We considered moving our company to Virginia (professional staff). When word got out, wives were against moving there because of the pro-gun stance of the State.
We dumped Virginia. But it surprised us.
They get what they create.
This, along with a couple other quotes throughout the thread are ridiculous, and nothing but regurgitated anti-gun rhetoric.
Why? Let's evaluate it. It's short and simple, unless you are truly clueless.
1) Gun laws only keep honest citizens honest. Criminals do not care about the law.
Time and time again, when a gun is used in a crime the innocent, law abiding citizens of this country are made to pay for the ignorance of a criminal. Even more disturbing is that such legislation (passed or proposed) has no effect on the criminals as they don't follow the law. In the end, the people become further neutered of their rights in the name of "progress" and "safety".
2) Criminals don't say, "Gee, time to go rob the local Gas N Go, so I better go buy a new gun."
It's true. They don't care about gun laws, and they are sure not going to shell out any more money than they have to in order to acquire a gun. When they do get their hands on one, they aren't buying one from an honest citizen either. They're buying it from another criminal, and the gun was originally stolen at some point from someone who legally purchased it.
The cheaper they can get it, the better. They're not going to go into the local gun shop, submit to a NICS check, and thus be associated as the owner of that gun. Let alone are they going to pay hundreds and hundreds of dollars for it legitimately when they can get one from their local criminal buddy for $25 (give or take).
---
While I will not say that 100% of all crimes fit this pattern, it is the very rare (thousandths of a percent) that do not. The liberal media does not want the people to know this, else they will become wiser to the plot. All it takes is to wake up and realize that bad people do bad things. That is who needs to be targeted with legislation. Keeping honest people honest is of little effect, as the criminals could care less about what law Mr. or Mrs. Senator tries to pass.
Next, Virgina is a certainly a state that recognizes that the Constitution provides every citizen with certain unalienable rights. One of those rights being the right to not only keep, but to also bear arms.
Virginia allows its citizens to, after sufficient firearms training has been completed, submit an application to carry a concealed firearm. The applicant must also submit fingerprints, and a background investigation will be conducted.
Do you honestly think criminals are going to do this? No, they don't. They simply stick the gun they bought (that was stolen) in their pants, and hope they stay up.
So if by one saying that Virginia is "pro-gun" means that they understand and respect the Constitution of the United States, and the rights it provides for its citizens, then yes, it is gun friendly.
---
So a business fears citizens who have willingly submitted to a background check, been fingerprinted, and for all intensive purposes are now in the system? I find that insulting. Not only because a business with this stance has declared that my money isn't good enough for them, but also throws the Constitution out the window in a complete lack of respect for it and the individual rights it contains.
I bet "this business" wasn't aware that they can put up signs which notify legally carrying, honest citizens that they would like them to not bring their guns inside. It is every businesses right to do so. However, be aware of two things:
a) Honest citizens will respect your wishes, and they will take their money elsewhere.
b) You're creating a big "Welcome Criminals, Come Rob Me" zone. Criminals see a "no weapons" sign, and know that honest people will abide by that businesses wishes. In turn they also know that their likelihood of being shot is significantly reduced compared to the business across the street with no such sign.
Law enforcement is a needed, valued service across this country. However, let's face it, they are a reactive force and not a proactive force. They respond to calls unless it is that extremely rare case where they just happen to be there. Yes, it's rare. Criminals just don't waltz into a business to commit their crime with a police/sherrif/highway patrol vehicle parked outside. The average criminal isn't the brightest bulb in the light fixture, however they aren't that dumb. Although there is always that one that is on occasion.
---
What happened in this Apple store is tragic, let me be clear in that.
Let's not turn this tragedy into an anti-gun paradise by stepping up to recognize that bad guys do bad things, they don't care about nor follow the law, and that stepping on the toes of law abiding citizens is the wrong approach.
The bad guy in this tragedy is lucky that he didn't cross paths with someone not afraid to stand up for their rights. His future would have been non-existent, and there would be one less bad guy in the world.
They're buying it from another criminal, and the gun was originally stolen at some point from someone who legally purchased it.
