how do you feel about guns?

[jetdog]

I don't own any, but I enjoy shooting them (particularly my father's 1940's springfield 30'06) and I enjoy the history and mechanics of them.
I hate the large scale celebration of weapons though. Nothing disgusts me more than the paradeing of machines that are designed to kill things, i.e. people.
It's hard to reconcile sometimes.
How do you feel?

[PapaBear]

I don't like the parading either. I like guns, but I'm not allowed to use them anymore. I wish I had been taken hunting when I was growing up. I got to shoot plenty, but never really went hunting. I don't see why some guns are useful in society, and I don't understand the NRA's unwillingness to compromise on some issues. That pretty much sums it up for me.

[Friday]

I have always been somewhat against guns.
But at the same time, very fascinated by them.

Not that I would ever own one, but I have always wanted to shoot one.
And I will get my chance in Vegas next week. My dad owns a gun and carries it in his line of work. I have always thought that shooting a gun would be something to experience first hand. You never know what situations life may bring and it is always better to be prepared.

So Fallon and I will go shooting with my dad in sunny Vegas. And I will get to know personally, the weapon I have always feared.

[franknfurter]

the bigger the better

[weekapaugjz]

i wouldn't say im a gun enthusiast, but i enjoy guns. i used to go hunting when i was younger, haven't been in over 10 years and might enjoy getting back into it. i own a remmington shotgun. its at my mom's house. i fired my first hand gun over the summer, a glock, and it was awesome.

i don't really understand the whole gun control fiasco many people have. they think regulating guns more is going to decrease the crime. all it does is make it harder for responsible gun owners to make a purchase. if a criminal wants a gun, they are going to find one on the streets.

i grew up to respect guns through my grandfather who was a big time hunter and he taught me how to use one correctly. too many people do not get this experience and don't realize the magnitude of power they hold in their hands.

[burrben]

the gun club is one of my favorite bands

[Yuppie_Scum]

I have an elephant gun. I use it to drop large game.

[MrPink]

As anyone who has seen my MySpace can tell, I love a gun. I would love access to any gun I want. I get sick of the argument of "Well you don't need an automatic rifle". I anyone needs half the shit they own so that argument is void. Whatever, I've been up since 7 am on Monday, so I may not make sense.

[midwestjeff]

No sir. I don't like it. (them) i don't care who has them and how many they may have but i have never found them attractive. i have fired a shotgun once and it was whatever. i used to shoot at frogs with a bb gun but i was 10 so the excitement just isn't there for me now. i find guns unappealling.

[jetdog]

I have an elephant gun. I use it to drop large game.
So what?

[Mike Teacher]

So the teacher is the first one to admit to an arsenal?

Not gonna go into the list, but there it is.

[jetdog]

So the teacher is the first one to admit to an arsenal?

Not gonna go into the list, but there it is.

The last thing I meant this thread to be was judgmental in any way.
What's your favorite?

[PapaBear]

I love the "Tales of the Gun" shows on the History Channel. One of my favorites was the history of Beretta.

[jetdog]

I love the "Tales of the Gun" shows on the History Channel. One of my favorites was the history of Beretta.

Second that! The performance of guns in the past dictated the ebb and flow of World Wars, from sand and muck jamming guns in Northern Africa and Vietnam to barrels overheating with the introduction of automatic weapons.

[patsopinion]

what are we shooting

i really jock the new sniper rifle the army is using (semi auto 50 cal(i think its a 50))

but what i really want is a tommy gun

p.s. magnums are for queers who like to look at them selfs in the mirror with their pistol

[Yerdaddy]

I have always been somewhat against guns.
But at the same time, very fascinated by them.

Not that I would ever own one, but I have always wanted to shoot one.
And I will get my chance in Vegas next week. My dad owns a gun and carries it in his line of work. I have always thought that shooting a gun would be something to experience first hand. You never know what situations life may bring and it is always better to be prepared.

So Fallon and I will go shooting with my dad in sunny Vegas. And I will get to know personally, the weapon I have always feared.

Fallon?

[cupcakelove]

I don't have a problem with a person owning some rifles to hunt with, or collecting antique guns, but I do believe we need stricter gun laws. It is still way to easy for people to buy guns at gun shows. I also think DC's gun ban should be reinstated, the last thing that place needs is more hand guns.

[A.J.]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ef/Love_gun_cover.jpg

[TheMojoPin]

As anyone who has seen my MySpace can tell, I love a gun. I would love access to any gun I want. I get sick of the argument of "Well you don't need an automatic rifle". I anyone needs half the shit they own so that argument is void. Whatever, I've been up since 7 am on Monday, so I may not make sense.

My excess movies/CD's/comics/books/etc. that I certainly don't need aren't going to accidentally shoot someone's face off if they fall into the wrong hands.

Honest question, because I don't know....what are the stats of random gun-related crimes vs. accidents? Injuries and fatalities together. And what are the numbers of "stranger-inflicted" gun crimes vs. gun-related crimes between people who know each other as friends or family? Does such a study even exist?

[angrymissy]

I can shoot a gun and I used to keep a small 22 rifle in the house when I lived alone. I figured I could injure someone, but most likely not kill them with it.

I think owning a gun is fine. Notice I said A gun. There needs to be tighter gun laws. I know someone, who had been committed in the past and was a lunatic, who was able to purchase multiple guns, including a 50 caliber (which NO civillian needs), an AK which he bought a kit to make fully automatic, etc. And was NOT responsible with them. Would point them at people for a laugh, etc. The fact that he was legally able to stockpile over 15 weapons (over a period of I think, less than 2 years) like that is crazy.

[Crippler]

I've always been interested in guns, but I just never got around to getting a permit &/or learning about the inner workings. Someday.

[reillyluck]

You'll shoot your eye out!!!

[Furtherman]

Going to a shooting range is a blast, literally.

I don't own one but think that it's perfect acceptable to have one at the house for protection. Under lock and key of course.

[reeshy]

They make me happy when they're warm!!!!

[cupcakelove]

They make me happy when they're warm!!!!

This thread's about guns, not turds.

[TheMojoPin]

They make me happy when they're warm!!!!

This isn't a thread about your necrophilia.

[MrPink]

My argument for guns is this. They have the potential to be dangerous. The only way one can accidentally shoot someone/themselves is if they are a fucking retard. Cars are much more dangerous than guns. And all this bullshit about making guns illegal and gun manufacturers being sued is utterly stupid. Suppose I run over your kid at a crosswalk. Who are you going to sue, me or Toyota? Why should it be any different with guns? It's about time that people become responsible for their actions rather than a good being responsible.

"I don't want no teenage queen. I just want my M16."

[cupcakelove]

My argument for guns is this. They have the potential to be dangerous. The only way one can accidentally shoot someone/themselves is if they are a fucking retard. Cars are much more dangerous than guns. And all this bullshit about making guns illegal and gun manufacturers being sued is utterly stupid. Suppose I run over your kid at a crosswalk. Who are you going to sue, me or Toyota? Why should it be any different with guns? It's about time that people become responsible for their actions rather than a good being responsible.

"I don't want no teenage queen. I just want my M16."

Potential? Guns are made to kill, that makes them dangerous. Cars are not made to kill, and yes they are still dangerous, that's why you have to have a license to drive one. At least car companies try to incorporate safety into their products. Cars and guns are two different things, don't try to compare them. You really should be trying to compare guns with something else that is made to kill, like bombs.

[Jujubees2]

I follow the mantra of former Red Sox pitcher and presidential candidate, Bill Lee who ran on the platform of "No guns. No butter. They both kill."

[Jujubees2]

Potential? Guns are made to kill, that makes them dangerous. Cars are not made to kill, and yes they are still dangerous, that's why you have to have a license to drive one. At least car companies try to incorporate safety into their products. Cars and guns are two different things, don't try to compare them. You really should be trying to compare guns with something else that is made to kill, like bombs.

Or cigarettes. People who die from smoking do sue the cigarette makers and some even win.

[MrPink]

Potential? Guns are made to kill, that makes them dangerous. Cars are not made to kill, and yes they are still dangerous, that's why you have to have a license to drive one. At least car companies try to incorporate safety into their products. Cars and guns are two different things, don't try to compare them. You really should be trying to compare guns with something else that is made to kill, like bombs.

