I have. From a dude who competes.

And I still rent my handguns at the range, because there's no way in hell I'd want to own one so I could introduce a firearm to a confrontation. I'll buy an XD45 as soon as I'm certain the cost will be less than the price of all my future rental fees. But only then.

I'm more likely to buy a Mossberg 500, but only as a $200 insurance policy against truly crazy apocalyptic stuff going down.

3/15/2010 9:19:47 PM

Quote :

"No, but someone directly threatening your life and safety does. See there's this little agreement in society whereby if you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone. The moment, however, that you deem it necessary to threaten my life or the life of my family, you have surrendered any claim you have to your own life, until such time are you are no longer capable of threatening them"

yes but your life is not threatened if you are being robbed or humiliated. See, theres a slippery slope down the line of what is threatening your life or the life of your family and we can't just having people destroying other people just because they're being made uncomfortable. This is why we need non-lethal arms (very possible with todays technology). Defending yourself is one thing but killing someone because they "fucked with you" is murder

If someone is sexing your daughter, for example, you have no right to kill them but how many fathers would? husbands? boyfriends?

Theres just too many scenarios where emotions can lead to the loss of lives.

Quote :

"Seems to work ok for taliban insurgents. Also, history shows us that superior technology helps, but does not guarantee success."

dude there is no way anyone with small arms could accomplish anything against a post world war 1 military. no way.

3/15/2010 9:31:12 PM

Quote :

"I have. From a dude who competes."

chris tilley? i'm gonna tell him that you are telling people that they should just hide their guns on tall shelves instead of securing them. and if you actually shoot that much buying a gun will pay for itself quickly. you're saving $10/50 rounds plus gun rental fee every time you shoot. thats a $400 handgun real quick.

Quote :

"yes but your life is not threatened if you are being robbed or humiliated. See, theres a slippery slope down the line of what is threatening your life or the life of your family and we can't just having people destroying other people just because they're being made uncomfortable. This is why we need non-lethal arms (very possible with todays technology). Defending yourself is one thing but killing someone because they "fucked with you" is murder If someone is sexing your daughter, for example, you have no right to kill them but how many fathers would? husbands? boyfriends? Theres just too many scenarios where emotions can lead to the loss of lives. "

this is just retarded, shooting the guy that is fucking your daughter is already illegal. can we use that reasoning to outlaw knifes? that could lead to assault, force people to wear foam mitts? he could strangle him with a belt, so... no belts?

3/15/2010 9:44:35 PM

not to mention that it's also illegal to taser or pepper spray people who aren't threatening you.

[Edited on March 15, 2010 at 10:03 PM. Reason : there is no slippery slope like you describe, you fucking retard.]

3/15/2010 10:03:13 PM

those other items you listed have primary uses that aren't murder

3/15/2010 10:05:41 PM

so does my SigSauer

3/15/2010 10:06:45 PM

sometimes I'd like to take my Springfield, unload it, and then proceed to pistol whip the shit out of mambagrl. That way she could realize that guns serve more purpose than just shooting people.

3/15/2010 10:24:01 PM

True, but at least that wouldn't be an impulse pistol whipping. The same could not be said of an impulse murder.

Don't you think if restrictions were implemented to make owning guns, especially handguns, more difficult, that gun crime would go down? We will never get to the point where "criminals are the only ones who have guns," so that argument is pretty foolish. I can't think of the number of times I have heard on the news about someone who owned a gun legally committing some horrible offense. I don't think that these people represent the average gun owner (the pawn shop owner is someone who probably prevents crime through the open display of his weapon), but as the number of gun owners goes up dramatically, and guns are more accepted in our culture, then the small percentage of offenders who use their guns inappropriately represents a larger and larger absolute number of incidents.

Part of the problem in my mind is that gun owners are so vehemently opposed to any sort of regulation, for the most part. The "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands" mentality leads to a huge polarization. Maybe if gun owners were responsible for paying the societal price in some way for those who commit crimes with guns (for example, a gun tax that goes to pay for restitution to victims of gun crimes, or housing prisoners who used guns to commit offenses...I know it won't happen, just a thought), they would start to take a little more ownership over the fact that unless they step up and agree to better tactics for limiting the use of guns, esp. handguns, in violent ways, then their freedoms to own any gun are going to have to be limited in some way.

