Gun Control or...not

[darin]

A friend posted this on another forum:


I was coming out of an autoparts store tonight, and walked into a hyped up meth addict with a gun hyjacking a womans van in the parking lot. He had pushed her to the ground...and she kept trying to get back in her van.....I just told her to get out and let him take the damn van....all the while with the gun pointed at my head. I guess she was upset cause her dog was in the van

This brings me to the "I wish I lived in Texas" part......I wish it was legal to carry a sidearm here....I sure would have liked to have had an option other than stand there and feel helpless. Although I'm sure that the result was probably the best thing....we are both still alive.

MOST of the convo went well - but of COURSE there are a few ninnies:


adding a second weapon into a person's hands who is untrained to deal with these situations with unstable individuals makes it safer?


common people walking around common places with guns seems to me to be a way to increase the danger for everyone anywhere.


Hero's do what you did!

Had you had a gun, this wouldn't have been a hero story, it'd have been a tragic criminal murder, a crime gone wrong or an accidental shooting of innocent bystanders.

In most social situations, a gun is your least powerful tool

My reply to the ninny above:



...except when a criminal is pointing one at your head. (shrug).
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003294508_westlake08m.html


I dunno, in this case the attacker was using his fists. Couldn't the victim have physically fought back without shooting him?

Can you BELIEVE people? I mean...there were other replies like "shoot to wound!" or whatever.

Holy HELL - I get depressed when I come in contact with MORE and MORE dee-dee-dee-liberals or otherwise unwise folk in this country. The Country is getting WORSE and WORSE in terms of 'right' and 'wrong'.

It gets better:


Sad story, no man who genuinely values human life would want the life of another man on their hands...epically if it's only loosely justified like the above article. Empathy for others, including the mentally ill is what makes us human, and helps separate us from being criminals ourselves.

This story highlights the problem of a firearm...it solved one problem, but replaced it with several others, including one that will last the rest of the shooters life.




I dunno, in this case the attacker was using his fists. Couldn't the victim have physically fought back without shooting him?



Let me ask you - if you were getting your ass-kicked by a guy threatening to kill you, would you try the LEAST amount of force required, or would you want to stop the guy.

(shrug).

Shooting to 'wound' is stuff of the movies

Get this:


If you're getting your ass kicked and you can handle a gun, at all, then you aren't in enough trouble to end someone's life.


The irony of firearms is that they make you into the people most people are trying to defend themselves from. This is a reality most people don't think through. Taking a life is no light matter.

So that guy is saying this:

"IF, while getting your ass-kicked, you have the ability to reach for a gun, you aren't getting your ass kicked BAD ENOUGH to warrant USING a gun."

Wha? In other words, "The ONLY time you should use a gun to stop yourself from an attack is if you are being attacked with SUCH violence that you are UNABLE to reach for, and use a Gun." And to the last part - the part he calls "Irony" I put this:


Not even close. Firearms help you STOP the people from hurting you or your property. The difference between ME and my pistol, and the guy Dan encountered is CLEAR. I am a responsible citizen. I am not a criminal. Fundamental and clear-cut difference. All live has at least some value.
The pecking order, IMO goes something like this. Bottom rung is "Plantlife"...then slightly above plantlife is "Islamic Terrorist". Above that is Saddam. Slightly above him is a Meth-addict pointing a gun at my friend Dan. Above the Meth heads are 'attacking animals.' More precious than them are 'general criminals.' Then "Non-attacking animals." Then "decent people."

Some lives are indeed worth more than others.


So I ask DP.com - Which very-well may be the LAST oasis of (mostly) common, rational, GOOD sense (never minding the few libs here :p)...

What do YOU think about Gun-Control? To me, it means not jerking the trigger and missing the target. It means 'hold your breath, and SQUEEZE - don't PULL - the trigger.

[The ClayTaurus]

...stuff...I'm all for people having guns who deserve them, but I know there are many people who are too incompetent, too lazy, or too apathetic to be wielding firearms. In those cases, it does make the situation worse.

