|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Oct 23, 2008 21:42:46 GMT -5
BDog, don't know the difference once again, I am not an expert. I could look it up, but don't have time now.
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Oct 23, 2008 21:52:05 GMT -5
You two assume we don't own guns not that I'll confirm, or deny it. I think one is wise to keep certain personal details off the net.
My family has always had guns in the past, and the same is true with my in-laws. Hellooooo my father in-law was an FBI Agent and packed a gun with him everywhere. My dad was a Deputy Sheriff, and keeps his concealed weapons permit current, and carries almost every day...
subdjoe, the YouTube video was impressive.
I'll have to address more later...
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Oct 23, 2008 22:37:29 GMT -5
So then you should know that the average honest citizen poses almost zero threat no matter what firearms they own or carry. And also that the thugs will get whatever the need or want no matter what restrictions society places on the honest citizen. See Detroit, DC, Chicago, and other places that have high crime and de facto gun bans for honest citizens.
You use many of the phrases and examples that the antis use, the assumption is natural.
|
|
|
|
Post by surefire on Oct 23, 2008 23:34:59 GMT -5
What are the chances of stopping someone armed to the teeth if none of the victims are armed? I'd say approaching 0% (the perp would have to make a huge mistake, and one of the victims would need disarming training).
Allowing teachers that have CCW permits to carry in class increases the chances of stopping a masacre. Even if the odds only go up to 40%, that would be a huge increase.
As Big Dog said, no one is saying all teachers should carry. I'm suggesting only allowing those to carry that already have legal CCW permits, and want to carry.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Oct 23, 2008 23:39:29 GMT -5
[ If school shooters could only get a gun that fire 2 shots before having to be reloaded, we might have seen only two people killed instead of 33. you sure are a piece of work, santuelle. you like to portray yourself as an expert in areas that you obviously have no experience at all: parenting, education, and now firearms. it is very apparent that you have never held, fired a gun, or even seen one up close. otherwise you wouldn't make a statement like the one quoted above. do you know how quickly i can reload a magazine? want to guess? with an M1911 i bet i can reload somewhere between 1 to 2 seconds and continue firing. so you see, your little idea of having 2-shot pistols may slow a fella down but if he knows what he's doing it won't slow him much. don't you think we should ban all baseball bats too? |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Oct 23, 2008 23:52:25 GMT -5
btw, tbd, JROTC programs in CA stopped teaching marksmanship a several years ago. they still do it in other, sane states such as texas. some schools even have their own ranges right on campus.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 24, 2008 0:55:18 GMT -5
BDog, don't know the difference once again, I am not an expert. I could look it up, but don't have time now. I'll help you out again then. You don't have to look it up as there isn't a single difference, aside from how they look. Well that and one of them is a POS with a tendency to jam after the first couple of rounds.  |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Oct 24, 2008 12:49:42 GMT -5
So then you should know that the average honest citizen poses almost zero threat no matter what firearms they own or carry. And also that the thugs will get whatever the need or want no matter what restrictions society places on the honest citizen. See Detroit, DC, Chicago, and other places that have high crime and de facto gun bans for honest citizens.
You use many of the phrases and examples that the antis use, the assumption is natural. I use some of the anti statements not because I've heard them, or belong to any anti gun group, I am merely expressing my concerns. I am not a gun enthusiast, or know much about them, but I do have experience with people close to me that have owned them responsibly. I never worried about misuse partly because the people in my life were/are trained to use them and know the danger they present. On the other hand I have witnessed the misuse, and it was a frightening experience I won't elaborate because again, I am not a fan of divulging too much information on the net. I see the deterioration of our youth, partly due to lack of family support, and partly due to violent video games and movies, not to mention gang influence. I also have the unpleasant experience of witnessing what meth can do to a person's brain. My son is a good example of how out of touch with reality they become. If my son had a gun the night he let loose on his roommate he might very well be dead, not because he is a crazy person, but because meth can make a person completely psychotic and they don't know the difference between reality or hallucination. For now he has graduated into prison with one felony strike and believe me when I tell you I worry that he will do nothing more there than learn new tricks there intentionally, or unintentionally. I think about things like, what if he gets out goes back to meth only now he has new friends that have guns... I do not live in a world of unfounded fears, and I am not paranoid around sane/responsible gun owners, but I do want to know how we can stop the wrong people form accessing, and using them. And, what about domestic violence? If all people are entitled to carry because it is their right I truly believe you will see more incidents of violent acts since a there are a significant number of unstable people out there, and I don't see that getting any better. I know I am probably wasting my time here since some of you only see the one side of this issue, but we are all entitled to view life as we see it, and experience it. |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Oct 24, 2008 12:51:14 GMT -5
BDog, don't know the difference once again, I am not an expert. I could look it up, but don't have time now.