3/15/2010 10:38:15 PM

Quote :

"sometimes I'd like to take my Springfield, unload it, and then proceed to pistol whip the shit out of mambagrl. That way she could realize that guns serve more purpose than just shooting people."

AHAHAHAHA. got me rolling!

3/15/2010 10:43:21 PM

i'm for reasonable laws so long as they are not emotionally based, things like deciding which gun is an "assault weapon" based on how scary it looks is straight out retarded. i have no problem with background checks, no problem with not allowing felons or mentally unstable people to have guns, what exactly are you suggesting? the tax thing? as far as taxes, i don't see the point. the criminal should be liable to pay restitution to a victim, not innocent people.

for example, this:

Quote :

"Don't you think if restrictions were implemented to make owning guns, especially handguns, more difficult, that gun crime would go down? We will never get to the point where "criminals are the only ones who have guns," so that argument is pretty foolish."

you even say why this is foolish. handguns are already more difficult to own, but i would love to see some actual evidence that more restrictions would reduce gun crime.

3/15/2010 10:46:43 PM

Quote :

"but as the number of gun owners goes up dramatically, and guns are more accepted in our culture,"

what, since when?

Quote :

"Part of the problem in my mind is that gun owners are so vehemently opposed to any sort of regulation, for the most part. The "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands" mentality leads to a huge polarization. "

I and many others are not "vehemently opposed to any sort of regulation"...but gun owners, collectively, are very distrustful of the political left and any potential regulation, and really for pretty good reason. You people don't really have the best track record.

Quote :

"Maybe if gun owners were responsible for paying the societal price in some way for those who commit crimes with guns (for example, a gun tax that goes to pay for restitution to victims of gun crimes, or housing prisoners who used guns to commit offenses...I know it won't happen, just a thought), "

OK, then why single out guns?

3/15/2010 10:50:17 PM

Quote :

"You people"

You people! You racist!!!

Also, I don't just single out guns. They are starting new initiatives to tax sugary beverages because of the impact on obesity. We already tax the shit out of cigarettes to pay for the health care implications. The idea of the Superfund (when it was funded) made those groups who were responsible for possible pollution pay for the fixes. And of course my idea of taxing gun owners wouldn't go anywhere the way it was, it's just a general idea. My point is that if all gun owners were held accountable for the inevitable nature of the dangers of gun ownership, maybe they would be more willing to take steps that would adequately police the situation.

I don't know about the idea of being terrified of the left...I think that the partisanship in our country has become worse and worse in the past decade. I do think that if you aren't happy with the proposals put forth by the other side, then find some way of putting forth your own ideas that will help to stop gun crime, and still allow the everyday gun owner who is responsible to keep their weapons.

I really don't care HOW it happens, I just want it to happen. Makes no difference to me. In my opinion, if people refuse to regulate themselves, that's when the government should step in. (Fat people are a great example...tax the shit out of fatty foods in my mind, at least until the rate of preventable heart disease declines. And take all that money and put it into health care coverage.)

3/15/2010 11:41:23 PM

^ All the proposals that are reasonable are already law. What more do you want?

And your tax idea is offensive. Punish the guilty, not the innocent. If you want a law punishing gun owners with a stiff fine for allowing their guns to be stolen, that sounds like a good idea.

3/16/2010 2:01:52 AM

Quote :

"dude there is no way anyone with small arms could accomplish anything against a post world war 1 military"

Just ask the soviets...

3/16/2010 2:58:42 AM

I've seen a few people this tax season listing "guns for business protection" on their information when they bring it in.

Pharmaceutical sales is a tough world - I didn't know salesmen were spending $80 annually in ammo for protection.

3/16/2010 8:26:23 AM

Quote :

"Just ask the soviets..."

mambagrl = pwnt

3/16/2010 8:32:21 AM

Not that I'm necessarily agreeing with mambagrl, but didn't the US-supplied anti-aircraft missiles help? Not exactly small arms.

