Personal Carry

[tarik]

Its not that we are oppressed we are just harder and prefer to fight with our fists

 

[MobileTechie]

Nice, didn't even want to touch that one did ya.

I actually edited it later but you posted in between. But the "no" stands - it's simply not true.

 

[Steve202]

However if you get your stats from the Daily Mail, you might find the UK is the worst country in the world for EVERYTHING. They seem to relish making out everything is totally awful.

Quoted for the truth.

 

[gunslinger]

To put another slant on this thread, I wonder how many of you want/have to carry protection from something other than your fellow man? Out here in the African bush, if I have to go through 'predator' country and especially if I have to camp overnight, then purely for common sense and self protection reasons I will take a Remington 30-06. OK, it wont stop Buffalo or Elephant, unless - 1) I'm a great shot (NOT) or 2) very lucky, but its a great comforter when you hear a big cat roaring just as you settle in your sleeping bag, or there's a black mamba swinging from a tree just above where you pitched your bush toilet.

Those are about the only reasons I carry, thank goodness, but I am all with you US citizens who believe in the right to carry arms etc., just don't point them in this direction folks!

Remington 870 12 ga. in the trunk of my car. Wilson combat edition.

 

[TechLady]

If you need to carry a knife for your job you can. If you don't need to you can't. Seems pretty fair and simple. It has certainly not hampered my life or work one jot.

I'm with you. America has a reputation as a fearful bunch of gun-nuts for a reason and it's unfortunate. We're still stuck in the Wild West mentality over here.

 

[NETWizz]

There is no reason any lawful citizen should have to give up his or her guns!

Here are the three reasons we buy our guns:
1. Sport
2. Collection
3. Defense

Sport:
For #1, we love to shoot targets & Game. I love shooting targets; heck, I spend upwards of $100 to $150 a week just in ammo when I go to the gun range. They have to sweep up when I am done.

I am NOT big into hunting though I love eating meat, and I am not so stupid as to think animals don't have to die for me to eat meat. I have gone with some friends and we shot some Wild Boar and blasted Bambi. I was VERY selective and only hunted toward the beginning because I had the realization that it is complete B.S. to kill an animal if you aren't going to eat it! I am totally against killing more than you can take back, process, and store. I also believe in one-shot one-kill, so if I don't have a totally perfect shot, I don't take it. One thing they did that really bothered me was not only shoot the big/giant boars but little tiny 10 pound babies. I was a bit disgusted with this.

This one thanksgiving, we shot two Wild Turkeys, and they were so freak-en awesome compared to store bought!

Collection:
I am a sucker for 1911's! They are such an incredible gun with so much heritage. Some of them that I bought in 2005 for like $800 sell today for $1600.


Defense:
My favorite are the inexpensive Glocks and M&Ps. NOTHING in my opinion is more reliable than these striker-fired guns. I have literally bought a used 9mm Glock Gen 3 from a firing range for $200 that was like 4 years old and probably NEVER cleaned... It looked like my BBQ inside. It worked but the trigger felt weird and had some difficulty resetting when I bought it. I took it all apart punching out ALL the pins, removing the barrel, slide, sear, trigger assembly, mag release, take down release... (about the same effort as taking down a laptop). I ran the polymer frame through the dishwasher and cleaned ALL the small parts and slide with Ballistol and replaced the extractor spring, the striker spring, plunger spring, 3 springs in the trigger area, and lubed it up. $20 in parts! Went to the range and fired 14 boxes of 50 through it without a single misfire!

I bought a new Gen4, but honestly I think that used Gen3 is a better Glock!

My M&P is fantastic too. It is so ergonomic and feels great racking the slide. I really like those serrations better.

 

[TechLady]

They may be pretty...and they may be fun...but they still only do one thing.

 

[Xander]

Here are the three reasons we buy are guns:
1. Sport
2. Collection
3. Defense

You forgot:
4. Pissing contests (and compensating)

Just saw how a neighourhood watch guy shot an unarmed teen. Good thing he had that right to bear arms... well, not so good for the teen. There's nowhere in the Constitution about a Right to Life, is there?


Edit: FWIW, I was a marksman when I was a teen. 98%+ from 100 yards. I would never own a gun, though.

 

[NETWizz]

You forgot:
4. Pissing contests (and compensating)

Just saw how a neighourhood watch guy shot an unarmed teen. Good thing he had that right to bear arms... well, not so good for the teen. There's nowhere in the Constitution about a Right to Life, is there?


Edit: FWIW, I was a marksman when I was a teen. 98%+ from 100 yards. I would never own a gun, though.

Actually, the Constitution covers Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.


Shooting someone who is not a direct threat to you or someone else is a crime. You just can't shoot an unarmed teen regardless of what they do... even if they commit a crime. ONLY as defense. That said, it isn't the gun's fault. I really think Zimmerman needs to be arrested!

