Gun control. social engineering?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

11-17-2009, 01:42 PM
2dumb2kwit

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENESSE

This is not an emotional issue for me nor do I need to be convinced one way or another.
I've gone through a lot of available data on the web and most of it can be used to support whatever view you hold. I don't want to get into spinning, I'm just curious about how people see their idea playing out, that's all.

Actually, I didn't mean you, getting emotional, I meant us. I was saying that you could get info, from sources, without our emotion. LOL:innocent:

I guess the short version, of my view, is that people make to big a fuss about the tool, and don't deal (well enough.) with the people that use them illegally.
11-17-2009, 01:46 PM
pocomoonskyeyes

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENESSE

Oh, and another thing.

Call me naive, but firearms and emotions don't mix.
Rational thinking and a cool head, yes.
(At least that's what the NRA instructor at the firing range tells me.)

Call me "old school" but I would rather "duke it out" than shoot someone. I would rather use necessary force to subdue a situation. That is what the military taught me (Guard duty). You only use ENOUGH force to stop the situation. Use of Deadly Force (a Firearm) is a LAST resort. It is used only when all other options are exhausted. This could be a rather fast paced decision making process(thinking in a split second). And the ensuing investigation would uncover that.
But I don't CCW, IF I carry it is in plain sight. I don't want anyone to underestimate(or overestimate) what the possibilities are. But currently I do not even own a firearm... none. I do carry a knife in plain sight well within my states laws. Make no mistake I WILL use it if a situation calls for it.
I know a LOT of people say that bringing a knife to a gun fight is stupid. But MOST altercations occur in rather close quarters when a gun is as much a danger to you as to your opponent. A knife does not have the same lethality or liabilities as a gun in this situation. That Is also why I prefer a knife to a gun. Even LEO's know that it is stupid to ALLOW a person wielding a knife within 20 ft of them. That is quite a distance when you think about it. Even when mortally wounded and dieing a knife wielding opponent can still manage to kill the shooter.
11-17-2009, 02:07 PM
BENESSE

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit

I guess the short version, of my view, is that people make to big a fuss about the tool, and don't deal (well enough.) with the people that use them illegally.

I definitely agree! Not nearly enough people get bent out of shape over that.
11-17-2009, 02:24 PM
trax

Well the long gun registry that 2d2k quoted in post #5 really just punished people who are serious about hunting. Handgun crime is on the rise all over urban Canada unfortunately.

It's kind of like a comedian was saying about the law "you see two pot-bellied middle aged fellas wearing blaze orange with Saskatchewan plates on the back of their '76 Ford pickup and a couple of rifles mounted in the back window and they happen to be cruising through downtown Winnipeg. H*ll yeah, pull 'em in officer! You just know they plan on bustin' a cap in someone's a$$"
11-17-2009, 05:25 PM
Ole WV Coot

I carry a handgun. I can use it very well. I have never drawn it in the USA. I can still stop your clock with most things that aren't considered weapons. I prefer a walking stick because I can carry it anywhere. Underestimate me and I can still do you in with my hands or feet, I learned well. Guns, big deal. Just another tool to keep civilization civilized. I never learned how to be politically correct when it came to self defense. You push me or my family you're paid for. Break in my house, you're dead. I don't see anything complicated about anything I read. It's really very simple to me, now if everyone was like me you wouldn't need to worry who carries what, and I wasn't taught to "duke it out", only finish.
11-17-2009, 06:42 PM
finallyME

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENESSE

Maybe that's the thing to do in the rest of the country since nothing else seems to work. But I can't help wondering...

How will it play out in large, diverse, crime ridden cities?
How will it affect road rage situations?
What new laws would we need to pass to keep track of all the additional firearms (can't keep track of what we have now), enforce proper handling, regulate how and when they can be used, (self-defense only, feeling threatened, protecting your own property or maybe your neighbors', vigilantism, etc., etc) and prosecute all the new and different cases that are sure to crop up?
How would have Ft. Hood played out differently?
Would we charge people for not carrying at all times and taking personal responsibility when something bad happens to them? (hey, not LE problem, that's what you get for being stupid)
Where does LE come in, as a referee?