I think statistics show that people who live in homes where guns are kept are more likely to be shot than non-gun owners. If you don't own a gun it can't be stolen from you.
I think statistics show that people who live in homes where guns are kept are more likely to be shot than non-gun owners. If you don't own a gun it can't be stolen from you.
You "think" statistics show? Do criminals classify as gun owners? I wonder how many guns a typical gun owner owns?
It is better to be on the ground wishing you were in an airplane than being on an airplane wishing you were on the ground.
The same can be said for the time you need a gun.
As stated above, criminals don't care if the US banned all guns today. They would have guns 10,000 years from now if the needed them to carry out a crime.
You "think" statistics show? Do criminals classify as gun owners? I wonder how many guns a typical gun owner owns?
It is better to be on the ground wishing you were in an airplane than being on an airplane wishing you were on the ground.
The same can be said for the time you need a gun.
As stated above, criminals don't care if the US banned all guns today. They would have guns 10,000 years from now if the needed them to carry out a crime.
I wasn't making an argument just stating the obvious. As a matter of fact I do own guns and lots of them. And for your airplane analogy, it depends on which location is safer at a given time. Same for guns. Since most legal gun owners aren't packin' when they go in public, they most likely won't have a gun on them to prevent a crime in progress should they happen upon one. Defending your home with a gun is a gamble that the gun will protect your family rather than accidently harm them.
I wasn't making an argument just stating the obvious. As a matter of fact I do own guns and lots of them. And for your airplane analogy, it depends on which location is safer at a given time. Same for guns. Since most legal gun owners aren't packin' when they go in public, they most likely won't have a gun on them to prevent a crime in progress should they happen upon one. Defending your home with a gun is a gamble that the gun will protect your family rather than accidently harm them.
I wasn't making an argument just stating the obvious. As a matter of fact I do own guns and lots of them. And for your airplane analogy, it depends on which location is safer at a given time. Same for guns. Since most legal gun owners aren't packin' when they go in public, they most likely won't have a gun on them to prevent a crime in progress should they happen upon one. Defending your home with a gun is a gamble that the gun will protect your family rather than accidently harm them.
There are extremes on both sides of the issue, but some of the arguments on both sides are tenuous at best.
I looked up the specs last week, the number of accidental gun deaths is miniscule compared to intentional gun deaths (murder, suicide, self defense). Something like 600 a year are accidental, which puts it pretty far down the list of things to worry about if anyone cares to be rational about their fears. If someone is truly worried about accidental death, they would avoid automobiles, at least in the US, about a third more people die from auto crashes than from a bullet, of all kinds of intent combined.
Airplane analogies fail anyways because they're among the safest form of vehicular transportation by passenger mile. Someone that drives instead of flies because they think driving is safer is simply being ignorant.
There are extremes on both sides of the issue, but some of the arguments on both sides are tenuous at best.
I looked up the specs last week, the number of accidental gun deaths is miniscule compared to intentional gun deaths (murder, suicide, self defense). Something like 600 a year are accidental, which puts it pretty far down the list of things to worry about if anyone cares to be rational about their fears. If someone is really worried about accidental death, they would not use automobiles, at least in the US, about a third more people die from auto crashes than from a bullet of any kind of intent.
Airplane analogies fail anyways because they're among the safest form of vehicular transportation by passenger mile. Someone that drives instead of flies because they think driving is safer is simply being ignorant.
The airplane analogy is good because I did not use it to say drive instead.
Airplane analogies fail anyways because they're among the safest form of vehicular transportation by passenger mile. Someone that drives instead of flies because they think driving is safer is simply being ignorant.
Due to the lack of control one has in a plane and the natural feeling toward heights that we all have this won?t change even if there are no crash for the next decade.
I think statistics show that people who live in homes where guns are kept are more likely to be shot than non-gun owners. If you don't own a gun it can't be stolen from you.
Well, duh. People who drive/ride in cars are more likely to be in an automobile accident too. If you don't go near a car, you can't be in an accident either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
As a matter of fact I do own guns and lots of them.