That said, I am actually a part of a Neighborhood Watch group (our State does NOT require registration), but we have a LOT of internal rules. First of all, we ALWAYS record when we talk to someone in case something happens not to mention it is great evidence as they usually make excuses and admissions. We always have a minimum of two people; NEVER, one person on watch. We would simply talk to a kid like this and basically just have him leave the Private Property presuming it was something like a simple loitering or trespass. We would NOT chase him down, threaten him, engage him or even be rude. If they refuse to leave and are jerks, we just call the local law enforcement and within 5 to 10 minutes the problem is taken care of by the PD, which tells them to leave or go to jail. If the same group come back, they go directly to jail for the night and get fined. Often times, we run into punks who spray paint walls break into cars etc. Our policy is to be quiet and record them doing that and actually get evidence BEFORE engaging. After that, we place them in citizen's arrest telling them they are being detained until the police arrive... Yes, we do sometimes have to use some force, but we do NOT use guns. We also IMMEDIATELY call local law enforcement. They show up talk to us and cuff the kids then put them in the back of the cruiser and come and talk to us and write a report. We show them the video and promptly provide pull a copy off the cameras hard drive to a cheap 1 GB memory stick we hand the police with the evidence. They thank us... We thank them... nobody gets hurt...and it is all good.

I can defend some of Mr. Zimmerman's actions for being a part of a Neighborhood Watch though if his area requires registration, he SHOULD get registered! I CANNOT justify him engaging someone unless they committed a real crime like property destruction. Even then I can ONLY justify minimal, non-lethal force! He should NEVER have brought a gun to a fist-fight, and Mr. Zimmerman should be charged. I don't care what this kid did, either; it doesn't matter. All that matters is that Mr. Zimmerman killed someone. I am sure we are missing a lot of the story, but Mr. Zimmerman it seems should be charged and tried by a Jury!

I could argue that cars are unsafe and that more people die in car accidents than gun deaths, so we should outlaw cars and everybody should walk; it is for their safety. Most people would think this is a ridiculous argument, but it is true if you look at statistics.


Just because you own a gun doesn't mean you are going to go shoot a teen with it.

 

[Lone99star]

You forgot:
4. Pissing contests (and compensating)

Just saw how a neighourhood watch guy shot an unarmed teen. Good thing he had that right to bear arms... well, not so good for the teen. There's nowhere in the Constitution about a Right to Life, is there?


Edit: FWIW, I was a marksman when I was a teen. 98%+ from 100 yards. I would never own a gun, though.

Good thing the Canadian gun laws work.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/03/19/bc-mission-homicide-charges.html

 

[MobileTechie]

Finding an example of a gun death in a country with gun controls does not prove anything. You might has well say that it's pointless to outlaw murder since it still happens. Obviously the system is by no means perfect. The fact remains that the USA has the sort of level of gun homicides that you normally only see in South American countries.

Same with the cars argument - it's not a useful parallel. Sure cars kill more people than guns. But cars are necessary for modern life. They are not designed as weapons are rarely used as weapons. The are incredibly useful machines we cannot do without. Guns are not like that, as proven by the many countries which don't have wholesale gun ownership - they still manage to live normal lives without guns. They couldn't do that without cars, unless their government spend a MASSIVE amount on public transport or the country was tiny.

You can argue that it's your right to bear arms (which it is...in your country). You can argue that you should have the ability to defend your home, which seems reasonable. But these other arguments are as spurious as the tobacco industry's dissembling efforts of the 50s, 60s and 70s. Spurious arguments make it look like you have an emotional attachment to the position that you are looking to justify rather than a position that was decided upon based on evidence - like religious zealots do.

 

[gunslinger]

Finding an example of a gun death in a country with gun controls does not prove anything. You might has well say that it's pointless to outlaw murder since it still happens. Obviously the system is by no means perfect. The fact remains that the USA has the sort of level of gun homicides that you normally only see in South American countries.

Same with the cars argument - it's not a useful parallel. Sure cars kill more people than guns. But cars are necessary for modern life. They are not designed as weapons are rarely used as weapons. The are incredibly useful machines we cannot do without. Guns are not like that, as proven by the many countries which don't have wholesale gun ownership - they still manage to live normal lives without guns. They couldn't do that without cars, unless their government spend a MASSIVE amount on public transport or the country was tiny.

You can argue that it's your right to bear arms (which it is...in your country). You can argue that you should have the ability to defend your home, which seems reasonable. But these other arguments are as spurious as the tobacco industry's dissembling efforts of the 50s, 60s and 70s. Spurious arguments make it look like you have an emotional attachment to the position that you are looking to justify rather than a position that was decided upon based on evidence - like religious zealots do.

It comes down to this. The number one reason we have gun ownership in my country is to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. The people of the US do not want to be bullied by their own Gov. Our Gov is supposed to be by the people , for the people. The only way to keep that in check is to insure civilians are armed should we ever need to take back and redo the government.

Our government does not give us the right to own a gun as they give us the right to drive a car. It is recognized as a God given right that cannot be infringed upon by the Gov.

Beyond that, I should have the right to do what ever I want to as long as its not hurting other people. Me owning a gun or 50-60 guns for that matter is hurting no one. Guns have never killed anyone just like cars have killed no one. People kill other people and have long before guns, or cars came along.