[Mr. P]

....
What do YOU think about Gun-Control? To me, it means not jerking the trigger and missing the target. It means 'hold your breath, and SQUEEZE - don't PULL - the trigger.

Here ya go. :D

[darin]

I'm all for people having guns who deserve them, but I know there are many people who are too incompetent, too lazy, or too apathetic to be wielding firearms. In those cases, it does make the situation worse.

Same could be said of Motor Vehicle Drivers, eh?

[Gunny]

A friend posted this on another forum:



MOST of the convo went well - but of COURSE there are a few ninnies:







My reply to the ninny above:





Can you BELIEVE people? I mean...there were other replies like "shoot to wound!" or whatever.

Holy HELL - I get depressed when I come in contact with MORE and MORE dee-dee-dee-liberals or otherwise unwise folk in this country. The Country is getting WORSE and WORSE in terms of 'right' and 'wrong'.

It gets better:






Get this:



So that guy is saying this:

"IF, while getting your ass-kicked, you have the ability to reach for a gun, you aren't getting your ass kicked BAD ENOUGH to warrant USING a gun."

Wha? In other words, "The ONLY time you should use a gun to stop yourself from an attack is if you are being attacked with SUCH violence that you are UNABLE to reach for, and use a Gun." And to the last part - the part he calls "Irony" I put this:




So I ask DP.com - Which very-well may be the LAST oasis of (mostly) common, rational, GOOD sense (never minding the few libs here :p)...

What do YOU think about Gun-Control? To me, it means not jerking the trigger and missing the target. It means 'hold your breath, and SQUEEZE - don't PULL - the trigger.

I control my gun pretty damned-good, thank you.

I'm also very well schooled in the art of maintaining, handling and using firearms.:wink2:

[Mr. P]

I control my gun pretty damned-good, thank you.

I'm also very well schooled in the art of maintaining, handling and using firearms.:wink2:

:laugh: Gawd how many push-ups does it take for a recruit to learn that "This is my weapon, this is my gun. This is for shooting and this is for fun"? :D

[5stringJeff]

If a methhead pulled a gun on me, and if I was carrying concealed, and if I could pull my piece out and get off the first shot, then damn straight I'd do it. In fact, I'd empty the magazine if I felt my life was endangered, or if the methhead was endangering someone else's life.

However, in that situation, if I felt that I would be further endangering my life by pulling out my gun, then I might very well leave it holstered.

[5stringJeff]

I'm all for people having guns who deserve them, but I know there are many people who are too incompetent, too lazy, or too apathetic to be wielding firearms. In those cases, it does make the situation worse.

According to the Second Amendment, being an American makes you 'deserving' of gun ownership. I would make very few exceptions (like being a convicted felon).

[Gunny]

According to the Second Amendment, being an American makes you 'deserving' of gun ownership. I would make very few exceptions (like being a convicted felon).

In that particular situation, I'd have just shot the meth head dead, right through the grape, period.

Those two were fortunate he really did only want the van, and managed to stay focussed on it. All too often, that is not the case, and I would not have left it to chance.

[The ClayTaurus]

Same could be said of Motor Vehicle Drivers, eh?Absolutely.

[Gunny]

Absolutely.

LMAO. I went this morning to TXDOT (Texas Dept of Transportation -- DMV in most places) to get my license replaced because my dog got hold of it. This old coot in front of me in line just stood there while several people walked past him. Someone from behind the counter finally motioned for him to come over. When he finally figured out she was talking to him, he walked to the person in the stall next to hers.

I'm like "You guys are even going to test this dude?":lmao:

[The ClayTaurus]

According to the Second Amendment, being an American makes you 'deserving' of gun ownership. I would make very few exceptions (like being a convicted felon).I feel that logic alone is irresponsible. To assume every American possesses the capacity to properly and safely own and operate a gun just by letting them have it because the 2nd Ammendment says so is wishful thinking. I think every American should be able to own a gun once they prove themselves worthy or the responsibility associated with the right.

