is a completely legal rifle. You can try all you want to try and convince me that the Barrett .50 should be owned by everyday people but I don't think it will work.

Did I miss some major news story about an epidemic of .50 caliber murders? Clearly, folks are putting these rifles to plenty of other uses without a human being in their sights. That you cannot fathom another purpose doesn't mean that there is in fact no other purpose.

 

[cobra97]

Let's just look at it from a common sense point of view.

Take a major city and divide it in half, exercise gun control in one half and educate the people in the other half on the proper use of guns and follow this up with punishment for those who abuse the use of guns.

You may think that the education and punishment is expensive to enact but actually it would be quite the opposite. Here is a logical look at what would happen. Let's call the gun control half of the city "A" and the educated half of the city " B":

The criminals from from half "B" would move to half "A" because it would be more profitable and safe (for them) to operate there.

Law abiding citizens would move from half "A" to half "B" to be safe.

The tax base in half "B" would grow exponentially because the law abiding citizens will live there and the police and law enforcement costs would plummet therefore reducing the need for increased taxes.

The tax base in half "A" would be non-existent because only non-tax paying criminals would live there, sorta like the bad side of most of our major cities which then get subsidized by us

I think I'll run for president :whistling:

Do I just write in "CigarStone" or ?