Well that and one of them is a POS with a tendency to jam after the first couple of rounds. Hey, thanks a lot! I never stood chance in other words!   |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 24, 2008 15:57:02 GMT -5
And, what about domestic violence? If all people are entitled to carry because it is their right I truly believe you will see more incidents of violent acts since a there are a significant number of unstable people out there, and I don't see that getting any better. Out of everything that you wrote, this is the one that really jumps out at me because it is flat out wrong. The number of CCW licenses that are revoked for criminal conduct is infinitesmally small. In Florida, the first big state to move to shall issue in the 1980's, the rate of revocation for criminal conduct is a very small fraction of 1%. Why would that be? Most likely it has to do with a single word... responsibility. People who choose to carry concealed are accepting a great deal of responsibility by doing so. They should take it very seriously, I know I always did, and in almost universal numbers they do exactly that. The arguments from the anti-gun left of the streets running red with road range, or neighbors shooting it out over a dog pissing on a lawn, yadda yadda yadda, have simply not materialized in practice. Given how many years I spent chasing bad guys I think the first half of that sentence is pretty broad brush. I think you should reconsider it. As to the second half I heartily agree that we are all entitled to view and experience life as we see fit. Having that in mind, why are you so adamant about not letting me experience my life the way I see fit based on what you see fit? I'm not telling you what you can and can't do. Why don't I get the same respect? |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Oct 24, 2008 19:03:22 GMT -5
JMO wrote: "I know I am probably wasting my time here since some of you only see the one side of this issue, but we are all entitled to view life as we see it, and experience it."
Not quite true. I do look at what the powerful, well connected, and well financed anti-civil rights lobby says. Then I look at the DOJ stats, CDC stats, and other real world information. In every case what the anti-civil rights groups say is just plain wrong. Or flat out lies. If they had any real, verifiable concerns, other than trotting out their dreams of blood running in the streets or the very rare incidents of shootings in schools (they stay on the front page for weeks which makes it seem like there are more incidents than there really are. Check it for yourself - there are not that many incidents of mass shootings, or even single shootings, at schools), I could give gruding support to some modest restrictions on honest citizens.
How do we keep guns out of the wrong hands? As Big Dog and I pointed out earlier, make it too costly to use a firearm in the commission of a crime, see Project Exile.
On the same line, how do we keep cars out of the wrong hands? I think it was you, might have been Mink, that said that cars are meant for transportation. OK, yeah, they are. Let's explore that a bit. Accidental deaths by means of firearms are around 1000/year (roughly) and there are around 20k accidental injuries by means of firearms. Yes, even one is too many, but people are not perfect, mistakes happen. OK, so, roughly 20k injuries and 1k accidental deaths by means of weapons that are meant to be used to kill or injure. This is out of roughly 250 million firearms in the hands of about 80 million gun owners.
Now, cars, which are not weapons, and are meant only to move people or goods from point A to point B, cause roughly 40,000 deaths and roughly 500,000 treatable injuries each year. Tell me, which is the more dangerous item?
I'm not saying that you should go out and buy a gun. I'm not saying that anyone who does not want a gun should have one. I'm not even saying that everyone who wants a gun should have one (felons, those adjudicated to be mentally incometent for example). As you say, you are entitled to your views, and in light of some of the incidents in your life I suppose your views are reasonable. BUT, by the same token I, along with Big Dog, New Guy, Surefire, and about 80 million other honest gun owners are entitled to our views. Why should a small vocal minority which fears guns be allowed to force their anti-civil rights agenda and views on us? Until or unless we cause harm, and someone feeling 'unsafe' because they see an honest citizen with a firearm is not causing harm - we have no control over the feelings of others - there is NO justification for abridging our constitutionally enumerated and protected rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by surefire on Oct 24, 2008 19:11:23 GMT -5
Big Dog and Subdjoe clearly get it.
Make it costly to use firearms in a crime. Leave the honest, law-abiding citizen alone.
|
|