Some guns are made to kill. There are a lot of guns that are made for the sole purpose of competition shooting. Gun manfacturers do incorporate safety in their products. In fact, it's a safety. When you're hunting, you switch it on to prevent it from accidentally firing. Guns are much safer than the Brady propagandists want you to think. Us shooters have rules we follow to keep it safe. Don't load the gun until ready to shoot, be sure of your target and what's behind it etc.

[MrPink]

Or cigarettes. People who die from smoking do sue the cigarette makers and some even win.

That's because the only people on juries are people too stupid to get out of jury duty.

[reeshy]

Beatles referance!!!!

[Jujubees2]

That's because the only people on juries are people too stupid to get out of jury duty.

No it's because the cigarette companies lie and mislead. Hey, just like the current administration!

[MrPink]

No it's because the cigarette companies lie and mislead. Hey, just like the current administration!

Find me one person who doesn't know that smoking is bad for their health. Just because a jury of people who don't know shit from shinola say that someone is wrong doesn't make them wrong.

[patsopinion]

Find me one person who doesn't know that smoking is bad for their health. Just because a jury of people who don't know shit from shinola say that someone is wrong doesn't make them wrong.

and why do i have to pay more money for smokes because that guy is a jackass?


oh and most guns used in murders(that the crime not killing a home invader) are either stolen or unregistered. gun control will not stop those people from getting guns

the gun problem in America has more to do with socioeconomics then gun control

[reeshy]

I liked guns for over 30 years......they kept me alive......so shut up

[johnniewalker]

I liked guns for over 30 years......they kept me alive......so shut up

You've gone soft ever since you got Chief.

[TheMojoPin]

oh and most guns used in murders(that the crime not killing a home invader) are either stolen or unregistered. gun control will not stop those people from getting guns

Is this true? Can you cite your source on this? I'm not trying to be a jackass, I'm genuinely curious.

the gun problem in America has more to do with socioeconomics then gun control.

But the begs question why so many western and "westernized" nations with stricter gun control and just as much if not more poverty have so fewer gun deaths every year, relatively speaking.

[TheMojoPin]

I liked guns for over 30 years......they kept me alive......so shut up

No.

[jetdog]

But the begs question why so many western and "westernized" nations with stricter gun control and just as much if not more poverty have so fewer gun deaths every year, relatively speaking.

damn good point.

Why oppose gun control if you are a responsible gun owner? Does a waiting period really infringe on your rights?

[reeshy]

Wow Mojo...you turned into a turd!!!!

[weekapaugjz]

damn good point.

Why oppose gun control if you are a responsible gun owner? Does a waiting period really infringe on your rights?

its just annoying making people who are responsible with guns to jump through all the hoops when they are such a small part of the problem with guns. gun control laws will not have an impact on the crime or murders in this country. if someone really wants a gun, they will get one.

[BoxerAF]

I like guns, I own two a 12 gauge and a hand gun. I live in Brooklyn so I had to go through the NYPD to get my permits. It was a time consuming and expensive procedure (for the hand gun.). The irony of gun control is that for about $350 less than what Paid for my pistol, permit and range fees etc; I could of got the same piece new on the street. Gun control hasn't worked yet.

[jetdog]

its just annoying making people who are responsible with guns to jump through all the hoops when they are such a small part of the problem with guns. gun control laws will not have an impact on the crime or murders in this country. if someone really wants a gun, they will get one.

But Mojo's right, nations that have strict gun control laws have significantly fewer gun-related crimes?

[BoxerAF]

But Mojo's right, nations that have strict gun control laws have significantly fewer gun-related crimes?

That was right. Lately there has been a significant uptick in gun violence in Western Europe; largely due to the collapse of the soviet union and the former Warsaw Pact nations.

[weekapaugjz]

But Mojo's right, nations that have strict gun control laws have significantly fewer gun-related crimes?

yes, that is true, but the u.s. has a significantly different culture than any other country on earth. maybe if gun control laws had been stricter 50 years ago, it might have made a difference. changing them to be stricter now won't really change anything in my opinion because gun violence is (sadly) so engrained in u.s. culture

[BoxerAF]

yes, that is true, but the u.s. has a significantly different culture than any other country on earth. maybe if gun control laws had been stricter 50 years ago, it might have made a difference. changing them to be stricter now won't really change anything in my opinion because gun violence is (sadly) so engrained in u.s. culture
That is sad but true weeka.http://www.coalcreekarmory.com/images/GSR_compact_BLK_left.jpg

[jetdog]

yes, that is true, but the u.s. has a significantly different culture than any other country on earth. maybe if gun control laws had been stricter 50 years ago, it might have made a difference. changing them to be stricter now won't really change anything in my opinion because gun violence is (sadly) so engrained in u.s. culture

I understand your point, but I don't agree. I don't think just because we didn't tackle the problem years ago, that we shouldn't try now. And I think it would be foolish to ignore the success exhibited by european countries on this matter.

[TheMojoPin]

That was right. Lately there has been a significant uptick in gun violence in Western Europe; largely due to the collapse of the soviet union and the former Warsaw Pact nations.

I wouldn't be surprised if they increased, but I think the realtive percentages are still drastically lower.

[BoxerAF]

I understand your point, but I don't agree. I don't think just because we didn't tackle the problem years ago, that we shouldn't try now. And I think it would be foolish to ignore the success exhibited by european countries on this matter.

The Europeans never had this problem. When The US was expanding westward Guns went with us because they were useful for hunting and Defense. Europe never had the level of gun ownership that the USA did. In europe gun ownership was more of an aristocratic pastime. It is next to impossible to enact national gun control without violating the bill of rights or trodding upon states rights. Even if we were to enact a national policy it would still be next to impossible to enforce the law.

[BoxerAF]

I wouldn't be surprised if they increased, but I think the realtive percentages are still drastically lower.

Oh it is drastically lower, but still on the upswing. Violent crime in general is up in Europe your chances of being mugged or assaulted are now greater in Paris or London than in NYC.

[TheMojoPin]

its just annoying making people who are responsible with guns to jump through all the hoops when they are such a small part of the problem with guns. gun control laws will not have an impact on the crime or murders in this country. if someone really wants a gun, they will get one.

I really don't see waiting a week while it's checked to see if you have a criminal history before you get your gun as having to "jump through hoops." Different opinions, I guess. Time-wise, it's about the same as ordering something off the internet and having it delivered to your house. That said, however, I think just as people need to take tests to get a driver's license, they need to get certified to own a gun. They're just potentially deadly for anyone to have. I would assume responsible gun owners would want to see the number of accidental shootings in this country go down.

I'm still taking issue with the idea that these laws won't have an impact on people dying...everyone is focusing just on murders, but I take just as much issue with all the people who kill or wound themselves or others on accident. Gun laws, if written and enforced smartly and correctly, can drastically reduce the number of accidental shootings in this country. As I said before, I can't imagine responsible gun owners being against this. These laws don't have to just be about crimes and criminals.

As for that issue itself, personally, I think there should be limits as to how many guns can be made or imported into the country each year. Yes, I know things will be smuggled in no matter what, but if this was tightly regulated it would still drastically reduce the basic number of guns in the country. I know a lot of people are going to disagree with this, but hey, that's the beauty of opinions. I personally find guns to not be any kind of an essential tool in the hands of everyday citizens these days. I don't want to ban them, but I think they should be made very difficult to acquire. Yes, I realize that that doesn't magically pull the guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them now, but any process to reduce criminal gun posession on a large scale is going to take time. I prefer that long battle than to just sitting back and doing nothing at all and letting things get worse just because Johnny Hunter/Death Wish wants to own his 16th firearm. I see all these countries similar to us that we always talk about like we're so much better than and they have realtively so much fewer accidental and criminal shootings...and I want that here.

But like I said, that's just my opinion.

[TheMojoPin]

Oh it is drastically lower, but still on the upswing. Violent crime in general is up in Europe your chances of being mugged or assaulted are now greater in Paris or London than in NYC.