This has become an emotional issue and emotions are exactly the wrong thing to bring to a discussion.

I saw that 2d answered this first. I might repeat, so sorry if I do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENESSE

How will it play out in large, diverse, crime ridden cities?

Lower crime. There are less victims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENESSE

How will it affect road rage situations?

Less road rage. How would you act if the other driver "might" be armed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENESSE

What new laws would we need to pass to keep track of all the additional firearms (can't keep track of what we have now), enforce proper handling, regulate how and when they can be used, (self-defense only, feeling threatened, protecting your own property or maybe your neighbors', vigilantism, etc., etc) and prosecute all the new and different cases that are sure to crop up?

Actually we would just repeal certain laws and make no new ones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENESSE

How would have Ft. Hood played out differently?

He would have been shot either before he shot anyone, or after only shooting a one or two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENESSE

Would we charge people for not carrying at all times and taking personal responsibility when something bad happens to them? (hey, not LE problem, that's what you get for being stupid)

NO! Free country. Free to carry, free not to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENESSE

Where does LE come in, as a referee?

How is that different from right now?
11-17-2009, 06:45 PM
finallyME

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocomoonskyeyes

But currently I do not even own a firearm... none.

Me too.....all mine were stolen.
11-17-2009, 06:58 PM
finallyME

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stony

don't you guys agree to safe handling, storage, and keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals?

Of course. The problem is how. Criminals generally don't buy guns at gun shops.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stony

if there would be some form of mandatory training , licensing and registration of owner and firearm, maybe the gun crime rate would drop.

It never has. In fact, it has always risen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stony

a national firearm acquisition permit for anyone wanting to buy, sell or own firearms, issued after mendatory training by national firearms insructors. national registration of all handguns by the justice department would curb the illegal sale to gangbangers, dopers and people who should not own any guns.

This is a serious subject, so I won't laugh. How would a national registration curb illegal sale? Illegal sale means they went around the legal registration process. Criminal will ALWAYS have guns. If they can't buy them, they can easily make them. In fact, if you make them harder to get, their street price goes up, giving criminals a larger profit when they manufacture them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stony

anyone convicted of a crime with jail time looses his gun permit either of time or for life.

This is no threat to a criminal who can easily get a weapon illegally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stony

so, before you all fly off your handle and start attcking me, maybe you think about how much safer the whole country would be.

Safer for who?
11-17-2009, 07:02 PM
NightShade

Quote:

Originally Posted by finallyME

Safer for who?

I must say,well put!
11-17-2009, 07:04 PM
finallyME

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENESSE

This is not an emotional issue for me nor do I need to be convinced one way or another.
I've gone through a lot of available data on the web and most of it can be used to support whatever view you hold. I don't want to get into spinning, I'm just curious about how people see their idea playing out, that's all.

Good point. Me too.
11-17-2009, 07:57 PM
pocomoonskyeyes

The only Model I really need to look at is feudal Japan. When it was made illegal for anyone but samurai to own a sword. As soon as this was done other weapons popped up - Nunchaku which was a flail for rice, Sai which was used as a quick disconnect pin between the tree and wagon,...I think everyone can see where this leads. If you use the comparison of Samurai to soldiers/police and guns/sword. I think we can see where this leads, and the end result. This has always been my position on Gun Control laws. There are always other alternatives out there. Like OWVC and his walking stick.
My only stance on this is to quit blaming the tool/weapon. We must look at the real problem, And that is and always has been people.
11-17-2009, 07:58 PM
BENESSE

So, everyone who cares:

When's the last time you personally needed to use a gun but didn't have one because of the law?

Please be specific and stick to the question.
11-17-2009, 08:02 PM
BENESSE

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocomoonskyeyes

My only stance on this is to quit blaming the tool/weapon. We must look at the real problem, And that is and always has been people.