3/16/2010 10:09:41 AM

Quote :

"yes but your life is not threatened if you are being robbed or humiliated. See, theres a slippery slope down the line of what is threatening your life or the life of your family and we can't just having people destroying other people just because they're being made uncomfortable. This is why we need non-lethal arms (very possible with todays technology). Defending yourself is one thing but killing someone because they "fucked with you" is murder"

proof that you have no clue what's going on. no one is talking about shooting your daughter's boyfriend or shooting someone for yanking your PS3. What was said is that you have the right to defend your life from the threat of death, serious injury, or sexual assault. Look, if you don't care to defend yourself, then go ahead and get murdered, maimed, or raped. But don't tell me I can't defend myself. And for you nuts that thinks self defense with firearms is always a shootout, how about you look into facts first.

3/16/2010 10:29:35 AM

^^ The vast majority were armed with WWI-era Lee-Enfield rifles and even older weapons. Though they would often capture modern soviet small arms they favored the bolt-action enfield because it was ideal for sniping and could easily punch through soviet body armor.

Eventually the soviets began executing anyone they found armed with an enfield.

3/16/2010 3:21:17 PM

ya all those russian tanks got taken out by rifles.

Quote :

"Official: Gun in Pentagon shooting was once in police possession From Dugald McConnell CNN's ""The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer" March 16, 2010 9:28 a.m. EDT Pentagon police officers shot a man after he shot two of them March 4 outside the Pentagon.STORY HIGHLIGHTS Official: Memphis, Tennessee, police seized gun during traffic stop in 2005 Gun, traded to distributor in 2008, recovered at Pentagon shooting this month Memphis mayor: I'll review Police Department's practice of selling or trading guns Sheriff's spokesman: Trading for upgraded weapons is efficient way to get equipment RELATED TOPICS The Pentagon Shootings Gun Control See how guns seized by police departments can end up in criminals' hands on "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer" today at 5pm ET Washington (CNN) -- A gun recovered from this month's shooting at the Pentagon was once in the possession of the Memphis Police Department, a law enforcement official told CNN. Memphis, Tennessee, police seized the Ruger 9 mm handgun during a traffic stop in 2005 and in 2008 traded it to a distributor in Georgia. It passed through a distributor in Pennsylvania and a dealer in Las Vegas, Nevada, before being sold at a gun show, after which the trail goes cold. Memphis Mayor A.C. Wharton, a Democrat, said he would review the Police Department's practice of selling or trading guns in police possession, in spite of the revenue it brings. "I just don't want our city having any role in getting a confiscated gun back on the streets," he told CNN affiliate WREG on Sunday. Authorities say John Patrick Bedell, 36, of California, armed with two 9 mm handguns, shot and wounded two security guards outside the Pentagon on March 4 before he was fatally shot. Bedell had repeatedly tangled with police and had been institutionalized at least three times for mental problems, according to California authorities. Some cities destroy weapons that come into their possession. A former New York Police Department official said the city sends as many as 20,000 guns a year to be smelted for scrap metal. But a bill signed on the same day as the Pentagon shooting bars Tennessee police from destroying contraband guns. It says they must either sell such weapons or use them unless a police official "certifies to the court the weapon is inoperable or unsafe." Police in Memphis also once possessed the gun used in January shootings at a Las Vegas, Nevada, courthouse, according to the law enforcement official. As reported first by the Associated Press, the shotgun used in that attack, which killed an officer Stanley Cooper, was confiscated in 1998 in Memphis and handed over to county officials. The Shelby County Sheriff's Office traded it to a gun store in Massachusetts several years ago, and it was shipped to a store in Arizona and eventually sold to someone at a gun show. Shelby County sheriff's spokesman Steve Shular said trading confiscated guns for upgraded weapons is an efficient way to get adequate equipment for officers protecting the public at a time when law enforcement is asked to make cutbacks in personnel and operating expenses. He added that now, Shelby County trades only used law enforcement weapons, not confiscated weapons. Wharton said the revenue from trade-ins is not worth it. "You ask the people in Vegas, and ask those officers at the Pentagon: Was it worth $100,000 for those guns to be used against them?" Gun rights advocate Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America said it doesn't matter whether a gun has passed through the hands of a police department if it is sold legally. "It's no different for a law enforcement agency to sell its guns than it is for a private dealer to sell its guns," Pratt said. "They're both going to be going into the private market." Memphis police spokeswoman Karen Rudolph said her department would have a hard time controlling what happens to weapons after they are traded. "It is an unfortunate coincidence, and not within the control of the Memphis Police Department, that the firearms used in both of these high-profile incidents were not properly and legally distributed after being legally obtained by federally licensed law enforcement weapons dealers," Rudolph said. The suspects in neither the Las Vegas attack nor the Pentagon case were eligible to buy a gun at a store. In the Las Vegas case, suspect Johnny Wicks would have been ineligible because of a prior felony conviction. Bedell, who had a history of mental illness, failed a background check when he tried to buy a gun in Sacramento, California, his family said. He received a letter from the California attorney general's office in January saying he could not buy a gun because of his history. Because both guns were sold at gun shows, where records and background checks are not required, authorities are uncertain how either weapon ultimately got into the hands of the suspects. While some cities are selling guns, cities including Miami, Florida; Boston, Massachusetts; and Oakland, California, have mounted efforts to buy guns from the public. A federal gun buyback initiative, begun under President Clinton, ended under President George W. Bush amid debate over its effectiveness. "