Stats? Links?

[jetdog]

The Europeans never had this problem. When The US was expanding westward Guns went with us because they were useful for hunting and Defense. Europe never had the level of gun ownership that the USA did. In europe gun ownership was more of an aristocratic pastime. It is next to impossible to enact national gun control without violating the bill of rights or trodding upon states rights. Even if we were to enact a national policy it would still be next to impossible to enforce the law.

I understand the differences in gun culture between Europe and here, but I don't understand that statement? Why would gun control violate anybody's civil rights? Or states' rights for that matter?

[BoxerAF]

I'm not a NRA nutter. I don't mind a waiting period and a thorough background check. I do mind bans and fucking with the bill of rights. I do belive that Americans have a rather schizophrenic relationship with guns, but we're schizophrenic culture in general we tend to be extreme in just about everything.

[TheMojoPin]

The Europeans never had this problem. When The US was expanding westward Guns went with us because they were useful for hunting and Defense. Europe never had the level of gun ownership that the USA did. In europe gun ownership was more of an aristocratic pastime. It is next to impossible to enact national gun control without violating the bill of rights or trodding upon states rights. Even if we were to enact a national policy it would still be next to impossible to enforce the law.

I don't agree at all that it would be impossible to enforce. It would be impossible only if you're expecting sweeping change "right now." It's definitely possible in terms of a slow changover that takes many years, maybe even decades.

I simply can't support the idea that just because something was necessary 150 and more years ago it must stay in place now. There are many universal rights of man contained in our bill of rights. I personally don't see how the right to bear arms is even close to the right to free speech, press, worhsip, etc.. The right to bear arms was created out of a necessity at the time based on the nature of life in the colonies and early states and the threat from outside invasion, and any kind of national army or militia would have to essentially be self-armed. All of that has changed radically over the last 230-250 years.

[boeman]

I am a gun owner... at this time I only own a Ruger P90DC .45 handgun

[MrPink]

In Europe they don't use guns because all gay. I noticed there's alot of Socialists on the board.

[TheMojoPin]

I'm not a NRA nutter. I don't mind a waiting period and a thorough background check. I do mind bans and fucking with the bill of rights. I do belive that Americans have a rather schizophrenic relationship with guns, but we're schizophrenic culture in general we tend to be extreme in just about everything.

Why is it OK to be so "schizophrenic" with something that's so easily misued and deadly and designed almost always to wound or kill something?

[jetdog]

In Europe they don't use guns because all gay. I noticed there's alot of Socialists on the board.
Don't do that, I think we're having an intelligent discussion here and I would hate to see it devolve into name calling.

[TheMojoPin]

In Europe they don't use guns because all gay. I noticed there's alot of Socialists on the board.

Did you notice that you're living in a country that has always had socialist practices and policies since day one?

[FUNKMAN]

my dad had a couple handguns. a nice 22 automatic and a snubnose 32. he let me shoot them at the range. he has since sold them or gave them to the police, not sure.

i never pursued getting a gun. sometimes I thought about using it for security for the home but was too afraid the kids would find them and something bad would happen. the thing is if there is an intruder you need to have it somewhat handy and that "somewhat handy" is the risk I didn't want to deal with...

[jetdog]

Why is it OK to be so "schizophrenic" with something that's so easily misued and deadly and designed almost always to wound or kill something?

I don't think he meant to say that it's okay, my interpretation was that it's a syndrome.

[TheMojoPin]

I don't think he meant to say that it's okay, my interpretation was that it's a syndrome.

I know. I should have phrased it better. I get frustrated with the "well, there's nothing we can do about it, so why bother?" attitude towards something as dangerous as guns.

[jetdog]

I know. I should have phrased it better. I get frustrated with the "well, there's nothing we can do about it, so why bother?" attitude towards something as dangerous as guns.
right there with you.

[jetdog]

my dad had a couple handguns. a nice 22 automatic and a snubnose 32. he let me shoot them at the range. he has since sold them or gave them to the police, not sure.

i never pursued getting a gun. sometimes I thought about using it for security for the home but was too afraid the kids would find them and something bad would happen. the thing is if there is an intruder you need to have it somewhat handy and that "somewhat handy" is the risk I didn't want to deal with...

right there with you. (except it's my wife, not children I'm worried about)

[Bulldogcakes]

My excess movies/CD's/comics/books/etc. that I certainly don't need aren't going to accidentally shoot someone's face off if they fall into the wrong hands.

Honest question, because I don't know....what are the stats of random gun-related crimes vs. accidents? Injuries and fatalities together. And what are the numbers of "stranger-inflicted" gun crimes vs. gun-related crimes between people who know each other as friends or family? Does such a study even exist?

Yes, they're out there. There are also estimates about how many crimes are stopped or prevented by responsible gun owners. What I find most persuasive is many cities with the most restrictive gun laws (like DC) also have the highest murder rates. When you pass restrictive gun laws, you're only disarming the law abiding. The criminals . . are criminals. While I agree that everything should be done to minimize domestic accidents, thats a horrible argument for banning/restricting all of them. There are accidents with all sorts of instruments, from cars to power tools to industrial equipment. A gun, when properly used, is an effective tool for self defense in a dangerous world. Somewhere between the yahoo laissez fare approach in Fla/Texas and the wrongheaded laws in big cities is a good gun policy. So I support legal access but regulated and with education. More restrictions make sense in densely populated cities than they do in rural areas. But many US cities are far too restrictive.
I like the abortion argument on this one. You don't like guns? Don't buy one.

[BoxerAF]

Lots of things can be used to maim or kill people cars, knives baseball bats etc. etc. I'm not saying it's ok. I'm saying it is what it is. What I am saying is that it is my constitunally gauranteed right to bear arms and quite frankly I don't like mucking about with bill of rights. The slippery slope arguement is valid; ask anyone who lost there home due to imminent domain; not to build a highway or water treatment plant but to build a mall so a municpality can generate more tax revenues. There is no heat mojo I am enjoying this debate with you I know im recently back to the board and i dont know many people all that well.

[empulse]

guns don't kill people, black people kill people. i am sure Earl would blame whites. its point counter point.

[Bulldogcakes]

I can shoot a gun and I used to keep a small 22 rifle in the house when I lived alone. I figured I could injure someone, but most likely not kill them with it.

I think owning a gun is fine. Notice I said A gun. There needs to be tighter gun laws. I know someone, who had been committed in the past and was a lunatic, who was able to purchase multiple guns, including a 50 caliber (which NO civillian needs), an AK which he bought a kit to make fully automatic, etc. And was NOT responsible with them. Would point them at people for a laugh, etc. The fact that he was legally able to stockpile over 15 weapons (over a period of I think, less than 2 years) like that is crazy.

You should have called the police. Anyone who is that irresponsible with weapons should have them taken away from him. And someone with a history of mental illness should not be allowed to purchase guns. I support responsible gun ownership, not clowns like this.

[TheMojoPin]

Lots of things can be used to maim or kill people cars, knives baseball bats etc. etc. I'm not saying it's ok. I'm saying it is what it is. What I am saying is that it is my constitunally gauranteed right to bear arms and quite frankly I don't like mucking about with bill of rights. The slippery slope arguement is valid; ask anyone who lost there home due to imminent domain; not to build a highway or water treatment plant but to build a mall so a municpality can generate more tax revenues. There is no heat mojo I am enjoying this debate with you I know im recently back to the board and i dont know all that well.

You're not going to change human nature...violent people are going to be violent. I just don't see why we have to tolerate a system that makes it so much easier for those violent people that much deadlier. There's a huge difference between "I'VE SNAPPED! I'M GONNA GO AFTER SOMEONE WITH THIS KNIFE!" and "I'VE SNAPPED! I'M GONNA GO GET AN A GUN THAT'LL SPIT DOZENS OF BULLETS INTO THAT CROWD IN A SECOND!" Gunas are just so much dealier than any other "tool" out there.

