Gun Ownership

[Ross Craney]

Recently read an article about an interview with General Cosgrove
( ex Aust armed forces chief). He was questioned about a group of scouts who had recently been hosted by an army training facility. Little bit of weapons training & a bit of range work. The interviewer asked if he realised that he was equiping them for a possible life of violence or crime. To which he replied , " you are equiped to be a prostitute but I'm sure you won't become one " - end of interview.
Not sure if it's true , but sure is funny.

 

[monkeybiter]

To which he replied , " you are equiped to be a prostitute but I'm sure you won't become one "

LOL

I'll have to remember that!

The primary weapon is always between the ears. All the blunt instruments and pointy things are just add-ons. Most of us are presented with endless opportunities to hurt someone if choose to, but we don't.

 

[Speakerguy]

I enjoy being a gun owner. Practice at the range for me is like shooting pool or bowling. Just a fun activity, the point being to hone your skill simply for the sake of doing something well. I do not own any firearms I would consider defensive weapons, though I have thought about purchasing one since I live near the Texas coastline, and the last couple hurricanes have had me re-thinking what my needs would be in a situation with no power/food for weeks in a populated area. Even so, I have no plans to buy a purpose-built defensive weapon.

As for the laws, well - most of us live and vote in democratically governed countries. Gun control / the right to keep and bear arms is an issue that has been well explored and few people will change their minds on. If a society is content with their gun laws, then let it be so. If not, then let them change them.

 

[GonzoEngineer]

I am a Combat Veteran ,(Vietnam). I have shot at people and been shot.

When I got out of the service in 1973 I had no need for guns.

I never bought a gun till many years later, when my neighborhood was having severe problems with scumbags and drug dealers.

Repeated calls to the police did no good, and things were getting worse.

My teenage daughter was being harrassed by gangbangers everyday on the way home from school.

My home had been burglarized three times in as many weeks.

So I bought a shotgun. And the next time those scumbags came onto my front porch they were staring down the barrel of a 12 gauge!

The punks left quick, and never came back. Problem solved!

What do you think would have happened if I didn't have the right to point that shotgun at them?

 

[Ambient]

There was a post that I read the other day but can't find now. Maybe it was edited? Anyways this is my response.

I am a gun owner, and I do carry concealed sometimes. In MA, USA this is very restricted. Even a juvenile record can disqualify you! I have never drawn in self defense, and hope I never have to. But the idea that just because criminals will only have knives does not mean I should have to defend myself with a knife. The notion that the playing field for a good upstanding citizen with no criminal record and some criminal should be even is disturbing. If someone pulls a knife on you and intends to use it you are in a very bad situation. A knife or any melee weapon attack, is very up close and personal. Much more violent than a firearm. Personally, I would rather be shot at. And the notion that I should not have the right to use a firearm in that situation is ridiculous. A criminal should be in fear for his life. I should not be in fear for mine.

People keep bringing up licensing and serialized ammo... We already license firearms in the US (not everywhere though). If you are already a criminal then it is a felony to even handle a firearm. But guess what...a criminal does not care. I agree with licensing, but further restrictions only affect non-criminals. Cmon people it is really simple logic here... And there are MANY MANY more responsible firearms owners than criminals. Will we let a TINY percentage ruin it for everyone? In a society that allows people to continually get DUI's with just a slap on the wrist it is amazing to me how honest gun owners are made to look like evil hicks.

Here is my solution to gun crime: MANDATORY 25 years minimum for ANY criminal who uses a firearm in a crime or is in possession of one. no bargains, no compassionate judges, just mandatory time. Period.

I find it interesting that the anti-gunners go after the good guys with guns. Meanwhile their softy left-leaning judges give criminals who cause the actual problems years instead of decades in prison. They are not trying to solve the problem, only take away a freedom that they have a problem with. Listen, if you don't like guns that is your business. Stay out of ours, please. We don't take kindly to your not taking kindly around here!

 

[dknguyen]

There was a post that I read the other day but can't find now. Maybe it was edited? Anyways this is my response.

I am a gun owner, and I do carry concealed sometimes. In MA, USA this is very restricted. Even a juvenile record can disqualify you! I have never drawn in self defense, and hope I never have to. But the idea that just because criminals will only have knives does not mean I should have to defend myself with a knife. The notion that the playing field for a good upstanding citizen with no criminal record and some criminal should be even is disturbing. If someone pulls a knife on you and intends to use it you are in a very bad situation. A knife or any melee weapon attack, is very up close and personal. Much more violent than a firearm. Personally, I would rather be shot at. And the notion that I should not have the right to use a firearm in that situation is ridiculous. A criminal should be in fear for his life. I should not be in fear for mine.