3/16/2010 4:20:45 PM

Quote :

"dude there is no way anyone with small arms could accomplish anything against a post world war 1 military"

Define "accomplish anything"

Ever heard of the little war we're fighting in Iraq?

3/16/2010 4:24:55 PM

Quote :

"ya all those russian tanks got taken out by rifles."

Many were destroyed with RPGs taken from dead soviet infantry who'd been shot to death.

Quote :

"dude there is no way anyone with small arms could accomplish anything against a post world war 1 military"

Just ask the soviets americans...

3/16/2010 4:43:29 PM

I have nothing to add to the second amendment discussion, but I just wanted to note that I found this quote to be absolutely ridiculous, regarding burglars:

Quote :

"They are highly unlikely, though, to find a handgun perched on a shelf that is well-concealed by family pictures. Or to find the shotgun draped across the top row of a bookshelf sitting behind 500-page philosophy books."

Plz to store your guns more securely.

3/16/2010 5:00:25 PM

Just today some crackhead tried breaking into my house through the backdoor. Luckily my roommate heard him, grabbed his USP .40, opened the door for the would-be thief, and watched the guy run for the hills.

3/16/2010 6:01:44 PM

Quote :

"guns might not be the best solution in all situations but that doesn't mean its not the best solution for some situations"

Hell tactical nuclear weapons might be the best solution for some situations, that doesn't mean they should be legal.

Quote :

"because non-lethal force versus lethal force is a fair battle"

It's not about a fair battle, it's just about avoiding killing anyone, if someone tries to mug you, you don't NEED to kill them, you just need to get away from them, pepper spray or taser will work fine for that, and it comes with the added benefit of not killing anyone.

Quote :

"maybe some of you guys should lay off the Mr & Mrs Smith type movies and learn what self defense with firearms is all about."

Maybe you should lay of the james bond and realize that you can be shot and killed just anyone else.

Quote :

"Define "accomplish anything" Ever heard of the little war we're fighting in Iraq?"

They got their automatic guns and RPGs through smuggling and drug profits, but they don't really use them that often, they tend to get their asses kicked when they do, that's why they use IEDs so much.

Quote :

"Just ask the soviets"

They got their guns given to them by other countries.

Quote :

"Just ask the soviets americans..."

So did they.

3/16/2010 6:18:17 PM

Quote :

"It's not about a fair battle, it's just about avoiding killing anyone, if someone tries to mug you, you don't NEED to kill them, you just need to get away from them, pepper spray or taser will work fine for that, and it comes with the added benefit of not killing anyone."

No, it's not about avoiding killing anyone.

If someone is threatening my safety, I'm not concerned with his welfare. I'd much prefer to armed with a gun for a variety of reasons. If the bad guy has to die because I want the best tool for the job when it comes to saving my own ass, I have no problem with that.

3/16/2010 6:27:00 PM

If you decide to rob people, one of the job risks is being shot.

3/16/2010 6:28:23 PM

Quote :

"They got their guns given to them by other countries."