[5stringJeff]

I feel that logic alone is irresponsible. To assume every American possesses the capacity to properly and safely own and operate a gun just by letting them have it because the 2nd Ammendment says so is wishful thinking. I think every American should be able to own a gun once they prove themselves worthy or the responsibility associated with the right.

So you think a person has to earn the right of self-defense?

[darin]

I feel that logic alone is irresponsible. To assume every American possesses the capacity to properly and safely own and operate a gun just by letting them have it because the 2nd Ammendment says so is wishful thinking. I think every American should be able to own a gun once they prove themselves worthy or the responsibility associated with the right.


It's not 'every' american. It's every legal Adult American Citizen. 18 (21 some places, for some weapons) and older.

I think every american should prove themselves worthy before VOTING, too :)

:D

[The ClayTaurus]

So you think a person has to earn the right of self-defense?No. I think a person should PROVE their right to self-defense via a gun.

[Gunny]

So you think a person has to earn the right of self-defense?

I think every American has the right to own a gun, but I also agree with CT. I belive they should also have to take a course that teaches the basics.

All too often children are killed by improperly stored guns.

All too often improperly stored weapons are stolen and later used by criminals to commit further crimes.

All too oten people shoot themselves improperly handling a firearm.

Then, there are those people who just couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

As responsible society, we require people in all walks of life to be licensed for what they are doing so that we know they have at least had the proper instructions.

I don't see that posessing firearms should be any different.

[darin]

I dunno about classes. I hear time and again that if we "Educate" people, they'll make the right choice. The problem isn't education; it's that you can't TEACH somebody good judgement. With more and more Liberals having kids, Poor-judgement, bad world-views get more popular. I can't expect a person to handle adversity well, when their lives revolve around lies and junk.

:(

[Mr. P]

No. I think a person should PROVE their right to self-defense via a gun.

:eek2: My choice for defense may not be your choice, but it is my right. :D

[The ClayTaurus]

I dunno about classes. I hear time and again that if we "Educate" people, they'll make the right choice. The problem isn't education; it's that you can't TEACH somebody good judgement. With more and more Liberals having kids, Poor-judgement, bad world-views get more popular. I can't expect a person to handle adversity well, when their lives revolve around lies and junk.

:(Yet people want to arm these poor-judgement, bad world-view folks without so much as a blink of the eye. 'tis frightening.

[The ClayTaurus]

:eek2: My choice for defense may not be your choice, but it is my right. :DIt is your duty to practice that right responsibly, which I'm sure you do quite well. Plenty do not, however.

[Mr. P]

I think every American has the right to own a gun, but I also agree with CT. I belive they should also have to take a course that teaches the basics.

All too often children are killed by improperly stored guns.

All too often improperly stored weapons are stolen and later used by criminals to commit further crimes.

All too oten people shoot themselves improperly handling a firearm.

Then, there are those people who just couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

As responsible society, we require people in all walks of life to be licensed for what they are doing so that we know they have at least had the proper instructions.

I don't see that posessing firearms should be any different.

I agree with the concept of training. However, as far as a license, that would be the Constitution.

[Gunny]

I dunno about classes. I hear time and again that if we "Educate" people, they'll make the right choice. The problem isn't education; it's that you can't TEACH somebody good judgement. With more and more Liberals having kids, Poor-judgement, bad world-views get more popular. I can't expect a person to handle adversity well, when their lives revolve around lies and junk.

:(

You are correct in that judgement usually can't be taught. However, when it comes to owning and using a firearm, the proper handling and use CAN be taught, as well as the laws that govern its use.

Yes, there will STILL be those morons that no amount of education can cure. But you have legally stripped away all their excuses.

[Mr. P]

It is your duty to practice that right responsibly, which I'm sure you do quite well. Plenty do not, however.

True and that applies to all areas of life which makes it, Life (reality).

I agree we need some limits. The problem with some limits anti-gun folks propose is they will only affect the law abiding folks. We all know this.

So the answer is what? Legislate common sense? Legislate gun locks? Legislate NO IDOITS can buy guns? That'll never work. I don't care how many classes you have people attend or how much training they receive someone is going to F'up.