And you're coming across as pretty anti-gun here. If this were true, one would think you would have a better sense of safety, and know that regardless of the item, there are idiots everywhere. Think: McDonalds coffee. Duh, it's hot. Common sense tells us that. Yet, there are those chosen few among us that Darwin just can't seem to weed out yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Since most legal gun owners aren't packin' when they go in public, they most likely won't have a gun on them to prevent a crime in progress should they happen upon one. Defending your home with a gun is a gamble that the gun will protect your family rather than accidently harm them.
Oh would you be surprised how many sheepdogs walk amongst the sheep. Always carry, and never tell.
Of course, unless you happen to live in one of the very few states which fails to recognize your rights as an individual and does not allow you to possess (carried concealed or open) the means to defend yourself when outside your home. It's not something someone wants to use, but if the situation ever arose you'd be glad you had it.
If you want to go the gambling route, let's go for it. A gamble of harming vice protecting, hmmm? The kids harm themselves? You can't fix bad parenting, or irresponsible parenting. That's what safes and other means are for, as well as educating your children to respect guns instead of fear them. There is a big difference. Or did you mean the adult harming their family? You can't fix "stupid", plain and simple. If a gun goes off "while cleaning", then that someone is an idiot who shouldn't be handling guns. Although we could go on about those all day and night.
Responsible handling of firearms is as safe as anything else out there. What makes it, and anything else, unsafe is when an idiot takes the reigns.
In closing on this gamble of saving vice harming ones family, if you actually checked up on this you would find that the accidents are far fewer than you would think. Be careful of what is considered an "accident", as well as the legality of the possession of the firearm. There are some skewed places out there that add in data to pad it to one way or the other.
If you do actually own firearms, stay safe. If not, shooting is a great, fun sport to get into. Whether it's plinking with the .22 and your kid, competing in IDPA, or attending an Appleseed event, there are a lot of opportunities to practice and improve your marksmanship.
And you're coming across as pretty anti-gun here. If this were true, one would think you would have a better sense of safety, and know that regardless of the item, there are idiots everywhere.
I am anti-gun now. I grew up in a rural area where we fired them behind our house. Worked at a gun club firing range, trained to kill in Vietnam.. and my weapons are locked up tight separate from the ammunition, so in an emergency it would take about 10 minutes to actually put one into service. Lots of people who have no training whatsoever buy them and then leave them loaded in desk drawer.
I am anti-gun now. [?] and my weapons are locked up tight separate from the ammunition, so in an emergency it would take about 10 minutes to actually put one into service.
I don?t understand that statement. If you are anti-something then why do you keep them around and know how long it will take to access them? Why not sell them, or if you are really anti-gun have them destroyed. It just doesn?t make sense to me why you?d keep something if you are against it.
For example, to say ?I?m anti-drugs now, but I keep a stash of dirty needles in one place and my heroin in another? wouldn?t make any sense regardless of how long it too to assemble them.
I don?t understand that statement. If you are anti-something then why do you keep them around and know how long it will take to access them? Why not sell them, or if you are really anti-gun have them destroyed. It just doesn?t make sense to me why you?d keep something if you are against it.
You can't easily sell them in California. I should look into it though. And I'm not really anti-gun for myself, just the general public. I don't disagree with the right to bear arms, but I do think every gun should be registered and every gun owner needs to have a license to buy one.
You can't easily sell them in California. I should look into it though. And I'm not really anti-gun for myself, just the general public. I don't disagree with the right to bear arms, but I do think every gun should be registered and every gun owner needs to have a license to buy one.
Gotcha. I am a fairly skilled in multiple firearms, but have served no time in the military or law enforcement and I?ve never owned a firearm. Just my own personal desire to know how one while never having a reason to own one.
This, along with a couple other quotes throughout the thread are ridiculous, and nothing but regurgitated anti-gun rhetoric.
Why? Let's evaluate it. It's short and simple, unless you are truly clueless.
1) Gun laws only keep honest citizens honest. Criminals do not care about the law.
....
Great post, man!
"[L]aw-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year. That means that firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to shoot with criminal intent. 98 percent of the time when people use guns defensively, simply brandishing a firearm is sufficient to cause a criminal to break off an attack. [Of the 2% of the time when shots are fired, 75% of them are warning shots.]