Amen, brother!
11-17-2009, 08:04 PM
crashdive123

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocomoonskyeyes

The only Model I really need to look at is feudal Japan. When it was made illegal for anyone but samurai to own a sword. As soon as this was done other weapons popped up - Nunchaku which was a flail for rice, Sai which was used as a quick disconnect pin between the tree and wagon,...I think everyone can see where this leads. If you use the comparison of Samurai to soldiers/police and guns/sword. I think we can see where this leads, and the end result. This has always been my position on Gun Control laws. There are always other alternatives out there. Like OWVC and his walking stick.
My only stance on this is to quit blaming the tool/weapon. We must look at the real problem, And that is and always has been people.

Honestly the only model I really look at is the Constitution of the United States. I understand that not all forum members are US citizens, but I am, and that is what I look at.
11-17-2009, 08:14 PM
crashdive123

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENESSE

So, everyone who cares:

When's the last time you personally needed to use a gun but didn't have one because of the law?

Please be specific and stick to the question.

BENESSE - it has not happened to me personally. I am an activist to make sure that it dose not happen to me. Sadly, if it weren't for a law, a terrible tragedy MAY have been averted in Kileen, Texas in 1991. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bl.../2383442/posts

Quote:

From Article: Among the dead at Luby's that day were Al and Ursula Gratia. Their daughter, Dr. Suzanna Hupp, was with them when the restaurant was attacked while they were eating. But for a Texas law that required that she leave her personal pistol outside in her car, that forbade her from carrying it into the restaurant, Dr. Hupp would have had the ability to defend her parents, herself and the others from the erratic but deadly attack by George Hennard in the second-worst shooting rampage in American history.
Dr. Hupp, reacting instinctively to the first shots, reached into her purse for her pistol.
It was not there.

There are many other examples, none of which happened to me personally, but did (possibly) because of laws cause a needless waste of life. A mall shooting a few years back - shootings at VA Tech - Columbine (what if teachers were allowed to carry), etc.
11-17-2009, 08:34 PM
Rick

Every month the NRA publishes The Armed Citizen inside each of their magazines. Whether you agree with the NRA or not is not germane. The stories told within the article are true and testimony to the power of legally protecting yourself when someone seems he11 bent on doing you harm.
11-17-2009, 08:37 PM
2dumb2kwit

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENESSE

So, everyone who cares:

When's the last time you personally needed to use a gun but didn't have one because of the law?

Please be specific and stick to the question.

Never.

(Sorry, I can't stick to the question.)
I have also never needed to use a fire extinguisher......but I still know that it is a good idea for me to have one in my house, my shop, my office, my equipment, my truck.......

I have also never needed to perform CPR....but I know how, and think others should, too.
11-17-2009, 08:44 PM
BENESSE

Quote:

Originally Posted by crashdive123

BENESSE - it has not happened to me personally. I am an activist to make sure that it dose not happen to me. Sadly, if it weren't for a law, a terrible tragedy MAY have been averted in Kileen, Texas in 1991. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bl.../2383442/posts

Totally get this and agree.

There are many other examples, none of which happened to me personally, but did (possibly) because of laws cause a needless waste of life. A mall shooting a few years back - shootings at VA Tech - Columbine (what if teachers were allowed to carry), etc.

True enough about these examples as well.
However, what I'm not hearing loud enough and often enough is the outrage about poor parental supervision (Columbine) and granting gun permits to mentally unstable people with a record (for anyone to check) of mental instability. (VA Tech)
11-17-2009, 08:48 PM
BENESSE

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit

I have also never needed to use a fire extinguisher......but I still know that it is a good idea for me to have one in my house, my shop, my office, my equipment, my truck.......

A bit of a stretch to prove a point, I think.
11-17-2009, 08:48 PM
2dumb2kwit

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENESSE

True enough about these examples as well.
However, what I'm not hearing loud enough and often enough is the outrage about poor parental supervision (Columbine) and granting gun permits to mentally unstable people with a record (for anyone to check) of mental instability. (VA Tech)

I thought the reason that the "Va. Tech Guy" fell through the cracks, was that his mental problems were not reported, because of PC/privacy stuff.

...and don't get me started, on the PC stuff!:innocent:

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page