Obviously, that's an extreme example, but it's one that I can't ignore. I grew up with guns in my home, I know how to use them, and because of that, I don't want just anyone being able to own them so easily. I respect the power they have, as I realize many here have as well

[TheMojoPin]

Yes, they're out there. There are also estimates about how many crimes are stopped or prevented by responsible gun owners. What I find most persuasive is many cities with the most restrictive gun laws (like DC) also have the highest murder rates. When you pass restrictive gun laws, you're only disarming the law abiding. The criminals . . are criminals. While I agree that everything should be done to minimize domestic accidents, thats a horrible argument for banning/restricting all of them. There are accidents with all sorts of instruments, from cars to power tools to industrial equipment. A gun, when properly used, is an effective tool for self defense in a dangerous world. Somewhere between the yahoo laissez fare approach in Fla/Texas and the wrongheaded laws in big cities is a good gun policy. So I support legal access but regulated and with education. More restrictions make sense in densely populated cities than they do in rural areas. But many US cities are far too restrictive.
I like the abortion argument on this one. You don't like guns? Don't buy one.

By and large I agree with you (I don't want them banned, just sold smartly and more often than not to the right people), but I think the abortion analogy isn't that great. If my wife chooses to have or not have an abortion, that's between our family. If my neighbor upsatirs chooses to get a gun while I don't, and his neglect leads to his little kid playing with it and puting a bullet through the floor into my head, his choice has just affected me in the most dramatic way possible.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

I won't travel into certain countries because I'm not allowed to carry a piece with me at all times.

[Bulldogcakes]

Potential? Guns are made to kill, that makes them dangerous. Cars are not made to kill, and yes they are still dangerous, that's why you have to have a license to drive one. At least car companies try to incorporate safety into their products. Cars and guns are two different things, don't try to compare them. You really should be trying to compare guns with something else that is made to kill, like bombs.

No, thats where you're wrong. In the hands of a responsible gun owner its a tool that can help prevent crime. A visible holstered weapon makes you far less likely to be attacked in the first place. The mere display of a gun will end many (if not most) crimes. The knowledge that an average citizen may be carrying makes criminals look elsewhere. Its like any other tool, it can be used for good purposes or bad. I could use my car (intended for transportation) to run over some guy who owes me money (it is now a weapon). IN the hands of a responsible person it's not about killing and aggression, its about prevention and self defense.
I do think its a good idea to license gun owners. Then, just like with a car, if you are shown to be abusing that privilege you can have it taken away from you.

[jetdog]

I won't travel into certain countries because I'm not allowed to carry a piece with me at all times.

Your loss.

[TheMojoPin]

No, thats where you're wrong. In the hands of a responsible gun owner its a tool that can help prevent crime. A visible holstered weapon makes you far less likely to be attacked in the first place. The mere display of a gun will end many (if not most) crimes. The knowledge that an average citizen may be carrying makes criminals look elsewhere. Its like any other tool, it can be used for good purposes or bad. I could use my car (intended for transportation) to run over some guy who owes me money (it is now a weapon). IN the hands of a responsible person it's not about killing and aggression, its about prevention and self defense.
I do think its a good idea to license gun owners. Then, just like with a car, if you are shown to be abusing that privilege you can have it taken away from you.

Anyone know the statistical odds for a gunowner's weapon being involved in an accident vs. actually preventing a crime?

[cougarjake13]

my guns are getting pretty big but its been a while since i last worked out

[BoxerAF]

By and large I agree with you (I don't want them banned, just sold smartly and more often than not to the right people), but I think the abortion analogy isn't that great. If my wife chooses to have or not have an abortion, that's between our family. If my neighbor upsatirs chooses to get a gun while I don't, and his neglect leads to his little kid playing with it and puting a bullet through the floor into my head, his choice has just affected me in the most dramatic way possible.

We have consensus; Gun owners should be required to take a course in gun ownership and should be subject to inspection by the authorites. The Kliebolds of this world are by and large statistical anomolies. Your idot neighbor and his moron child are dangerous with a gun but probably more dangerous with a car or an oven, which are just if not more dangerous just less dramatic.

I gotta get a sig.

[jetdog]

my guns are getting pretty big but its been a while since i last worked out

be careful with those things...
http://www.greggvalentino.net/images/homePage/seated.jpg

[TheMojoPin]

We have consensus; Gun owners should be required to take a course in gun ownership and should be subject to inspection by the authorites. The Kliebolds of this world are by and large statistical anomolies. Your idot neighbor and his moron child are dangerous with a gun but probably more dangerous with a car or an oven, which are just if not more dangerous just less dramatic.

I gotta get a sig.

I'd still be curious to see if there odds as to whether the average citizen is more likely to be shot because of malicious criminal intent or a gun handling accident. Or at least people within close proximity to a gun (same house/building/etc.).

People don't have to be "idiots" and "morons" to make a mistake with a gun. Because they're so deadly, they magnify everday mistakes to a lethal level.

[cougarjake13]

be careful with those things...
http://www.greggvalentino.net/images/homePage/seated.jpg

ill try but i gotta be the biggest

[BoxerAF]

I won't travel into certain countries because I'm not allowed to carry a piece with me at all times.
I'm with you. I'd rather go to Afghanistan than France (although the food is better). At least in Afghaistan you get a chance to drop the terrorist who's coming after you. Personally I dont like being more than 6 feet from a gun. (Thank you Ronnie B.).

[jetdog]

some trends (what happened in or before 2005???????)

Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993, then slightly increased in 2005.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.gif
Nonfatal firearm crime rates have declined since 1994, before increasing in 2005.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalrt.gif

source (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm)

[Bulldogcakes]

Anyone know the statistical odds for a gunowner's weapon being involved in an accident vs. actually preventing a crime?


I could dig them up, but most of them are linked to the NRA so you'll dismiss the source. Which is fair, they're an advocacy group and I try to steer clear of the partisans on either side of any debate. There have also been books written comparing crime rates vs gun laws and ownership. I'll admit thats a far too simplistic way to look at overall crime analysis, but its an interesting argument.

Crime prevention is also pretty tough to nail down statistically, how do you prove someone would have committed a crime but didn't? You just have to use common sense.

[Fezticle98]

how do you feel about guns?

With my hands! ::rimshot::

[Bulldogcakes]

I'd still be curious to see if there odds as to whether the average citizen is more likely to be shot because of malicious criminal intent or a gun handling accident. Or at least people within close proximity to a gun (same house/building/etc.).

People don't have to be "idiots" and "morons" to make a mistake with a gun. Because they're so deadly, they magnify everday mistakes to a lethal level.


That stuff could happen in a police officers house if he's irresponsible, too. Proper storage and safety equipment are part of responsible gun ownership. So thats not a concern if you're one of the good guys.

Again, licensing is the answer. Something the NRA does NOT support BTW.

[jetdog]

some trends (what happened in or before 2005???????)

Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993, then slightly increased in 2005.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.gif
Nonfatal firearm crime rates have declined since 1994, before increasing in 2005.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalrt.gif

source (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm)
Pleas excuse me quoting myself, but I think its worth taking a look at the dates:

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law of the United States that included a prohibition on the sale of semi-automatic "assault weapons" manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. The ten-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

I view this hostility to guns the way I view New York City's attempt to ban aluminum bats. Any shit that kills someone people want to ban it. You could make a weapon out of anything you wanted to, with enough ingenuity. Toothbrushes can be shaved down into shanks in prison, want to ban those too? Hell let's ban everything. Then we'll ban our teeth and hands and feet. If belly bopping ever killed someone, let's ban bellies too.

[Bulldogcakes]

some trends (what happened in or before 2005???????)

Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993, then slightly increased in 2005.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.gif
Nonfatal firearm crime rates have declined since 1994, before increasing in 2005.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalrt.gif

source (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm)

Not sure what to make of that, but overall crime declined substantially in the mid-90's. A good portion of it was from NYC alone, where crime plummeted precipitously under Guiliani, and his policies were adopted my many police chiefs nationwide. Clinton also passed some gun laws, that may have had an effect as well. The fact that those stats are "Non Fatal" leads me to believe those are mostly accidents, so they may not be crime related at all.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

Your loss.

Enjoy your beheading.