About half a million times a year, a citizen carrying a gun away from home uses it in self-defense. .... Citizens shoot and kill more criminals than police do every year [2,819 times versus 303]. [W]hile police have an error rate of 11 percent when it comes to the accidental shooting of innocent civilians, the armed citizens’ error rate is only 2 percent, making them five times safer than police."
Stricter gun control won't do squat. What makes you think a criminal would get their gun legally? They could steal their guns from other citizens, or other sources such as police or military bases, or smuggling them across the border.
Stricter gun control won't do squat. What makes you think a criminal would get their gun legally? They could steal their guns from other citizens, or other sources such as police or military bases, or smuggling them across the border.
You are correct. Criminals rarely acquire guns through legitimate channels. However stricter gun laws such as licensing and registration would help to limit the supply of loosely guarded firearms which can be easily stolen. Furthermore if criminals have to resort to stealing guns from the military or smuggling then indeed they will have become much more difficult to obtain than they are now. In my opinion our military should cease trying to police the world and focus on defending our borders which would surely reduce the number of illegal firearms entering this country.
People who claim to be law abiding citizens but refuse to register their guns either have something to hide or are afraid that registration will lead to government confiscation. In my opinion, either you get licensed and registered or you are part of the problem.
You can't easily sell them in California. I should look into it though. And I'm not really anti-gun for myself, just the general public. I don't disagree with the right to bear arms, but I do think every gun should be registered and every gun owner needs to have a license to buy one.
Again, criminals could care less about the law. You think they're thug buddy will demand to see some sort of card? Want a prime example? Look at Illinois. Just over the past holiday weekend in Chicago alone there were 10 dead, 20 wounded and 63 shootings! (isra.org)
All in a state that has such "license" requirements (FOID) before you can even look at one, let alone purchase one.
How's that big Gun Free zone working out for ya, Mayor Daly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
You are correct. Criminals rarely acquire guns through legitimate channels. However stricter gun laws such as licensing and registration would help to limit the supply of loosely guarded firearms which can be easily stolen. Furthermore if criminals have to resort to stealing guns from the military or smuggling then indeed they will have become much more difficult to obtain than they are now. In my opinion our military should cease trying to police the world and focus on defending our borders which would surely reduce the number of illegal firearms entering this country.
People who claim to be law abiding citizens but refuse to register their guns either have something to hide or are afraid that registration will lead to government confiscation. In my opinion, either you get licensed and registered or you are part of the problem.
That is a completely false concept. Again, look to Illinois. They're as anti Second Amendment as they come in this country, yet it has done nothing to stop the criminals. Their supply is "limited", has been for a long time. However the criminals have been unimpeded in their quest to obtain a gun illegally.
Also, if you think for a second that registration isn't a step towards the move from being an armed citizen to becoming an unarmed subject, look at the UK. Don't believe me? Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec for a start.
What makes this country great is freedom. Your freedom to own guns, but keep them locked up in Ft. Knox, and others who enjoy the freedom to not only keep arms, but bear them as well.
Unfortunately, freedom is taken away slowly, one little piece at a time. Those who fail to defend their rights will lose them.
It reminds me of a quote from Star Wars III, about how liberty dies to thunderous applause.
Whether one exercises their rights to the fullest or not, we all have to stand together to make sure that the rights of all remain intact.
You are correct. Criminals rarely acquire guns through legitimate channels. However stricter gun laws such as licensing and registration would help to limit the supply of loosely guarded firearms which can be easily stolen. Furthermore if criminals have to resort to stealing guns from the military or smuggling then indeed they will have become much more difficult to obtain than they are now.
I suppose. I have nothing against licensing and registration, as long as I can still get the guns I want and use them how I want. I still think, however, nothing will stop criminals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
In my opinion our military should cease trying to police the world and focus on defending our borders which would surely reduce the number of illegal firearms entering this country.
Comments
Lets put bet's on as to if the gun man was a PC user or not..
My bet's that the lunatic was a windows botherer corrupted by jealousy.
Or someone who's Mac just doesn't work..?
he was wearing brown flip flops
iPhone user with discolouration problem..?
We considered moving our company to Virginia (professional staff). When word got out, wives were against moving there because of the pro-gun stance of the State.