Someone will not insure their gun is unloaded before an accidental discharge.
Someone will leave a loaded gun around for a kid to pick-up.
Someone will steal an unsecured gun and use it in a crime.

There is NO WAY to prevent these things from happening. A ban on guns won't do it, that's been proven over and over. In fact, more guns are better, that as well has been proven over and over.

In my opinion the best we can hope for or should support, is enforcing the law and increasing the penalty for anyone that commits a crime with a firearm.

We can not and must not legislate to the lowest common denominator. That’s like the dumbing down we see in the schools now and we see how well that is working.

[Gunny]

I agree with the concept of training. However, as far as a license, that would be the Constitution.

The Constitution guarantees the Right to keep and bear arms. I'm not for gun control by any means.

A license/certification/permit/whatever stating an individual completed a basic training course just strips away their excuses when they later do something stupid.

I am as sensitive to the infringement of 2nd Amendment Rights as you are. But we both KNOW there are idiots out there who shouldn't be let out of the house, much less allowed to posess a firearm. They are the ones that give legitimate gun owners a bad name and keep us under attack.

Well, them and the criminals and the control-freak lefties who want to disarm the public.

[The ClayTaurus]

True and that applies to all areas of life which makes it, Life (reality).

I agree we need some limits. The problem with some limits anti-gun folks propose is they will only affect the law abiding folks. We all know this.

So the answer is what? Legislate common sense? Legislate gun locks? Legislate NO IDOITS can buy guns? That'll never work. I don't care how many classes you have people attend or how much training they receive someone is going to F'up.I don't think the answer is just giving unrestricted access to everyone because there is no perfect solution.

[Mr. P]

I don't think the answer is just giving unrestricted access to everyone because there is no perfect solution.

We don't give unrestricted access now and shouldn't. Like I said, "I agree we need some limits.".

[The ClayTaurus]

"I agree we need some limits.".Well then let's shut the fuck up and drink beer!
:beer: :2up:

[Gaffer]

In Ohio you have to take a course and get certified to carry. Basically it says that you are now responsible for what you do with that gun.

I'm all for people being armed, but there are people out there that are just not competent. And they can be as dangerous as the criminals. But an armed population is a safer population.

The meth head situation sounds like a don't draw situation to me. When he's already pointing it at your head you just back off and don't threaten. To draw on him would then invite a shoot out. Before you do that you have to be aware of what's behind you. What's behind him. And who's around the two of you.

Being aware of your surroundings is one of the first things taught in the certification classes. And its the first thing to be forgotten when a situation arises.

[dirt mcgirt]

The meth head situation sounds like a don't draw situation to me. When he's already pointing it at your head you just back off and don't threaten. To draw on him would then invite a shoot out. Before you do that you have to be aware of what's behind you. What's behind him. And who's around the two of you.
I thought the same thing.

Good thread and good points all around from everyone. :thumb:

[avatar4321]

Personally, im not a gun person. I prefer hand to hand combat.

However, with that said, I think its rather stupid to say people cant defend themselves with guns. I also think that the government seems to confused gun control, with gun bans. And I dont think the government has the authority to ban guns.

[Gaffer]

Personally, im not a gun person. I prefer hand to hand combat.

However, with that said, I think its rather stupid to say people cant defend themselves with guns. I also think that the government seems to confused gun control, with gun bans. And I dont think the government has the authority to ban guns.

The government doesn't, but the libs are doing everything they can to ban them.

There are only two times to use a gun. To protect your life or to protect someone elses life.

[Mr. P]

Personally, im not a gun person. I prefer hand to hand combat.

However, with that said, I think its rather stupid to say people cant defend themselves with guns. I also think that the government seems to confused gun control, with gun bans. And I dont think the government has the authority to ban guns.

Ironic though that if they choose to ban guns, it will be at the point of a gun.

[Gunny]

In Ohio you have to take a course and get certified to carry. Basically it says that you are now responsible for what you do with that gun.

I'm all for people being armed, but there are people out there that are just not competent. And they can be as dangerous as the criminals. But an armed population is a safer population.