[jetdog]

I view this hostility to guns the way I view New York City's attempt to ban aluminum bats. Any shit that kills someone people want to ban it. You could make a weapon out of anything you wanted to, with enough ingenuity. Toothbrushes can be shaved down into shanks in prison, want to ban those too? Hell let's ban everything. Then we'll ban our teeth and hands and feet. If belly bopping ever killed someone, let's ban bellies too.

Nobody on this thread suggested banning guns.
If people wanted to ban anything that killed someone, where is the outcry against alchohol, cars, motorcycles, ibuprofen, latex, airborne particulate matter, etc.......

[jetdog]

Enjoy your beheading.

what countries are you talking about? don't gimme that arrogant, ignorant bullshit.

[Bulldogcakes]

what countries are you talking about? don't gimme that arrogant, ignorant bullshit.

If you step foot outside the US, you get beheaded. Dont you watch the news?

[CofyCrakCocaine]

what countries are you talking about? don't gimme that arrogant, ignorant bullshit.

One name: Daniel Pearl
Three countries (out of a bundle): Chechnya, Columbia, and The Congo.
One link: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1890125.htm

I guess I make this shit up. Cuz I'm arrogant and ignorant for thinking the world can be dangerous.

[TheMojoPin]

I view this hostility to guns the way I view New York City's attempt to ban aluminum bats. Any shit that kills someone people want to ban it. You could make a weapon out of anything you wanted to, with enough ingenuity. Toothbrushes can be shaved down into shanks in prison, want to ban those too? Hell let's ban everything. Then we'll ban our teeth and hands and feet. If belly bopping ever killed someone, let's ban bellies too.

That's a ridiculous simplification. Guns, nine times out of ten, are much more deadly than anything else laying around the house. I'm sorry, but whenever someone tries to equate a gun to tools or things you find around the house that could be a weapon, I just can't wrap my head around it.

[TheMojoPin]

One name: Daniel Pearl
Three countries (out of a bundle): Chechnya, Columbia, and The Congo.
One link: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1890125.htm

I guess I make this shit up. Cuz I'm arrogant and ignorant for thinking the world can be dangerous.

Are you serious? You think this means you need to have a gun on you at all times if you step foot anywhere outside of the US?

[CofyCrakCocaine]

I said SOME countries. Not ALL countries. Namely the really dangerous countries in the world. 90 percent of the places in the world I wouldn't want a piece. As for the US thing, there are some neighborhoods I wouldn't want to walk down alone without an AK47. So don't give me this hysterical bullshit that I'm some ultra patriotic right-winger who waves a flag yelling 'America! Fuck Yea!' because I feel safer with a gun in countries that have a rep.

[jetdog]

One name: Daniel Pearl
Three countries (out of a bundle): Chechnya, Columbia, and The Congo.
One link: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1890125.htm

I guess I make this shit up. Cuz I'm arrogant and ignorant for thinking the world can be dangerous.

your arrogant for telling me to enjoy my beheading, your ignorant because those are three countries that most people won't travel to anyway, gun or no gun, and your a douchebag for using the Daniel Pearl example, everbody is well aware how dangerous Afghanistan is. Tell me, other than Daniel Pearl and the poor guy in Iraq, please excuse me for forgetting his name, how many other Americans have been beheaded?

[CofyCrakCocaine]

I agree with you Mojo. I'm not really putting my all into this debate, thus the simplifications. No one's gonna solve the gun debate here. I'm referring to the idiots who want to BAN things from everyone. The laws where you can't own a gun within city limits, for instance, is egregious. I understand the dangers inherent in having a gun in an apartment complex with 60 families and thin walls, but that will never keep the criminal element from acquiring a gun if they are so determined. There should definitely be gun control laws out there, namely licenses and records of gun owners, so irresponsible nuts like the fellow Missy mentioned can get their guns taken away. Militias are a bunch of idiots too.
But people go overboard with these laws, and they tend to punish the law-biding citizen more than they do the hardened criminal or inexperienced gang member who is going to just get a gun anyway because of his connections with a fella who can get them.

Here's an article for you to read about why these laws tend towards the retarded side.
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/local_story_348001946.html

I lifted it from this thread: http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=54728

[BoxerAF]

I'd still be curious to see if there odds as to whether the average citizen is more likely to be shot because of malicious criminal intent or a gun handling accident. Or at least people within close proximity to a gun (same house/building/etc.).

People don't have to be "idiots" and "morons" to make a mistake with a gun. Because they're so deadly, they magnify everday mistakes to a lethal level.

Actually your right, most accidents with guns occur in the home, and guns are lethal, but that is still no reason to ban them or restrict anymore than they are; In NYC anyways.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

your arrogant for telling me to enjoy my beheading, your ignorant because those are three countries that most people won't travel to anyway, gun or no gun, and your a douchebag for using the Daniel Pearl example, everbody is well aware how dangerous Afghanistan is. Tell me, other than Daniel Pearl and the poor guy in Iraq, please excuse me for forgetting his name, how many other Americans have been beheaded?

You can disagree with me all you want, but if you wanna start trashing me personally, you can go fuck yourself. You're just a belligerent douchebag yourself if you can't listen to someone else's opinion that happens to be different from your own. I made a point, you didn't like it, now you're being a baby about it when I back up my points with evidence. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Enjoy fighting off muggers with harsh language. Call them douchebags, and tell them to stop being ignorant, I'm sure they'll stop immediately. Oh, and thanks for proving my point about those countries. Ignorant? Go look in the mirror dickbag.
Sorry mods.

[BoxerAF]

here's someone else mojo.
http://www.rogerfulton.com/Guncontrol/guncontrol.htm

[feralBoy]

Anyone know the statistical odds for a gunowner's weapon being involved in an accident vs. actually preventing a crime?

I'll preface this by saying I am a gun owner (rifles only), but this is the best data I could find. In 2003 there were 730 accidental gun deaths according ot to the national safety council. There are twice as many non-fatal gun incidents as fatal incidents, so we may be able to say there are 1460 non-fatal gun accidents. That's just a rough estimate because I couldn't find actual data for it. So a total of 2200 gun accidents.

In a 1993 national crime victimization survey, they estimated 100,000 incidents were guns were used in a defensive manner. I picked that study because it was the lowest number I could find. There are some studies where it shows that there are 2 million instances per year.

2200:100,000 so roughly, it is 40 times more likely that a gun would be used in a defensive manner, then be involved in an accident.

[LOAF]

I am still waiting for Chinese Democracy

[TheMojoPin]

I am still waiting for Chinese Democracy

He wins. LOCK IT UP!

[jetdog]

You can disagree with me all you want, but if you wanna start trashing me personally, you can go fuck yourself. You're just a belligerent douchebag yourself if you can't listen to someone else's opinion that happens to be different from your own. I made a point, you didn't like it, now you're being a baby about it when I back up my points with evidence. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Enjoy fighting off muggers with harsh language. Call them douchebags, and tell them to stop being ignorant, I'm sure they'll stop immediately. Oh, and thanks for proving my point about those countries. Ignorant? Go look in the mirror dickbag.
Sorry mods.

This whole thread has been about listening to other's opinions, look over my posts in it. I know nothing about you personally and I don't hold anything against you persoanlly. I don't think your example of muggers has anything to do with what I've said on this thread. Your post "enojyoy your beheading" pissed me off. Do you blame me?

[CofyCrakCocaine]

My apologies if it pissed you off, it wasn't intended to do so. Muggers are a reason to have a gun on your person, that's what it has to do with the argument. Try to refrain from personal attacks if you can and I'll respect your opinions as best I can.

[BoxerAF]

I'm done and im tired. It's been a pleasure typing with you all. Have a good Night

[Gvac]

My feelings about guns are pretty much the same as Barfly's feelings towards cops - "I don't hate 'em...I just feel better when they're not around."

[jetdog]

My apologies if it pissed you off, it wasn't intended to do so. Muggers are a reason to have a gun on your person, that's what it has to do with the argument. Try to refrain from personal attacks if you can and I'll respect your opinions as best I can.

I apologize for any percieved personal attack. I honestly respect your opinion but I don't agree with your arguments at all.