We dumped Virginia. But it surprised us.
They get what they create.
This, along with a couple other quotes throughout the thread are ridiculous, and nothing but regurgitated anti-gun rhetoric.
Why? Let's evaluate it. It's short and simple, unless you are truly clueless.
1) Gun laws only keep honest citizens honest. Criminals do not care about the law.
Time and time again, when a gun is used in a crime the innocent, law abiding citizens of this country are made to pay for the ignorance of a criminal. Even more disturbing is that such legislation (passed or proposed) has no effect on the criminals as they don't follow the law. In the end, the people become further neutered of their rights in the name of "progress" and "safety".
2) Criminals don't say, "Gee, time to go rob the local Gas N Go, so I better go buy a new gun."
It's true. They don't care about gun laws, and they are sure not going to shell out any more money than they have to in order to acquire a gun. When they do get their hands on one, they aren't buying one from an honest citizen either. They're buying it from another criminal, and the gun was originally stolen at some point from someone who legally purchased it.
The cheaper they can get it, the better. They're not going to go into the local gun shop, submit to a NICS check, and thus be associated as the owner of that gun. Let alone are they going to pay hundreds and hundreds of dollars for it legitimately when they can get one from their local criminal buddy for $25 (give or take).
---
While I will not say that 100% of all crimes fit this pattern, it is the very rare (thousandths of a percent) that do not. The liberal media does not want the people to know this, else they will become wiser to the plot. All it takes is to wake up and realize that bad people do bad things. That is who needs to be targeted with legislation. Keeping honest people honest is of little effect, as the criminals could care less about what law Mr. or Mrs. Senator tries to pass.
Next, Virgina is a certainly a state that recognizes that the Constitution provides every citizen with certain unalienable rights. One of those rights being the right to not only keep, but to also bear arms.
Virginia allows its citizens to, after sufficient firearms training has been completed, submit an application to carry a concealed firearm. The applicant must also submit fingerprints, and a background investigation will be conducted.
Do you honestly think criminals are going to do this? No, they don't. They simply stick the gun they bought (that was stolen) in their pants, and hope they stay up.
So if by one saying that Virginia is "pro-gun" means that they understand and respect the Constitution of the United States, and the rights it provides for its citizens, then yes, it is gun friendly.
---
So a business fears citizens who have willingly submitted to a background check, been fingerprinted, and for all intensive purposes are now in the system? I find that insulting. Not only because a business with this stance has declared that my money isn't good enough for them, but also throws the Constitution out the window in a complete lack of respect for it and the individual rights it contains.
I bet "this business" wasn't aware that they can put up signs which notify legally carrying, honest citizens that they would like them to not bring their guns inside. It is every businesses right to do so. However, be aware of two things:
a) Honest citizens will respect your wishes, and they will take their money elsewhere.
b) You're creating a big "Welcome Criminals, Come Rob Me" zone. Criminals see a "no weapons" sign, and know that honest people will abide by that businesses wishes. In turn they also know that their likelihood of being shot is significantly reduced compared to the business across the street with no such sign.
Law enforcement is a needed, valued service across this country. However, let's face it, they are a reactive force and not a proactive force. They respond to calls unless it is that extremely rare case where they just happen to be there. Yes, it's rare. Criminals just don't waltz into a business to commit their crime with a police/sherrif/highway patrol vehicle parked outside. The average criminal isn't the brightest bulb in the light fixture, however they aren't that dumb. Although there is always that one that is on occasion.
---
What happened in this Apple store is tragic, let me be clear in that.
Let's not turn this tragedy into an anti-gun paradise by stepping up to recognize that bad guys do bad things, they don't care about nor follow the law, and that stepping on the toes of law abiding citizens is the wrong approach.
The bad guy in this tragedy is lucky that he didn't cross paths with someone not afraid to stand up for their rights. His future would have been non-existent, and there would be one less bad guy in the world.
They're buying it from another criminal, and the gun was originally stolen at some point from someone who legally purchased it.
I think statistics show that people who live in homes where guns are kept are more likely to be shot than non-gun owners. If you don't own a gun it can't be stolen from you.