People keep bringing up licensing and serialized ammo... We already license firearms in the US (not everywhere though). If you are already a criminal then it is a felony to even handle a firearm. But guess what...a criminal does not care. I agree with licensing, but further restrictions only affect non-criminals. Cmon people it is really simple logic here... And there are MANY MANY more responsible firearms owners than criminals. Will we let a TINY percentage ruin it for everyone? In a society that allows people to continually get DUI's with just a slap on the wrist it is amazing to me how honest gun owners are made to look like evil hicks.

Here is my solution to gun crime: MANDATORY 25 years minimum for ANY criminal who uses a firearm in a crime or is in possession of one. no bargains, no compassionate judges, just mandatory time. Period.

I find it interesting that the anti-gunners go after the good guys with guns. Meanwhile their softy left-leaning judges give criminals who cause the actual problems years instead of decades in prison. They are not trying to solve the problem, only take away a freedom that they have a problem with. Listen, if you don't like guns that is your business. Stay out of ours, please. We don't take kindly to your not taking kindly around here!

Refresh our memory on some points this post mentioned, because I don't remember seeing any posts edited significantly.

 

[Ambient]

There was a post I had read that said that people have no need for a firearm if criminals only had access to knives. Maybe I misread it but that is what I remember. I skimmed the posts but did not see it. The rest is my crazy hick ranting

 

[dknguyen]

I don't remember those words personally.

 

[Ambient]

You are statistically more likely to be shot by the gun stored in your own house than one brought onto the premises by someone else.
Private gun ownership has no place in a civilized society.
Private gun ownership is absolutely essential in a uncivilized society.
It depends on where you live I guess.

Point 1: Accidental shootings only apply to that, and accidents are accidents. You are also statistically more likely to die in your own car. Being around and handling guns automatically makes you more likely to be shot, just like driving. This point is wayyy overused and not understood fully. There are many accidents each year from people cleaning their guns without checking the chamber first. Children do find them sometimes, too. That is why they must be properly stored. But sadly people screw up...

Point 2: Says who? Someone who does not like them, obviously. But if it was a civilized society then owning a gun would be fine because everyone would use them as a hobby or for hunting.

Point 3: There is no civilized society, and never has been. Sorry to disappoint you but people just don't get along...period.

 

[Ambient]

Yes people still get murdered here in the UK.

We don't have much of a problem with guns now, it's knives and you can't exactly ban them.
......

The idea that carrying a gun helps you to defend yourself is nonsense. Here in the UK most criminals don't carry guns so people don't need guns to defend themselves. If the law was changed to make gun ownership a right then criminals would certainly start to carry them. What means is that if someone wants to rob you, they'll just make sure they shoot you first before you shoot them.

......

Found it, finally.

Yes, in a situation like a mugging defending yourself with a firearm can escalate things further than they would have it you just hand them your wallet. That is why you must use your best judgment and keep a cool head. If the criminal looks benign then throw him your cash and tell him to screw while you back away toward other people. That is easier than getting into an altercation and having to get an attorney, etc... But if he comes at you after you toss him your cash you have a big decision to make. People who rob you automatically are not the most level headed, and I would rather be the guy with the bigger stick, so to speak.

Another solution is to only carry plastic. I don't carry more than $20 in cash unless I plan on spending it that day. But usually I use plastic and carry cash for highway robbery, er, I mean, tolls. Take away the cash element and muggings will go down, but home invasions may go up Backing down from criminal elements should be avoided by any society looking to actually fix a problem.

 

[Leftyretro]

Point 1: Accidental shootings only apply to that, and accidents are accidents. You are also statistically more likely to die in your own car. Being around and handling guns automatically makes you more likely to be shot, just like driving. This point is wayyy overused and not understood fully. There are many accidents each year from people cleaning their guns without checking the chamber first. Children do find them sometimes, too. That is why they must be properly stored. But sadly people screw up...

Point 2: Says who? Someone who does not like them, obviously. But if it was a civilized society then owning a gun would be fine because everyone would use them as a hobby or for hunting.

Point 3: There is no civilized society, and never has been. Sorry to disappoint you but people just don't get along...period.

Well I too support gun ownership but your arguments are skied to the opposite extreme. There is such a thing as civilized society Vs uncivilized society. There is rule of law in civilized society, but of course it isn't perfect because it has to judicate over imperfect humans. I think your idea on mandatory lengthy sentences for run possession in the act of committing a crime is a good one and I suspect it is the law in some states, maybe not 25 years but good hard time non the less.