(dickbag :innocent: )

[MrPink]

I'm not against psychotics or violent crime offendors not being allowed to own firearms. I just think that banning automatic firearms and 50 caliber rifles is ridiculous. The perception that any schmuck can buy a gun is incorrect. I bought a Ruger Model 70 30-06 last summer, and I had to fill out a lengthy form to have it registered. The guy that sold it to me also had to call some phone number to find out if I have been in trouble with the law before. Also, what many people consider an "assault rifle" is not in fact an assault rifle. These are actually just semi-automatic rifles that look like assault rifles.

[TheMojoPin]

What's everyone's opinions on those travelling gun shows that are all over the place? Those things throw a huge spanner in the works when it comes to any regulation or legislation.

[MrPink]

What's everyone's opinions on those travelling gun shows that are all over the place? Those things throw a huge spanner in the works when it comes to any regulation or legislation.

My dad bought me a .22 rifle at a gun show. The dealers still do the standard call to the feds to see if someone can buy a gun. You also have to fill out the extensive form to have the gun registered.

[TheMojoPin]

My dad bought me a .22 rifle at a gun show. The dealers still do the standard call to the feds to see if someone can buy a gun. You also have to fill out the extensive form to have the gun registered.

Are you talking the shows that usually are in convention centers or arenas...or the REALLY travelling ones that set up a bunch of tents in the middle of nowhere?

[Mike Teacher]

some trends (what happened in or before 2005???????)

Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993, then slightly increased in 2005.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.gif
Nonfatal firearm crime rates have declined since 1994, before increasing in 2005.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalrt.gif

source (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm)

You asked what happened in or before 2005, but the graph begs a much bigger question [and this isnt about guns, but crime in general]:

Why the drop in crime in the early/mid-ninties? Because if you can answer that one, you answer the first, central question asked in the book by ecenomist Steve Leavitt in the most awesome 'Freakonomics' which has been on the NY Times best seller list for well over a year.

Leavitt very controversially argues that the much anticipated explosion of crime in the 90s, as foretold by said graph and crime trends leading up to the 90s, didn't occur because [gee, this won't be controversial and why the book is flying off the shelves still] of the legalization of abortion in 1973. I'm not agreeing, I'm just laying out his thesis.

He argues that the pool of criminals was necesarily diminished at the time when women had the choice on whether or not to terminate pregnancies, and that this drop occurs when that pool of criminals would be becoming of the age to do the crimes a bit less then 20 years after legalization, and beyond, when the graphs dip. Hugely controversial, he is the first to admit, but he takes the other reasons people cite for the drop in crime in the 90s and since [better police, education, laws, et al] had little effect on the drop.

So, to de-rail a thread a bit, go out and read Freakonomics and the data and draw your own conclusions. The books rules, imho.

[Fallon]

Boston has been crazy this year, so far 17 shootings compared to 10 at this time last year. This summer is gonna get ugly.

[MrPink]

Are you talking the shows that usually are in convention centers or arenas...or the REALLY travelling ones that set up a bunch of tents in the middle of nowhere?

Yeah it was in an arena.

[MrPink]

You asked what happened in or before 2005, but the graph begs a much bigger question [and this isnt about guns, but crime in general]:

Why the drop in crime in the early/mid-ninties? Because if you can answer that one, you answer the first, central question asked in the book by ecenomist Steve Leavitt in the most awesome 'Freakonomics' which has been on the NY Times best seller list for well over a year.

Leavitt very controversially argues that the much anticipated explosion of crime in the 90s, as foretold by said graph and crime trends leading up to the 90s, didn't occur because [gee, this won't be controversial and why the book is flying off the shelves still] of the legalization of abortion in 1973. I'm not agreeing, I'm just laying out his thesis.

He argues that the pool of criminals was necesarily diminished at the time when women had the choice on whether or not to terminate pregnancies, and that this drop occurs when that pool of criminals would be becoming of the age to do the crimes a bit less then 20 years after legalization, and beyond, when the graphs dip. Hugely controversial, he is the first to admit, but he takes the other reasons people cite for the drop in crime in the 90s and since [better police, education, laws, et al] had little effect on the drop.

So, to de-rail a thread a bit, go out and read Freakonomics and the data and draw your own conclusions. The books rules, imho.

I think I saw the author on Colbert Report, I want to get that book after this semester is over. I really like that abortion idea. Maybe this is how we should market the pro-choice movement to the midwesterners.

[feralBoy]

Are you talking the shows that usually are in convention centers or arenas...or the REALLY travelling ones that set up a bunch of tents in the middle of nowhere?

If you buy a rifle from an individual, then you don't have to do any background check or register the gun. As a matter of fact, that person can mail you that gun as long as you live in the same state. To mail guns across state lines, requires an FFL (federal firearms license).

[Bill From Yorktown]

Guns dont kill people - bullets kill people - sheesh

[ralphbxny]

My feelings about guns are pretty much the same as Barfly's feelings towards cops - "I don't hate 'em...I just feel better when they're not around."

Agreed...on both!!!

[Yerdaddy]

If you step foot outside the US, you get beheaded. Dont you watch the news?

Yeah!

That's why I keep my brain in my fanny-pack, in case nobody's noticed.

[Yerdaddy]

One name: Daniel Pearl
Three countries (out of a bundle): Chechnya, Columbia, and The Congo.
One link: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1890125.htm

I guess I make this shit up. Cuz I'm arrogant and ignorant for thinking the world can be dangerous.

Honestly! Daniel Pearl was a journalist, (and a Jew), who contacted an al-Qaeda group in Pakistan and was meeting them to interview them when he was abducted. How is that an example of why you won't go to countries that have gun controls? You're saying you wouldn't go to places that NOBODY would go to without your gun.

Although, to be fair, one of my best friends went to the Congo after we spent a few weeks together in Rwanda. She wouldn't let me go on to the Congo with her because she said it's dangerous enough for her "without dragging along some big bald American in a Homer Simpsons t-shirt!" She eventually went into the worst part of the Congo, where the UN human rights coordinator for the peacekeeping mission, who we met in Kigale and who sleeps in a flack jacket, told her not to go. She went anyway, with her local contacts, and had no problems. After her trip she told me if she knew what it was going to be like there she would have brought me along. So I guess I'm saying I almost went to the Congo. I've met a few Australians who went to see the silverback gorillas from the Congo side.

You should be able to figure out what I would say about Yemen - the country with 20 million people and 50 million guns.

What's my point? Oh yeah, honestly, the whole world thinks we're insane when it comes to guns. Yemenis know we have an outrageous crime rate and that we love guns more than they do. And you should all know how insane they are by now.

And I've known people who've gone to Kashmir, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Liberia, Pakistan, Iran, I've almost moved to Syria twice, my best friend is going to Iraq soon (and he's not a soldier), etc. None of them go armed. And all of them have their heads. I even got some head from a couple of them.

The world isn't that dangerous even for Americans, and for you to say you won't go anywhere without a gun just makes you sound paranoid.

In fact I reccommend you go to Yemen FOR the guns.

http://idontreadyourblog.blogs.friendster.com/photos/yemen_2006_or_is_it_1606/100_6488.JPG

[Yerdaddy]

some trends (what happened in or before 2005???????)

Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993, then slightly increased in 2005.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.gif
Nonfatal firearm crime rates have declined since 1994, before increasing in 2005.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalrt.gif

source (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm)

I've got a better theory about these statistics: when was it that PapaBear said he was in Ye Old Greaybar Motel and when did he get out?

[Yerdaddy]

Unusual Allies in a Legal Battle Over Texas Drivers’ Gun Rights (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05guns.html)

HOUSTON, April 4 — Keith Patton was driving home one night in February when police officers pulled over his red Ford Explorer for a traffic stop. His license and insurance form were in his gym bag on the floor near the back seat. Under the bag was a .357 Magnum.

Mr. Patton, 51, an oil-field geologist, software tester and martial arts instructor from suburban Katy, told the police about the gun, which he said he had bought hours before from a co-worker for target shooting. Moments later, he was handcuffed and on his way to jail, facing a charge of unlicensed carrying of a weapon.

The arrest might have been routine elsewhere, but this is Texas, where a code rooted in the days of the highwayman recognizes the right of travelers to be armed, and the Legislature has repeatedly endorsed that principle.