I think statistics show that people who live in homes where guns are kept are more likely to be shot than non-gun owners. If you don't own a gun it can't be stolen from you.
You "think" statistics show? Do criminals classify as gun owners? I wonder how many guns a typical gun owner owns?
It is better to be on the ground wishing you were in an airplane than being on an airplane wishing you were on the ground.
The same can be said for the time you need a gun.
As stated above, criminals don't care if the US banned all guns today. They would have guns 10,000 years from now if the needed them to carry out a crime.
You "think" statistics show? Do criminals classify as gun owners? I wonder how many guns a typical gun owner owns?
It is better to be on the ground wishing you were in an airplane than being on an airplane wishing you were on the ground.
The same can be said for the time you need a gun.
As stated above, criminals don't care if the US banned all guns today. They would have guns 10,000 years from now if the needed them to carry out a crime.
I wasn't making an argument just stating the obvious. As a matter of fact I do own guns and lots of them. And for your airplane analogy, it depends on which location is safer at a given time. Same for guns. Since most legal gun owners aren't packin' when they go in public, they most likely won't have a gun on them to prevent a crime in progress should they happen upon one. Defending your home with a gun is a gamble that the gun will protect your family rather than accidently harm them.
I wasn't making an argument just stating the obvious. As a matter of fact I do own guns and lots of them. And for your airplane analogy, it depends on which location is safer at a given time. Same for guns. Since most legal gun owners aren't packin' when they go in public, they most likely won't have a gun on them to prevent a crime in progress should they happen upon one. Defending your home with a gun is a gamble that the gun will protect your family rather than accidently harm them.
I wasn't arguing.
I wasn't making an argument just stating the obvious. As a matter of fact I do own guns and lots of them. And for your airplane analogy, it depends on which location is safer at a given time. Same for guns. Since most legal gun owners aren't packin' when they go in public, they most likely won't have a gun on them to prevent a crime in progress should they happen upon one. Defending your home with a gun is a gamble that the gun will protect your family rather than accidently harm them.
There are extremes on both sides of the issue, but some of the arguments on both sides are tenuous at best.
I looked up the specs last week, the number of accidental gun deaths is miniscule compared to intentional gun deaths (murder, suicide, self defense). Something like 600 a year are accidental, which puts it pretty far down the list of things to worry about if anyone cares to be rational about their fears. If someone is truly worried about accidental death, they would avoid automobiles, at least in the US, about a third more people die from auto crashes than from a bullet, of all kinds of intent combined.
Airplane analogies fail anyways because they're among the safest form of vehicular transportation by passenger mile. Someone that drives instead of flies because they think driving is safer is simply being ignorant.
There are extremes on both sides of the issue, but some of the arguments on both sides are tenuous at best.
I looked up the specs last week, the number of accidental gun deaths is miniscule compared to intentional gun deaths (murder, suicide, self defense). Something like 600 a year are accidental, which puts it pretty far down the list of things to worry about if anyone cares to be rational about their fears. If someone is really worried about accidental death, they would not use automobiles, at least in the US, about a third more people die from auto crashes than from a bullet of any kind of intent.
Airplane analogies fail anyways because they're among the safest form of vehicular transportation by passenger mile. Someone that drives instead of flies because they think driving is safer is simply being ignorant.
The airplane analogy is good because I did not use it to say drive instead.
Airplane analogies fail anyways because they're among the safest form of vehicular transportation by passenger mile. Someone that drives instead of flies because they think driving is safer is simply being ignorant.
Due to the lack of control one has in a plane and the natural feeling toward heights that we all have this won?t change even if there are no crash for the next decade.
I think statistics show that people who live in homes where guns are kept are more likely to be shot than non-gun owners. If you don't own a gun it can't be stolen from you.
Well, duh. People who drive/ride in cars are more likely to be in an automobile accident too. If you don't go near a car, you can't be in an accident either.
As a matter of fact I do own guns and lots of them.
And you're coming across as pretty anti-gun here. If this were true, one would think you would have a better sense of safety, and know that regardless of the item, there are idiots everywhere. Think: McDonalds coffee. Duh, it's hot. Common sense tells us that. Yet, there are those chosen few among us that Darwin just can't seem to weed out yet.
Since most legal gun owners aren't packin' when they go in public, they most likely won't have a gun on them to prevent a crime in progress should they happen upon one. Defending your home with a gun is a gamble that the gun will protect your family rather than accidently harm them.
Oh would you be surprised how many sheepdogs walk amongst the sheep. Always carry, and never tell.
Of course, unless you happen to live in one of the very few states which fails to recognize your rights as an individual and does not allow you to possess (carried concealed or open) the means to defend yourself when outside your home. It's not something someone wants to use, but if the situation ever arose you'd be glad you had it.
If you want to go the gambling route, let's go for it. A gamble of harming vice protecting, hmmm? The kids harm themselves? You can't fix bad parenting, or irresponsible parenting. That's what safes and other means are for, as well as educating your children to respect guns instead of fear them. There is a big difference. Or did you mean the adult harming their family? You can't fix "stupid", plain and simple. If a gun goes off "while cleaning", then that someone is an idiot who shouldn't be handling guns. Although we could go on about those all day and night.
Responsible handling of firearms is as safe as anything else out there. What makes it, and anything else, unsafe is when an idiot takes the reigns.
In closing on this gamble of saving vice harming ones family, if you actually checked up on this you would find that the accidents are far fewer than you would think. Be careful of what is considered an "accident", as well as the legality of the possession of the firearm. There are some skewed places out there that add in data to pad it to one way or the other.
If you do actually own firearms, stay safe. If not, shooting is a great, fun sport to get into. Whether it's plinking with the .22 and your kid, competing in IDPA, or attending an Appleseed event, there are a lot of opportunities to practice and improve your marksmanship.
And you're coming across as pretty anti-gun here. If this were true, one would think you would have a better sense of safety, and know that regardless of the item, there are idiots everywhere.
I am anti-gun now. I grew up in a rural area where we fired them behind our house. Worked at a gun club firing range, trained to kill in Vietnam.. and my weapons are locked up tight separate from the ammunition, so in an emergency it would take about 10 minutes to actually put one into service. Lots of people who have no training whatsoever buy them and then leave them loaded in desk drawer.
I am anti-gun now. [?] and my weapons are locked up tight separate from the ammunition, so in an emergency it would take about 10 minutes to actually put one into service.
I don?t understand that statement. If you are anti-something then why do you keep them around and know how long it will take to access them? Why not sell them, or if you are really anti-gun have them destroyed. It just doesn?t make sense to me why you?d keep something if you are against it.
For example, to say ?I?m anti-drugs now, but I keep a stash of dirty needles in one place and my heroin in another? wouldn?t make any sense regardless of how long it too to assemble them.
I don?t understand that statement. If you are anti-something then why do you keep them around and know how long it will take to access them? Why not sell them, or if you are really anti-gun have them destroyed. It just doesn?t make sense to me why you?d keep something if you are against it.
You can't easily sell them in California. I should look into it though. And I'm not really anti-gun for myself, just the general public. I don't disagree with the right to bear arms, but I do think every gun should be registered and every gun owner needs to have a license to buy one.
You can't easily sell them in California. I should look into it though. And I'm not really anti-gun for myself, just the general public. I don't disagree with the right to bear arms, but I do think every gun should be registered and every gun owner needs to have a license to buy one.
Gotcha. I am a fairly skilled in multiple firearms, but have served no time in the military or law enforcement and I?ve never owned a firearm. Just my own personal desire to know how one while never having a reason to own one.
This, along with a couple other quotes throughout the thread are ridiculous, and nothing but regurgitated anti-gun rhetoric.
Why? Let's evaluate it. It's short and simple, unless you are truly clueless.
1) Gun laws only keep honest citizens honest. Criminals do not care about the law.
....
Great post, man!
"[L]aw-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year. That means that firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to shoot with criminal intent. 98 percent of the time when people use guns defensively, simply brandishing a firearm is sufficient to cause a criminal to break off an attack. [Of the 2% of the time when shots are fired, 75% of them are warning shots.]