It has been proven time and again that you cannot make enough laws to protect us from ourselves. The reason is that by their very nature criminals do not follow laws. Therefore making new laws to try to control crime before it happens is stupid.

If you look at countries with strict gun control laws you will find the criminals still have their guns. The difference is the people are left defenseless. Not just against other people who would do them harm but against the wildlife as well.

 

[MobileTechie]

Your government seems no less able or willing to "oppress" you than any other Western government. In fact your homeland security laws are more extreme than many European states. They can draft you into unjust wars if they like and have done so in Vietnam. So I don't buy that.

If your government doesn't take away your rights for guns or cars etc then how come it doesn't allow you to possess heroin or land mines? After they don't kill people, only people do according to your logic so surely they are fine? Why stop there? Why not allow the possession of nuclear weapons. H bombs don't kill people, only people do therefore you should have no limits on the possession of anything at all until it is actually used as a weapon to kill someone and certainly no laws to protect people from themselves. Fact is, they do take away your "rights" for all sorts of objects, substances and practices. So why the focus on guns?

If gun ownership is so harmless how come you have about 40 times the gun homicide rates of most European states and 3 times the general murder rate? I just don't get that.

Yes some criminals in non gun states have guns but a lot less of them do. Them having gun is a crime and puts many of them off knowing they're looking at 5 years inside just for that alone. Having a gun on your during a crime such a a robbery or burglary can mean 15-20 years instead of 1 or 2. So the vast majority of criminals don't carry guns. The net result is a much, much lower incidence of criminal shootings and gun homicides.

If you ask me, the reason you want gun ownership is because you jhave it already and it's in your constitution. All the other reasons put forward are just post hoc rationalisations

 

[Tekko]

You are all looking at the US gun problem wrong. The problem is the US government doesn't do many things the right way, and is the most inefficient government on the planet. And they have found it far too easy to distract the american public.

Our gun crime is far and large not from legal, registered gun owners. I went to a gun control rally, a woman was speaking about how a 19 year old walked up to her son and just shot him in the head. She was going on and on about these new laws we needed. While very tragic, I don't think she realizes its already illegal for a 19 year old to purchase a handgun. More laws won't help anything, we should be clamoring that the government find a way to enforced the laws we have already passed before making any new ones.

It should be very apparent to anyone who has researched the topic that we have an ENFORCEMENT problem, not a legislative problem. But actually enforcing laws is a lot harder than typing up new ones, so our political system keeps everyone focused on a legislative debate, rather than try to do anything about the RAMPANT illegal gun sales.

And we can't do anything illegal gun sales until we finally get this war on drugs bullsnot under control.

 

[NETWizz]

Just watch this video... Powerful words!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WznSA4EU1Gk

 

[TechLady]

MobileTechie is right. America is obsessed with guns and we will will do anything to rationalize keeping them.

When our founding fathers wrote about "the right to bear arms," they were referring to general defense for miltias fighting Britain, not a prescription for every man, woman, child and dog to have a killing weapon.

 

[rsarceno]

I always wonder how people arrive to a conclusion that if a country has gun restriction then most crimes are committed without a gun. Is there such a survey, asking criminals if they own a gun or not?

If the info is based on crime stat, then it's only based if the criminal was caught or if the firearm was discharge. Since a lot of crimes are not been solve, then info couldn't be that accurate.

 

[compnet]

I always wonder how people arrive to a conclusion that if a country has gun restriction then most crimes are committed without a gun. Is there such a survey, asking criminals if they own a gun or not?

If the info is based on crime stat, then it's only based if the criminal was caught or if the firearm was discharge. Since a lot of crimes are not been solve, then info couldn't be that accurate.

I got a good laugh.. thanks

 

[HFultzjr]

MobileTechie is right. America is obsessed with guns and we will will do anything to rationalize keeping them.

When our founding fathers wrote about "the right to bear arms," they were referring to general defense for miltias fighting Britain, not a prescription for every man, woman, child and dog to have a killing weapon.

What!

If you're referring to the 2nd admendment.......it does say PEOPLE, not MILITIA.

Please re-read sloooowly and think about each and every word as it was penned.

Which part of "People" do you not understand?

Unless of course you can provide some facts and not just your understanding of our founding fathers confusing Militia with People.


Text of The 2nd Amendment:


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

 

[NETWizz]

What!

If you're referring to the 2nd admendment.......it does say PEOPLE, not MILITIA.

Please re-read sloooowly and think about each and every word as it was penned.

Which part of "People" do you not understand?

Unless of course you can provide some facts and not just your understanding of our founding fathers confusing Militia with People.


Text of The 2nd Amendment:


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

+1

The founding fathers said we needed a violent revolution every 20 or so years to secure our liberty. They did want everyone to have a killing machine as a last-ditch method to enforce our constitutional rights against an oppressive Government.

When Government fears the people, you have liberty... When people fear Government you have tyranny.


Taking our guns away has nothing to do with our safety or reducing crimes. It has to do with enslaving the population, taking away their rights, and taking away their freedom. Every-time in history there was gun confiscation, tyranny followed. You don't have a dictatorship when the entire populace is armed.