Defiant police officers and prosecutors, however, saying they retain law enforcement discretion, have continued arresting and bringing cases against motorists like Mr. Patton found with unlicensed handguns.

The conflict has led to a legal standoff and a new effort by legislators to resolve the issue. It has also inspired an unlikely alliance between the gun lobby, which has long drawn support from the political right, and civil liberties advocates, long identified with the left, in defense of pistol-packing travelers.

In a report issued in February, the Texas affiliate of the National Rifle Association joined the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition “to spotlight unlawful, unnecessary governmental encroachment on average law-abiding citizens.”
The report, “Above the Law: How Texas prosecutors are placing their own judgment over that of the Legislature and the law of the land,” found that district and county attorneys had instructed police officers to “unnecessarily” interrogate drivers and arrest them or take their weapons, “even if they are legally carrying the gun.”

“It’s all the self-interest of the job,” said Scott Henson, a civil liberties advocate and blogger who wrote the report. Mr. Henson contends that police officers are opposed to citizens’ carrying guns and that prosecutors depend on gun charges to strengthen weak cases and prompt plea bargains.

[A.J.]

And I've known people who've gone to Kashmir, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Liberia, Pakistan, Iran, I've almost moved to Syria twice, my best friend is going to Iraq soon (and he's not a soldier), etc. None of them go armed. And all of them have their heads. I even got some head from a couple of them.

As long as those you got head from didn't go to Haiti.

[MrPink]

Unusual Allies in a Legal Battle Over Texas Drivers’ Gun Rights (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05guns.html)

It's funny that the got fucked for concealing a handgun in his car, yet you aren't supposed to leave sitting out on the passenger's seat. That would effectively make it illegal to transport a handgun without a conceal carry license. It was also never mentioned if it was loaded or unloaded. The most fucked up thing about this is that even though he was let go, his gun is still gone and he has to pay lawyer bills.

[yeti]

Guns are great!, why are they bad? You take guns away and everyone would kill with knives. A killer is going to kill with whatever is available,guns are faster and less painfull if you were going to be killed by choice, I would like my killer to use a gun.

[Ogre]

A man much wiser than I once said: ..."If murder were legal, people sure would be alot nicer to one another."

[bigredd]

Don't really have any but not aginn em either. I have access to a couple shotguns and a.22 at my grandmother's farm but haven't shot one since the time I blew her sliding patio door out with a 16 guage shotgun. I was aiming at my own reflection so it was kind of a trip when the fucker went off and blew a hole in the reflection of my chest. Nobody was home and I somehow convinced my mom I chasing the dog, slipped on a rug and fell through the damned thing. I don't think she truly believed me but she couldn't prove otherwise. Still fucking HI-larious to think about.

[BLZBUBBA]

Hunted as a kid. All types of things here to shoot...deer, quail, doves, and wild turkeys as well...to name a few. But deer hunting is big business down here now. Typical hunt. The "client" shows up at the airport. A "guide" takes the client to the outfitter's land. They drive to a "deer-blind" (a kind of treehouse thing where the deer can't see or smell you). The "deer-blind" is right above an automatic deer-feeder which kicks out corn at a certain time of day. The deer are conditioned to going at this time to eat. The deer comes along and BAMMO. The client takes the head and usually leaves the meat behind...and goes home to whatever city with his (or her) trophy. Trophy? It's not exactly a fair hunt. I don't see how anyone can say it's a sport. When my dad took me hunting we marched around till we found a good spot and waited. Sometimes we got a deer. Sometimes not. These current hunting businesses guarantee a kill. It's kinda rigged. And it's not hunting. It's sitting on your ass in a deer blind and waiting to play Lee Harvey on some dumb animal as it approaches it's dinner. I have friends that moonlight as hunting guides. One of them laughed about this one guy asking if they'd see any deer on a particular day. My friend shrugged...looked at his watch (knowing what time the feeders went off) and said yeah...I believe something may be along shortly. So if you really want to spend $5,000 or $10,000 to kill a deer...by all means. There are plenty of landowners that will take your money. But I'd just go buy some steaks. I don't hunt anymore but if I did it would be for quail. Lots of fun to hunt...and yummy. Plus you get some exercise following the dogs. Unless you're Dick Cheney cruising around in a car following the dogs. But he shot a friend and that had to be way more fun than just shooting birds.
I think gun laws should be left to local governments. Just as we don't need a lot of anti-terror enforcement where I live...NYC does. And just as you don't need everyone in NYC packing heat...in rural areas it's not that big a deal. In TX you can carry a gun if you take a test and get a license but I never saw the need. But a lot...A LOT of my friends do carry. I have three guns...a Glock 9mm, a Remmington shotgun, and a 22 rifle. 2 have never been fired and won't be unless someone breaks into my house. And even then I'd be more likely to shoot a relative or friend (at least that what the statistics say).
A quick story for those wanting a gun. A local teenager went out hunting doves and walked back toward his girlfriend's house. He unloaded his gun. His girlfriend went down to the field and they got to horsing around. The kid grabbed his shotgun and pointed it at her...pulling the trigger. Oh yeah...It was unloaded except for one shell. I bet he felt kinda awkward as he carried her to her parent's house with half her face gone. I mean perhaps beyond the usual teenaged zit-faced awkwardness... "Gee Mr. so and so...Here's your daughter. I told you I'd have her in by 10:00." The girl died obviously...the kid's in jail. So yeah. If you get a gun...kinda be careful with it.

[Galway]

Nearly all of the time guns bring sadness. The people that try to protect us from gun toting carriers get indicted. You can't have it both ways.

[high fly]

I don't own any, but I enjoy shooting them (particularly my father's 1940's springfield 30'06) and I enjoy the history and mechanics of them.
I hate the large scale celebration of weapons though. Nothing disgusts me more than the paradeing of machines that are designed to kill things, i.e. people.
It's hard to reconcile sometimes.
How do you feel?


I like guns. I can remember waaaaay back when I was 7 and my mother and grandfather got in a big argument that lasted for days because he wanted to take me out and teach me to shoot. This was in rural Arkansas, And I do mean rural.
He lost.
Since then I learned to shoot and we had an NRA class in 8th grade in high school which was cool. Having the yellow "Safe Hunter" patch meant I could shoot at the indoor ranges on base and did so with a friend whose dad was a sniper and had quite a nice collection of rifles.

I have a BIG problem with most gun-owners.
Few know how to handle firearms properly.
The most common errors I see are when they pick up a pistol and their finger is on th trigger or they point it at something they don't intend to shoot or they hand it to me without removing the magazine and opening the breech and giving it a good look before handing the weapon to me.

Because I have seen so much ignorance and carelessness, I am for all gun owners being required to take a safe-handling class and periodically re-take a test, just like renewing a driver's license.

[Bulldogcakes]

A man much wiser than I once said: ..."If murder were legal, people sure would be alot nicer to one another."

That reminds of an old saying "An armed society is a polite society"

[Bulldogcakes]

Guns are great!, why are they bad? You take guns away and everyone would kill with knives. A killer is going to kill with whatever is available,guns are faster and less painfull if you were going to be killed by choice, I would like my killer to use a gun.

You know sometimes someone is on the same side as you on an issue, and you wish they weren't. :wink:

[Chigworthy]

It's funny that the got fucked for concealing a handgun in his car, yet you aren't supposed to leave sitting out on the passenger's seat. That would effectively make it illegal to transport a handgun without a conceal carry license. It was also never mentioned if it was loaded or unloaded. The most fucked up thing about this is that even though he was let go, his gun is still gone and he has to pay lawyer bills.

For the most part, a handgun can be transported in a vehicle if it is locked in its box and the ammunition is in a different compartment of the vehicle, such as the trunk or bed.

For long guns, having the ammunition in a separate compartment is usually enough.

This dummy probably thought he was a cowboy and had his revolver loaded.