About half a million times a year, a citizen carrying a gun away from home uses it in self-defense. .... Citizens shoot and kill more criminals than police do every year [2,819 times versus 303]. [W]hile police have an error rate of 11 percent when it comes to the accidental shooting of innocent civilians, the armed citizens’ error rate is only 2 percent, making them five times safer than police."
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&gl=us
(The actual website isn't loading right now)
Stricter gun control won't do squat. What makes you think a criminal would get their gun legally? They could steal their guns from other citizens, or other sources such as police or military bases, or smuggling them across the border.
---Quote (Originally by mstone)---
I think statistics show that people who live in homes where guns are kept are more
likely to be shot than non-gun owners. If you don't own a gun it can't be stolen
from you.
---End Quote---
You think? I'd like to see the source.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...ull/160/10/929
Seems to be fairly comprehensive study
Stricter gun control won't do squat. What makes you think a criminal would get their gun legally? They could steal their guns from other citizens, or other sources such as police or military bases, or smuggling them across the border.
You are correct. Criminals rarely acquire guns through legitimate channels. However stricter gun laws such as licensing and registration would help to limit the supply of loosely guarded firearms which can be easily stolen. Furthermore if criminals have to resort to stealing guns from the military or smuggling then indeed they will have become much more difficult to obtain than they are now. In my opinion our military should cease trying to police the world and focus on defending our borders which would surely reduce the number of illegal firearms entering this country.
People who claim to be law abiding citizens but refuse to register their guns either have something to hide or are afraid that registration will lead to government confiscation. In my opinion, either you get licensed and registered or you are part of the problem.
You can't easily sell them in California. I should look into it though. And I'm not really anti-gun for myself, just the general public. I don't disagree with the right to bear arms, but I do think every gun should be registered and every gun owner needs to have a license to buy one.
Again, criminals could care less about the law. You think they're thug buddy will demand to see some sort of card? Want a prime example? Look at Illinois. Just over the past holiday weekend in Chicago alone there were 10 dead, 20 wounded and 63 shootings! (isra.org)
All in a state that has such "license" requirements (FOID) before you can even look at one, let alone purchase one.
How's that big Gun Free zone working out for ya, Mayor Daly?
You are correct. Criminals rarely acquire guns through legitimate channels. However stricter gun laws such as licensing and registration would help to limit the supply of loosely guarded firearms which can be easily stolen. Furthermore if criminals have to resort to stealing guns from the military or smuggling then indeed they will have become much more difficult to obtain than they are now. In my opinion our military should cease trying to police the world and focus on defending our borders which would surely reduce the number of illegal firearms entering this country.
People who claim to be law abiding citizens but refuse to register their guns either have something to hide or are afraid that registration will lead to government confiscation. In my opinion, either you get licensed and registered or you are part of the problem.
That is a completely false concept. Again, look to Illinois. They're as anti Second Amendment as they come in this country, yet it has done nothing to stop the criminals. Their supply is "limited", has been for a long time. However the criminals have been unimpeded in their quest to obtain a gun illegally.
Also, if you think for a second that registration isn't a step towards the move from being an armed citizen to becoming an unarmed subject, look at the UK. Don't believe me? Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec for a start.
What makes this country great is freedom. Your freedom to own guns, but keep them locked up in Ft. Knox, and others who enjoy the freedom to not only keep arms, but bear them as well.
Unfortunately, freedom is taken away slowly, one little piece at a time. Those who fail to defend their rights will lose them.
It reminds me of a quote from Star Wars III, about how liberty dies to thunderous applause.
Whether one exercises their rights to the fullest or not, we all have to stand together to make sure that the rights of all remain intact.
You are correct. Criminals rarely acquire guns through legitimate channels. However stricter gun laws such as licensing and registration would help to limit the supply of loosely guarded firearms which can be easily stolen. Furthermore if criminals have to resort to stealing guns from the military or smuggling then indeed they will have become much more difficult to obtain than they are now.
I suppose. I have nothing against licensing and registration, as long as I can still get the guns I want and use them how I want. I still think, however, nothing will stop criminals.
In my opinion our military should cease trying to police the world and focus on defending our borders which would surely reduce the number of illegal firearms entering this country.
I agree with you 100% there!