Not counting the old weapons that they were extremely proficient with or the weapons that were manufactured indigenously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khyber_Pass_Copy

Regardless, if a full blown insurgency popped up in the US you don't think that weapons would be smuggled in from other countries?

3/16/2010 6:30:31 PM

people making their own rifles or smuggling them in have nothing to do with the original argument

3/16/2010 6:53:48 PM

Quote :

" It's not about a fair battle, it's just about avoiding killing anyone, if someone tries to mug you, you don't NEED to kill them, you just need to get away from them, pepper spray or taser will work fine for that, and it comes with the added benefit of not killing anyone."

uhh..... no, its about protecting myself. our society exists because of social contracts we make about how we act with each other. we frame this social contract with laws, but it goes to something more basic than laws. when someone violates the social contract and puts myself in danger they lose the right to have me worry about their well-being; at that point my only concern is for my own safety and the safety of those immediately in my charge. if put in that situation i will use whatever i deem necessary to defend myself and have no responsibility to the other person.

3/16/2010 6:55:35 PM

To really defend yourself, wouldn't you need nuclear weapons and such? I mean what if Iran decides to attack you?

3/16/2010 7:16:44 PM

Quote :

"pepper spray or taser will work fine for that, and it comes with the added benefit of not killing anyone. "

Aside from the fact that pepper spray only works if you contact the face, and then only if your assailant is responsive to the pain, there's also the fact that pepper spray has the very real risk of also hurting you, thereby reducing the likelihood of you escaping safely.

A taser is better, but is also defeated by layers of clothing, or if one of the prongs miss. Then there's the fact that if you miss the first shot, your only alternative is close range contact shock, which is even less effective than the initial tase at incapacitating your assailant. Note that civilian tasers allow you to basically press the taser button up to 6 times (30 second tase) because when the shock is done, your assailant is perectly capable of getting back up and continuing the attack, so the idea is that you push the full tasing time into the taser and put it down and take off running. A 30 second head start is great, but you must put down your taser, thereby disarming you. A taser is also less effective against multiple assailants.

Then there is also the fact that both the taser and pepper spray have limited shelf lives (10 years and less than 5 years for most pepper sprays). By comparison, most modern ammunition is good for 20+ years and of course the guns are good for even longer times.

Of course, ideally you wouldn't have to worry about shelf life as you should be practicing with your weapon of choice, which is probably fairly cheap for pepper spray but can get awfully expensive for tasers ($25 per shot, plus batteries).

It's also worth noting that in some states, it's almost as much trouble to get a taser or pepper spray as it is to get a gun in the first place, like Massachusetts, where you need a $100 FID just to buy pepper spray (http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/education/hed/hed_gun_laws.htm and http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/chsb/frb_fid_lic_app.pdf)

Of course all of this is academic when your assailant is himself armed with a gun because, in a surprise twist no one could see coming, he doesn't obey the law in the first place.

Tasers and pepper spray have their place to be sure, but they also have their own set of unique disadvantages that make them less than ideal tools for defending your life.

Quote :

"To really defend yourself, wouldn't you need nuclear weapons and such? I mean what if Iran decides to attack you?"

There is a significant difference between personal weapons and massively destructive weapons.

[Edited on March 16, 2010 at 7:40 PM. Reason : asdf]

3/16/2010 7:39:04 PM

Quote :

"To really defend yourself, wouldn't you need nuclear weapons and such? I mean what if Iran decides to attack you?"

luckily i have a military that i pay taxes for protecting me for things like this. i suppose that your response will be that i also have the police, and while you may be ok with their response time when your life is in danger i would prefer not to be dependent on help that is minutes away.

3/16/2010 7:43:42 PM

Quote :

"To really defend yourself, wouldn't you need nuclear weapons and such? I mean what if Iran decides to attack you? "

It should be obvious that you've lost the argument when you start saying shit like this.

Of course, most of the people who post stuff like that are weak enough on critical thinking that they can't possibly be self-aware of something like that.

3/16/2010 7:45:24 PM

Quote :

"Aside from the fact that pepper spray only works if you contact the face, and then only if your assailant is responsive to the pain, there's also the fact that pepper spray has the very real risk of also hurting you, thereby reducing the likelihood of you escaping safely."

A gun only completely works if you hit them in the chest or head, and only if the assailant is responsive to the pain.