[lleeder]

I'm sceerd of them :help:

[swiss miss]

guns are always such a touchy subject. people have fears and negative opinions of them for legitimate reasons. they are not toys, nor in my opinion should be on display at all.
for my own reasons i have 2 hand guns. they are registered, i am licensed, i follow all state and county laws. i live in an apartment with no children, but their boxes are still locked. i have never needed to use them in self defense, but in the event of a home intrusion, i would feel 100% confident that i have been trained to opperate the firearm in hand.
i have a right to have them in my house, and a right to protect myself as a single woman. situations in the past have led me to question my safety, and how much i can defend myself on my own. my answer to that was to educate myself, enrole in range course/classes and to purchase, register and license 2 handguns.

anyone for cocoa?
-swissy

[suggums]

i love first person shooters and have never touched a real gun

[ScottFromGA]

when i hear a kinda question like this, first thing that pops in my head is "How do I feel about minorities?"


then i buy another semi-automatic.....

[led37zep]

I own them, I hunt with them, I respect them.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

Honestly! Daniel Pearl was a journalist, (and a Jew), who contacted an al-Qaeda group in Pakistan and was meeting them to interview them when he was abducted. How is that an example of why you won't go to countries that have gun controls? You're saying you wouldn't go to places that NOBODY would go to without your gun.

Although, to be fair, one of my best friends went to the Congo after we spent a few weeks together in Rwanda. She wouldn't let me go on to the Congo with her because she said it's dangerous enough for her "without dragging along some big bald American in a Homer Simpsons t-shirt!" She eventually went into the worst part of the Congo, where the UN human rights coordinator for the peacekeeping mission, who we met in Kigale and who sleeps in a flack jacket, told her not to go. She went anyway, with her local contacts, and had no problems. After her trip she told me if she knew what it was going to be like there she would have brought me along. So I guess I'm saying I almost went to the Congo. I've met a few Australians who went to see the silverback gorillas from the Congo side.

You should be able to figure out what I would say about Yemen - the country with 20 million people and 50 million guns.

What's my point? Oh yeah, honestly, the whole world thinks we're insane when it comes to guns. Yemenis know we have an outrageous crime rate and that we love guns more than they do. And you should all know how insane they are by now.

And I've known people who've gone to Kashmir, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Liberia, Pakistan, Iran, I've almost moved to Syria twice, my best friend is going to Iraq soon (and he's not a soldier), etc. None of them go armed. And all of them have their heads. I even got some head from a couple of them.

The world isn't that dangerous even for Americans, and for you to say you won't go anywhere without a gun just makes you sound paranoid.

In fact I reccommend you go to Yemen FOR the guns.

http://idontreadyourblog.blogs.friendster.com/photos/yemen_2006_or_is_it_1606/100_6488.JPG

I understand the whole reality of people traveling all over the world unarmed and coming out of it unscathed for the most part. Robert Young Pelton is a fine example, author of World's Most Dangerous Places. Most of the people who write for him go into extremely dangerous places and through their wits and the fact that most people on this earth aren't going to randomly indiscriminately murder you, they come back home to tell their stories.

This does not mean that bad things don't happen to alot of people who are unarmed and incapable of self-defense. Think of the Phillipine sailors who were kidnapped by Somali 'pirate' ships and are now being held hostage (saw it on CNN couple months ago). Think of those people who do get killed. DP loses a few writers each volume that comes out. Usually in some disgustingly dumb incident, like getting shot in the face by a Russian soldier while walking out of Chechan lines with a white flag upraised. The high kidnap rape in Mexico and Columbia by rebels and drug cartels, the sole intent being to just get some extra cash from the ransom. Incidents like that, in places that have reputations for such things, are why I would feel better knowing I have more of a say in what happens to me than the good will of armed thugs. I know it's an unlikely event of happening, but just as I would hope it's unlikely I'd have the chance of shacking up with a beautiful woman who had AIDS, I'd like to carry a condom on me at all times. And again, I'm just talking about places, that as you said, 'NO ONE' would want to wander into without some type of weapon; I already said 90 percent of the world's countries I'd have no problem going into unarmed. I never said I meant any other country in the world besides America is too dangerous for me to go there without a private army. There's a thin line between paranoia and caution, so descending into paranoia from said cautiousness is a very real danger gun owners face. The more paranoid you are, the more trigger-happy you're likely to become. So you're not far from the truth with that.

As for the American crime rates, that's probably because we're a war-like people who veer towards ignorance and hostility on a daily basis. Look at how angry Joe Schmoe with a wife and kids can get on the highway. Our priorities are all screwed up... an ex-marine was shot dead years ago near where I live by some nutjob who lost his shit on the road and start firing. I will say this. That ex marine had a gun in his glovebox, but he still got killed- so his gun didn't save him in the end. Then I think about the story of serial killer Ramirez and the old grandmother who pulled the shotgun on him, only to find out she had taken the shells out of the gun because a grandkid was over that day. The chances of a serial killer paying you a house-call are practically nil, but goddamn it, I wish she had that thing loaded up. I know if I were her, I would wish to hell I had.

Even without guns, I'd wager Americans are likely to commit violent crimes on others. Again, I reference our war-like nature. Look at how many wars we've waged in our young national history. That is certainly a problem with the climate of American mindsets- and contributes to the crime rates, I am certain. Gangs don't help, neither does the people who try to bend the rules playing race cards, constitutional arguments, and excessive and mindless territoriality. The mortality rate may decrease without guns, but how much would violent crime decrease? I think the problem really are more about the people who have the guns rather than the guns themselves, so saying the problem is guns is really just treating a symptom and not the source. Guns are just machines...it takes people to make them bad. Same could be said of any vehicle used to run someone over, or drag them to death.

Truth be told, I think the world is fantastically more dangerous for non-Americans (how many Americans have been caught in a third-world genocide versus the local population stuck in those countries?) than it is for Americans. In Chechnya, you're as likely to be shot by Russians as you are to be killed by Chechens, and way more likely if you're Russian or Chechen. And carrying a gun on you would make you more an obvious target than an unarmed fellow would be. So there's alot of pros and cons to my feelings on carrying a gun into dangerous territories. And nothing is absolute...I could always change my mind in a given situation and dump the gun. No one likes to be intimidated, and Iraq proves how much people don't like Americans who do the intimidating.

[TheMojoPin]

when i hear a kinda question like this, first thing that pops in my head is "How do I feel about minorities?"


then i buy another semi-automatic.....

Where are you posting from?

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH....

[Friday]

Dear Gun Manufacturers,

While I still oppose the sale and usage of guns for any other purpose aside from certified law enforcers and the like. And fully oppose the sale of automatic firearms such as the AK 47 under ANY circumstances.....

Shooting is Hella Fun! Wheeeeee

Went shooting today and I did better than Fallon. :clap:

Sincerely,
Friday

[Gvac]

Went shooting today and I did better than Fallon. :clap:

Sincerely,
Friday

Is it true that he's shooting blanks?

[DIRTY_MEX]

guns are bad .........OK

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v506/gianca718/Picture040.jpg

[Don Stugots]

Is it true that he's shooting blanks?

oh don't act so coy. like you don't know.

[feralBoy]

And fully oppose the sale of automatic firearms such as the AK 47 under ANY circumstances.....

Shooting is Hella Fun! Wheeeeee


Not all AK-47's are fully automatic. You can buy a semi-automatic version for like 400 bucks. The fully automatic version is likely to cost about $10,000 and requires alot of paperwork. Another benefit of being rich...fully automatic weapons.

[A.J.]

Dear Gun Manufacturers,

While I still oppose the sale and usage of guns for any other purpose aside from certified law enforcers and the like. And fully oppose the sale of automatic firearms such as the AK 47 under ANY circumstances.....

Shooting is Hella Fun! Wheeeeee

Went shooting today and I did better than Fallon. :clap:

Sincerely,
Friday


I've heard that woman actually shoot very well their first time out. I don't recall the explanation for this.

[A.J.]

And fully oppose the sale of automatic firearms such as the AK 47 under ANY circumstances.....

I do too. That's a Rooskie gun.

[SarahImpact]

http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/stick_em_up_cat_burglar.jpg

[SarahImpact]

I'm sorry I know the cat pictures are getting old, but I just thought it was too cute to pass up. I'm done I have it out of my system now...