So my point is that one doesn't have to go to extreme arguments to justify legal gun ownership. It should be a right until proven that one can't be responsible with one in a civilized society. I think the anti-gun crowd feels that somehow eliminating guns would eliminate crime and murder and that is just not realistic or logical. I guess it's possible that an outright band would lower the murder rate somewhat but is that a fair tradoff for the many people who responsibly own guns to have that right taken away? I still wish to reserve my freedom and right to purchase a firearm at some future date.

Lefty

 

[Mikebits]

In a society that allows people to continually get DUI's with just a slap on the wrist it is amazing to me how honest gun owners are made to look like evil hicks.

This is not something that you can generalize to a society, as in America. DUI's are regulated at a state level and not federal.

I don't know what the DUI laws are in your state, but here in Ca, a second DUI is a felony and can carry a jail term. Third DUI is mandatory jail sentence plus tens of thousands in fines.

If your state is lenient in this matter, then I think the people in your state have not spoken loudly enough to change your state laws.

 

[Leftyretro]

This is not something that you can generalize to a society, as in America. DUI's are regulated at a state level and not federal.

I don't know what the DUI laws are in your state, but here in Ca, a second DUI is a felony and can carry a jail term. Third DUI is mandatory jail sentence plus tens of thousands in fines.

If your state is lenient in this matter, then I think the people in your state have not spoken loudly enough to change your state laws.

Even the first offense in Ca is going to cost you a lot of coin and driving restrictions.

Lefty

 

[Ambient]

Yea the first two strikes here are misdemeanors. Which they should not be, in my opinion. This is serious stuff, not some game. But if you have money or are famous, or an official, the third strike does not seem to apply...

July 4th, last year, two of my friends got plowed into by a drunk in a pickup, driving with a suspended license, no insurance, and he left the scene. Then came back and claimed they cut him off! He hit them so hard they went from 30 to an estimated 60, right into a concrete wall of an on-ramp. One ended up in critical condition, and is still recovering and just recently can walk again. Meanwhile this parasite is STILL walking around! He was released the next day...

Sorry if I generalized too much. You probably have more DUI's in CA, as you have more Hollywood losers. And I bet many of them get away with it, too. I am sorry if I offend anyone, but I am really intolerant when it comes to people putting others in danger.


Anyways, It would be nice if credit card companies did not charge so much interest. Then maybe more people would forget about carrying cash and would help lower the mugging rates. Spread the idea guys! Just make sure to not use your plastics as a loan. Baaaad idea...

 

[Mikebits]

Sorry if I generalized too much. You probably have more DUI's in CA, as you have more Hollywood losers. And I bet many of them get away with it, too. I am sorry if I offend anyone, but I am really intolerant when it comes to people putting others in danger.

Ca has a 29% car accidents related to DUI as compared to Ma 35%. You really should do your homework before you spew blanket statements.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

July 4th, last year, two of my friends got plowed into by a drunk in a pickup, driving with a suspended license, no insurance, and he left the scene. Then came back and claimed they cut him off! He hit them so hard they went from 30 to an estimated 60, right into a concrete wall of an on-ramp. One ended up in critical condition, and is still recovering and just recently can walk again. Meanwhile this parasite is STILL walking around! He was released the next day...

A lady who used to work here had a mother who was struck by a car.

She was stood at a bus stop, along with a dozen or so other people, when this car ploughed into them at high speed. Most were killed on the spot, and the few survivors were all seriously injured.

The driver got off without any charges, because all witnesses were either dead or had no memory of what happened - apparently the 70 yard skid marks were 'circumstantial', and they couldn't charge him from those.

 

[Mikebits]

Just make sure to not use your plastics as a loan. Baaaad idea...

Seen enough Judge Judy

 

[dknguyen]

A lady who used to work here had a mother who was struck by a car.

She was stood at a bus stop, along with a dozen or so other people, when this car ploughed into them at high speed. Most were killed on the spot, and the few survivors were all seriously injured.

The driver got off without any charges, because all witnesses were either dead or had no memory of what happened - apparently the 70 yard skid marks were 'circumstantial', and they couldn't charge him from those.

Excuse my language, but that's F*d up.

 

[Mikebits]

A lady who used to work here had a mother who was struck by a car.

She was stood at a bus stop, along with a dozen or so other people, when this car ploughed into them at high speed. Most were killed on the spot, and the few survivors were all seriously injured.

The driver got off without any charges, because all witnesses were either dead or had no memory of what happened - apparently the 70 yard skid marks were 'circumstantial', and they couldn't charge him from those.

Was this A DUI related offense?

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Was this A DUI related offense?

No, apparently it wasn't - if he had tested positive for alcohol it would have been a different story