Quote :

"There is a significant difference between personal weapons and massively destructive weapons."

Sure, I stated earlier I have no problem with shotguns or rifles.

Quote :

"luckily i have a military that i pay taxes for protecting me for things like this."

I would prefer not to be dependent on a military that is miles and miles away.

3/16/2010 7:49:27 PM

Quote :

"A gun only completely works if you hit them in the chest or head, and only if the assailant is responsive to the pain."

Not true at all. In addition to the pants shitting power of finding yourself staring down the barrel of a gun, a gun shot (even if you miss) is often enough to initiate the "flight" part of your assailant's "fight or flight" impulses. Never mind that a gun will produce pain and blood loss no matter where it hits, and most hand guns provide you with a minimum of 4 extra chances before you have to reload, and the fact that no matter how unresponsive to pain your assailant is, eventually the rules of biology state that if blood out > blood in, you will fall.

3/16/2010 7:55:07 PM

The military works fine from miles and miles away. We have intel, RADAR, satellites, and standoff weapons.

3/16/2010 7:55:20 PM

I can see people who believe that guns are a necessary evil, to prevent further evil.

But doesn't it seem like a lot of the comments are less about you HAVING to defend yourself in a way that results in a loss of life or serious bodily harm to someone else, and more about WANTING to? It's like people relish the fact that they might end up killing someone.

I guess it's just me, but my attitude is that whenever someone ends up dead, that's not a good thing. It happens sometimes, and in some cases it's the best of the bad alternatives, but there's just a little too much pleasure being taken from the whole thing here for my tastes. If we are really the kind of people who think it's cool to kill someone else, instead of it being a regretful scenario, then whether it's guns or not is secondary to other, larger questions.

3/16/2010 8:04:32 PM

this planet is overpopulated, and some of these fucktards need to go. When I hear about some douchebag criminal getting killed by his would-be victim, I rejoice a little bit inside. That doesn't mean I want to be the one pulling the trigger unless it's unavoidable. However, I'm not like some of the bitchass liberals in here who would rather just lay down and become a statistic instead of entertaining the possibility of fighting back and protecting their own life.

Quote :

"if someone tries to mug you, you don't NEED to kill them, you just need to get away from them, pepper spray or taser will work fine for that, and it comes with the added benefit of not killing anyone.""

some people are immune to pepper spray, and even if they aren't, there's a good chance that you'll end up spraying yourself in the process if the wind catches the spray. Besides, spray is only effective from a short distance. I believe most sprays have an effective range of about 6'. An attacker could cover that distance faster than you could get a good spray to their face. If they were wearing a mask, you might not get them at all. Even if you do hit them, most people get over the effects in about 5-10 minutes. What are you going to do to an attacker in that amount of time to incapacitate them? Cops don't respond that fast, and the person is still capable of fighting you.

all tazers are going to do is piss the person off. Civilian models are designed for you to turn the tazer on and run away. Do you really plan on doing that to someone who breaks into your home, and abandon your home and family in the process?

If someone broke into my house and got confronted by me with a gun, they'd be getting off easier than if they had been confronted by me with a taser or a can of pepper spray. The person confronted by a gun is going to either run or get shot. The person confronted by non-lethal products will survive the initial bout only to find themselves being delimbed and gutted with a bush axe from the garage.

3/16/2010 8:34:37 PM

I know in the Marine Corps, being pepper sprayed and then having to fight is not that uncommon. They do it in infantry officer course, martial arts instructor courses, higher level martial arts courses, and I think in MP school.

I mean, pepper spray sucks a lot, but it isn't incapacitating in the way that multiple rounds of .45 acp hollow points are.


http://www.militaryspot.com/news/item/blind_fury_future_mcmap_instructors_fight_back_tears/

just one example.

Quote :

"But doesn't it seem like a lot of the comments are less about you HAVING to defend yourself in a way that results in a loss of life or serious bodily harm to someone else, and more about WANTING to? It's like people relish the fact that they might end up killing someone. "

I think it should be obvious that when you inflict trauma severe enough to immediately and completely incapacitate an angry/high/desperate assailant, it isn't that unlikely for there to be a fatal outcome.

Sorry...that's the nature of the business. It's avoidable, though. Don't go robbing or attacking people.

3/16/2010 9:00:02 PM

^That is a perfect example of what I just mentioned.

Just an FYI, the world isn't absolute. Everyone doesn't think that you should either gut someone with a knife or let them murder you and rape your wife, because we don't want to hurt anyone. That type of mindset doesn't further your ideas at all, it just trivializes the debate and reduces it to two opposing sides who have no desire to even discuss a workable solution because each side is so angry at the other.

3/16/2010 9:00:28 PM

OK, about this solution...

What do you want to see enacted that isn't already in place?

3/16/2010 9:04:25 PM

Well, to be honest, I don't think heavily about the gun issue, most of my responses have just been based on gut reaction and looking into things based on what has been said in the thread, so my ideas aren't exactly fleshed out.

I can say that I think fewer guns is better, but my main concern is the use of guns in crimes. Maybe a twofold response, because I think that dealing with the gun issue heavily would increase the load on our criminal justice system, and without relaxing that load, it would become overwhelmed.

First, decriminalize many drug crimes. Apparently a lot of crime comes from drug seeking behavior and related actions. That would allow us to more heavily prosecute ANY sort of crime committed with a gun. I thought the punishment for Plaxico Burress was strong, but it says that NYC doesn't fuck with unregistered and illegal guns. That's a good message, if you have the room in the system to actually send it.

Eliminating all the gun show sales and other unregistered weapons. I'd be fine if we developed a way to tie every gun that is made or imported to a dealer, and that dealer was responsible for making sure it was properly licensed to an individual, or they lost their own license.

Do those sound like options that would work in some way, or do you have other suggestions?

3/16/2010 9:13:22 PM

any situation that requires defending my life and justifies me defending myself is a situation that justifies me defending myself absolutely. i have a pretty strong christian faith and would never want to kill someone, but if i ever needed to use my gun to defend myself it would be a situation where i felt my life was at danger and the best way to protect myself is multiple rounds center mass. that's probably going to be fatal, but i imagine that i wouldn't have a lot of time to try to incapacitate someone in a way that wasn't fatal.

there seems to be this line of thinking among people who have never fired a gun that you should just be able to shoot them in the leg or something to stop them... it doesn't work like that. i would only ever be pulling my gun out in a situation where i felt my life was at risk and in that situation i am going to do everything i can to make sure that threat is reduced. i'm sorry that means that the criminal may die, but when you violate that social contract i stop worrying about your well-being.

^just fyi, beyond any dealer (gun show or brick and mortar) there is no standard mandatory licensing or registration. some places have mandatory registration, but not all places. you may know that but your response made it sound like you weren't clear about that. if you are proposing mandatory gun registration i would disagree with you and im sure many of the other posters in this thread would as well.

[Edited on March 16, 2010 at 9:18 PM. Reason : .]

3/16/2010 9:15:53 PM

I figure that many gun owners would not like that, but can you tell me why that requirement would be so onerous, other than the general Big Brother argument? I know that most people who heavily advocate gun ownership are also very conservative and usually distrustful of government, but is there a rational argument against registration?

3/16/2010 9:25:35 PM

the argument from that perspective is that it is an unnecessary invasion of privacy.

3/16/2010 9:41:15 PM

Quote :

"I know that most people who heavily advocate gun ownership are also very conservative and usually distrustful of government, but is there a rational argument against registration?"

What is irrational about disliking registration because it's none of the government's business? Your ownership of a gun is no more the government's business than what books you read, what religion you are, or what you do to another consenting adult in your bedroom.

But if that isn't enough for you, there's also the fact that registration wouldn't actually prevent any crimes from being committed. Not only are most guns used in crimes stolen (something on the order of 95%), but serial numbers are easily filed off or removed. And in the few cases where you have a legal owner transferring the gun illegally or committing the crime himself, registration doesn't do anything because the legal owner is committing a crime, and is not likely to register the crime before he commits it.

And it's not like gun owners don't have every reason in the world to be distrustful of the government and their handling of gun rights and private data. A look at the disaster that was the gun confiscation in NO after hurricane katrina is enough reason for any gun owner to not want their guns registered with the government.

3/16/2010 9:44:53 PM

Quote :

"I thought the punishment for Plaxico Burress was strong, but it says that NYC doesn't fuck with unregistered and illegal guns. That's a good message, if you have the room in the system to actually send it. "

That was a horrible message to send. They basically tried to show that if you were black and had money and wanted to keep from getting robbed, you're going to jail for a very long time. Plaxico had an expired CCW license from Florida at the time of the incident. It not like he was just out gangbanging on the streets with a gun with no serial numbers. They gave Plaxico 3.5 years for shooting HIMSELF accidentally, yet Dante Stallworth gets a month in jail for killing a man while drunk driving? What kind of message is that to send?

gun registration is the first step towards making guns illegal. First they register them, and then they come to collect them. History has proven this time and time again.

3/16/2010 10:04:37 PM

Quote :

"but is there a rational argument against registration?"

ask the citizens of new orleans

3/16/2010 10:17:04 PM

Quote :

"Well, to be honest, I don't think heavily about the gun issue, most of my responses have just been based on gut reaction"

...and this is a real problem. I've noticed that, nearly without exception, the anti-gun crowd knows little or nothing about the issues. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop them from taking a position, casting votes, and pushing (often ill-conceived) policy.

I mean, this is a problem in stupid, fat, lazy America across the political spectrum on all kinds of issues, but it seems like the left re: gun control is one of the more egregious and consistent.

Quote :

"I can say that I think fewer guns is better"

Right there, you've already turned off the gun crowd, confirmed the distrust they almost certainly already had towards you, and caused them to dig in their heels against pretty much anything else you want to do regarding guns. As long as this is a desire of the gun-control crowd, they will get the "from my cold, dead hands" response from the opposite side. If you want to accomplish anything, you need to completely flush that notion, and focus solely on criminal behavior with firearms.

Quote :

"First, decriminalize many drug crimes. Apparently a lot of crime comes from drug seeking behavior and related actions. "

Concur. (not a hot button issue to me, but I do support relaxing the "war on drugs").

However, how many people are taking up space in prison who didn't do anything but get busted smoking a joint or pulling bong rips with their friends?

Not many...I mean, as far as I'm concerned, those things should be decriminalized, but recreational use of "soft" drugs doesn't generally get you thrown in the slammer.

Quote :

"Eliminating all the gun show sales and other unregistered weapons. I'd be fine if we developed a way to tie every gun that is made or imported to a dealer, and that dealer was responsible for making sure it was properly licensed to an individual, or they lost their own license. "

Gun shows, in an of themselves, are an absolute non-issue. What you people get up in arms about is that, in most states (not NC, incidentally, at least for handguns), you don't have to do a background check when you sell a gun unless you're a firearms dealer. For some odd reason, the gun control crowd has latched onto gun shows, but in reality, a gun show is no different than if I sold you a gun

(in almost all states, you can sell a long gun private party without restriction. In NC, you still have to have a pistol permit to buy a handgun via private party...but in VA, for example, I've sold a handgun to a friend with no complication other than him handing me cash and me handing him my SIG.)


OK, furthermore, guns are not registered or licensed. In a few states (NC being one), you must have a permit to purchase a handgun. This is a generic permit that you get from the sheriff, basically saying you paid $5 and passed a background check and waiting period. It has no information about the gun itself...many people go to the sheriff and buy several pistol permits just for future use, just so they don't have to go back and fuck with it every time they want to buy a new handgun.

Quote :

"I figure that many gun owners would not like that, but can you tell me why that requirement would be so onerous, other than the general Big Brother argument? I know that most people who heavily advocate gun ownership are also very conservative and usually distrustful of government, but is there a rational argument against registration?"

Well, to start with, why in the hell wouldn't we be distrustful? The very first fucking thing you said was that you wanted to reduce the number of guns, and you're hardly the exception.

not to mention stuff like the New Orleans gun confiscation, showing that it's a very real and imminent threat. Sorry, but there is no way in hell I would divulge what guns I own to the government, law or not.


On top of all that, there's the opposition on principle. It's not the government's business, whether they do anything bad with the information or not.

and yeah, like 1337 b4k4 said, I don't think it would accomplish very much at all in terms of fighting crime.

3/16/2010 11:09:11 PM