The meth head situation sounds like a don't draw situation to me. When he's already pointing it at your head you just back off and don't threaten. To draw on him would then invite a shoot out. Before you do that you have to be aware of what's behind you. What's behind him. And who's around the two of you.

Being aware of your surroundings is one of the first things taught in the certification classes. And its the first thing to be forgotten when a situation arises.

What I missed in the scenario is how the person came upon the meth head. That would dictate the action. How did this person get from Point A to having a gun pointed at his head?

If you start from having the gun at your head, of course you don't draw.

[Gaffer]

What I missed in the scenario is how the person came upon the meth head. That would dictate the action. How did this person get from Point A to having a gun pointed at his head?

If you start from having the gun at your head, of course you don't draw.

Yeah would help to know the whole scenario. If I saw something like that going on I would approach with my gun drawn. And provided the woman is out of the way as soon as he started pointing the gun in my direction I would drop him.

I believe he said wasn't carrying. Just stepped in to help the woman when the guy produced the gun.

[LOki]

No. I think a person should PROVE their right to self-defense via a gun.For proof, reference the US Constitution, 2nd Amendment. :D

[manu1959]

What do YOU think about Gun-Control? To me, it means not jerking the trigger and missing the target. It means 'hold your breath, and SQUEEZE - don't PULL - the trigger.

that is what it means to me as well................

[Gunny]

Yeah would help to know the whole scenario. If I saw something like that going on I would approach with my gun drawn. And provided the woman is out of the way as soon as he started pointing the gun in my direction I would drop him.

I believe he said wasn't carrying. Just stepped in to help the woman when the guy produced the gun.


LOL ... guess it would be kind of hard to drop him if you aren't carrying. In that case, he probably did the best he could under the circumstances, sinc eno one was killed.

[Gunny]

that is what it means to me as well................

Don't know where I missed this, but you don't hold your breath. Makes your hand shake. You squeeze the trigger at the end of an exhalation.

[Norse_soul]

First off...I am from Nevada, an open carry state. I am trained lightly in most forms of martial arts and am constantly armed with at least a knife if not several as well as my gun. Most people fail to realize that the states with the most restrictive gun control laws have the highest crime rate, those with minor gun control laws have signifacantly lower crime rate. This is because who do gun laws protect....Criminals. As for the age old comment of children shooting themselves...and hence gun safety laws, gunsafes, etc... Teach your damn children...that's it..short and sweet.
When I was 8 I had a friend over and we were watching an action movie and started talking about guns...My mother had gone to the store and dad was an hour from getting home from work. I mentioned that we had guns in the house and my friend wanted to see them. I said ok, in an hour we can. He wanted to see them NOW. My reply was why. We can't do anything with them now, but in an hour we can clean them and then go shooting.
Everything ties in with Blaming anyone and anything for what our kids do, except ourselves and what we teach them...

[Gunny]

First off...I am from Nevada, an open carry state. I am trained lightly in most forms of martial arts and am constantly armed with at least a knife if not several as well as my gun. Most people fail to realize that the states with the most restrictive gun control laws have the highest crime rate, those with minor gun control laws have signifacantly lower crime rate. This is because who do gun laws protect....Criminals. As for the age old comment of children shooting themselves...and hence gun safety laws, gunsafes, etc... Teach your damn children...that's it..short and sweet.
When I was 8 I had a friend over and we were watching an action movie and started talking about guns...My mother had gone to the store and dad was an hour from getting home from work. I mentioned that we had guns in the house and my friend wanted to see them. I said ok, in an hour we can. He wanted to see them NOW. My reply was why. We can't do anything with them now, but in an hour we can clean them and then go shooting.
Everything ties in with Blaming anyone and anything for what our kids do, except ourselves and what we teach them...

I agree. I taught my daughters when they were young to shoot, and let them shoot some cantaloupes so they could see exactly what bullets did, and had the long, Dad to daughters talk about how "if that was a human ..."

Both are grown now and neither one ever touched one of my guns without permission and supervision.

[Norse_soul]

I agree. I taught my daughters when they were young to shoot, and let them shoot some cantaloupes so they could see exactly what bullets did, and had the long, Dad to daughters talk about how "if that was a human ..."

Both are grown now and neither one ever touched one of my guns without permission and supervision.

I have a co-worker who gave me a wonderful training Idea. You give your kid a 1/2 dollar piece and a hammer. Tell them to beat the crap out of it for half an hour and bring it back. When they see how much damage they do to it after beating on it till their arm hurts, shoot it with a pistol and then give it back to them. They'll really see the difference then...:flameth:

[Nate]

No gun control.

None.

Repeal the NFA.

Throw KKKlintoon into prison for the Brady Bunch Bill.

Fuck gun snatchers.

My cold, dead fingers bitch:boom2:

[Roopull]

I recently sold my massive Remington 11-48 semi-auto 12 guage shotgun. I don't hunt & something that large isn't exactly practical as far as self-defense goes.

I'm in Georgia.

The price of my new gun, a 9mm, has a $25 charge for a background check. If I want to transport the gun, I can either set it on the dash or passenger's seat of the car OR I need a conceal & carry permit. Without the permit, owning a gun is all but criminal. Afterall, are you going to leave valuables sitting out in the open, or are you going to hide them in your car and/or take them with you when you leave the car? The conceal & carry permit law is designed to make owning a gun difficult.

The permit costs $45 & takes three months to get.


They've already established the idea that they have the right to deny you the right afforded you in the 2nd. To that, I ditto Nate.

[Mr. P]

I recently sold my massive Remington 11-48 semi-auto 12 guage shotgun. I don't hunt & something that large isn't exactly practical as far as self-defense goes.

I'm in Georgia.

The price of my new gun, a 9mm, has a $25 charge for a background check. If I want to transport the gun, I can either set it on the dash or passenger's seat of the car OR I need a conceal & carry permit. Without the permit, owning a gun is all but criminal. Afterall, are you going to leave valuables sitting out in the open, or are you going to hide them in your car and/or take them with you when you leave the car? The conceal & carry permit law is designed to make owning a gun difficult.

The permit costs $45 & takes three months to get.


They've already established the idea that they have the right to deny you the right afforded you in the 2nd. To that, I ditto Nate.

Where in Ga. are you?

[theHawk]

Isn't it funny how liberals pick and choose which Constitutional Rights need a permit? They say we need to crack down on guns and monitor who owns what, but don't we dare try to inhibit the freedom of the press.....even though lies are far more dangerous than guns.

[Roopull]

Isn't it funny how liberals pick and choose which Constitutional Rights need a permit? They say we need to crack down on guns and monitor who owns what, but don't we dare try to inhibit the freedom of the press.....even though lies are far more dangerous than guns.
Ahhh... but they DO want to regulate the 1st amendment when it doesn't suit their needs. Look for the "Fairness Doctrine" to be a fresh hot renewed issue to destroy talk radio!


Where in Ga. are you?
I'm just East of Atlanta. You?

[Mr. P]

Ahhh... but they DO want to regulate the 1st amendment when it doesn't suit their needs. Look for the "Fairness Doctrine" to be a fresh hot renewed issue to destroy talk radio!


I'm just East of Atlanta. You?

Conyers

[theHawk]

Ahhh... but they DO want to regulate the 1st amendment when it doesn't suit their needs. Look for the "Fairness Doctrine" to be a fresh hot renewed issue to destroy talk radio!



Yes I know, thats why I said freedom of the press, not the entire first amendment. Liberals first and foremost hate freedom of speech, the best weapon to expose their agendas.

[Roopull]

Too true.

[LOki]

Yes I know, thats why I said freedom of the press, not the entire first amendment. Liberals first and foremost hate freedom of speech, the best weapon to expose their agendas.I have often noted that these same liberal types that you speak of, possessing self contradicting principles, consider compulsory education to be the panacea for drug abuse and irresponsible promiscuity--yet mandatory firearm safety programs in our public schools are never considered by them as a solution to irresponsible gun use and the abuse of the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms.