Self Defense/Concealed Carry

[DanOK]

Do you keep a weapon in your car or on your person?

I had the opportunity to attend a Self Defense Class on Saturday. It’s a mandatory class should you wish to receive a Concealed Carry Permit in Oklahoma. I am in the process of meeting the required qualifications. I felt it necessary as I have carried a pistol in my vehicle for many years, both loaded and concealed, and travel to surrounding states often enough that I believe I should obtain a permit. This is especially true in view of the recent Supreme Court ruling. The majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, established for the first time in U.S. history that the Constitution's Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep guns at home for self-defense. The status of a concealed weapon is unclear at the moment.

Current law in my state is somewhat unclear as to weather I can keep a concealed weapon in my vehicle or not, but is clear in upholding my right to use a weapon in defense of/at home, in my vehicle, and in other structures.

I was very fortunate that the instructor was also an attorney and brought a wealth of experience and knowledge to the class. As someone who carries a concealed weapon, on occasions, and spends a large amount of time defending, and interacting, with the less than stellar portion of our society, it only reinforced my decision to carry a concealed weapon. Everyone hates attorney’s, that is until you need one. I cannot imagine anything scarier than being hated by a crack head. Anyone looking to start the process in Oklahoma can PM me and I will give you his contact info as he is a great instructor.

The class reflected the current statistics for concealed carry permits in the US. The fastest growing groups of applicants are in the age group of 45 to 55 years of age. My class consisted of students ranging from 38 to 74.

I would encourage everyone to take the time to acquire his or her permit. I continue to believe the person most responsible for the safety of my family is myself and not the government. Hey, I’m a big boy and am happy to take responsibility for my family, my friends, and me. The bad guys don’t wait for you to call 911. Listed below for your information are the states that Oklahoma has reciprocity with on concealed carry permits:


ALASKA MONTANA
ALABAMA NEW HAMPSHIRE
ARKANSAS NEW MEXICO
ARIZONA NORTH CAROLINA
COLORADO NORTH DAKOTA
DELAWARE OHIO
FLORIDA PENNSYLVANIA
GEORGIA SOUTH DAKOTA
IDAHO TENNESSEE
INDIANA TEXAS
KANSAS UTAH
KENTUCKY VERMONT
LOUISIANA VIRGINIA
MICHIGAN WASHINGTON
MISSISSIPPI WYOMING
MISSOURI

[Shane]

I don't carry a concealed weapon, but I believe that everyone should have the right to do so for the purpose of self-defense.

[Milton]

I don't carry a concealed weapon, but I believe that everyone should have the right to do so for the purpose of self-defense.

+1

Absolutely.

[mhdagley]

In a few months when I am old enough to get said permit I plan to. I may not carry right of the bat since I am in school. I cant carry there but after that who knows?
Anyone know how hard it is to do down here in Texas?

[KenS]

I seldom carry, but have had a CWP for 35 years. I always remember it is a major responsibility..

[Jimbo]

Back some 12-15 years ago when Texas passed the concealed carry permit law (before that one could pretty much carry a gun as long as it wasn't concealed and you have a good reason), my attorney friend advised me to take the class and get the permit to insure my constitutional rights weren't violated.
Good advice but the only thing I'm concerned about is the state or invaders having a tidy list of people to round up first. I'm not a "black helicopter" guy but if I wanted to seize power or invade a country, I'd round up the folks carrying the guns first.

[Jimbo]

In a few months when I am old enough to get said permit I plan to. I may not carry right of the bat since I am in school. I cant carry there but after that who knows?
Anyone know how hard it is to do down here in Texas?
As far as I know, it's a two day class, a test and a live fire exercise that isn't tough to pass. I assume there's a background check. You have to be over 21.

[OldSchoolYoungin]

Yes, living where I live it's too risky not to.

[TiltbackJack]

I have my concealed carry permit, but seldom use it anymore. I would also encourage everyone who can get one, to do so, for the reasons DanOK stated.

[ColbyPants]

I don't carry a concealed weapon, but I believe that everyone should have the right to do so for the purpose of self-defense.

Thats generally my opinion. I have no particular compulsion to carry (or in fact own) a firearm, though I see no real reason why anyone else cant. I just don't wanna.



Now if people would take the same approach to cigar smoking. . . . .:mad:

[goodsamaritan]

Excellent post DanOK. I would suggest that everyone who has the opportunity (i.e. lives in a state that recognizes the bill of rights. )attend their states concealed carry class. Go, even if you have no intention of getting your permit, or ever carrying a weapon. It is amazing to me the number of people who have absolutely no clue what the law for their state is. Around here you can ask a few policemen and get almost as many conflicting answers. I sincerely hope no one viewing this thread will ever have to employ deadly force to protect themselves or their family, but statistically that won't be the case. If you find yourself in a do or die situation, knowing the law may save you from a world of hurt.

[R-James]

Kind of difficult to do here in the UK. If you have a pocket knife over 3 inches in length you are liable for arrest.

[GPSalvaggio]

Several of my friends carry here in MI. The process took several months from the they completed the course to the time they received their permit. These guys are all family men who choose to carry to protect themselves and uphold their constitutional right.

[urr-lord]

i've had a carry permit for 20 years.never had to draw a weapon,but it was a comfort knowing the option was there in a few situations.

[Lefty]

I had to draw my weapon one time at my own house. Thank God the guy got it idea and left without use of it. I do not have my concealed carry, but me and the wife said it was a good thing to do 3 years ago. Maybe it is time for us.

[Traveller]

I have the permit in Fla,and Texas,Ive had to use a firearm twice in defense of my life,both times in Miami,once a concealed weapon,and once from a drawer in my place of business.I believe I would have been killed in both instances if I had not been armed.Best regards Gary

[Tinzien]

I have the permit in Fla,and Texas,Ive had to use a firearm twice in defense of my life,both times in Miami,once a concealed weapon,and once from a drawer in my place of business.I believe I would have been killed in both instances if I had not been armed.Best regards Gary

If you don't mind, tell both stories please. Thanks.

[Bori]

I have the permit in Fla,and Texas,Ive had to use a firearm twice in defense of my life,both times in Miami,once a concealed weapon,and once from a drawer in my place of business.I believe I would have been killed in both instances if I had not been armed.Best regards Gary

Yeah, I live in Miami and conceal carry but mostly keep it in my car. Funny thing is that I never thought I would need to until I moved down here a few years back. You know with the hurricanes and all(:wink:).

[Zach V.]

I don't carry a concealed weapon, but I believe that everyone should have the right to do so for the purpose of self-defense.

Yep.

[13th Duke of Wymbourne]

Kind of difficult to do here in the UK. If you have a pocket knife over 3 inches in length you are liable for arrest.

About a year ago in England a man who was pulled over by a traffic Policeman (& subsequently charged with no traffic offence) ended up in court to explain why he had a Leatherman in his briefcase, his explanation was that he used it for work (opening boxes etc) & he was on his way home from work, this explanation was not enough for the Policeman but was enough for the Magistrate.

[txengineer]

I've kept a pistol in my car for the last 25+ years. I only needed it once, when two individuals wanted to relieve me of my wallet at the gas station late one night. It sure was nice to send them on their way without getting into a scuffle.

[buzo71]

I carry a gun everywhere I go... well, except the shower

[NeckShaver]

What a shocker, California is not on that list! :mad:

[sullivanpm]

I carry a gun everywhere I go... well, except the shower
Get a Glock then you can carry in the shower.:biggrin:

[IGNITERS]

Well in Canada if you carry anything it seems from a carpet knife to a fishbat ( forget about a gun) you are considered part of the problem and treated as such.The self defence cry doesn't carry alot of weight around here ,they clain reasonable force....what that means you can only pick up a stick against your attacker if he also has one and even then you can only hit him as many times as it takes to run for your life !
Pepper spray is available but if a lady uses it to fend off a rapist she may be charged!,
and with most urban centers it takes POLICE about 15 minutes to get anywhere.....

scary huh ?

[77DX]

Get a Glock then you can carry in the shower.:biggrin:

Concealed?

[sullivanpm]

Concealed?
In the shower you can probably get away with open carry provided it is in your own private residence.
:biggrin:
Concealed
Well, what you do in the privacy of your own home is your business.:lol:

[NeckShaver]

In the shower you can probably get away with open carry provided it is in your own private residence.
:biggrin:
Concealed
Well, what you do in the privacy of your own home is your business.:lol:

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little :confused:

[Dave12345]

:frown: I feel very sorry for the children who are growing up in a society where I am told there is a firearm for every man,women and child within the country that they live (USA).

My country is far from perfect and I am not trying to have a go at the states,a country and people that I enjoy very much. BUT, when you add a firearm into a brawl,a domestic arguement, a neighbour dispute, a mental health situation, a drug induced situation etc etc then there is a real risk that it will be drawn and possibly used. It also dictates the way the whole society acts and in particular the methods that have to be deployed by your Police Officers.

As adults you have the power to change the direction in which your society is run and managed... that is a fact. One day the tragedy might effect you personally..... I sincerely hope it doesnt, but if that time comes along,then spare a thought for the change that you didnt make.

Take care.

London

[sullivanpm]

:frown: I feel very sorry for the children who are growing up in a society where I am told there is a firearm for every man,women and child within the country that they live (USA).

My country is far from perfect and I am not trying to have a go at the states,a country and people that I enjoy very much. BUT, when you add a firearm into a brawl,a domestic arguement, a neighbour dispute, a mental health situation, a drug induced situation etc etc then there is a real risk that it will be drawn and possibly used. It also dictates the way the whole society acts and in particular the methods that have to be deployed by your Police Officers.

As adults you have the power to change the direction in which your society is run and managed... that is a fact. One day the tragedy might effect you personally..... I sincerely hope it doesnt, but if that time comes along,then spare a thought for the change that you didnt make.

Take care.

London
Well aren't you just a little ray of sunshine.

[poppi]

During and since Hurricane Katrina smashed us down here things are not so good in parts of New Orleans and even my small city of Slidell. Predators are prevelant and I will not be a victim.

If there were better police protection, much better justice system and a larger number of people who care then perhaps such measures would not be necessary. But for now, I feel, they are

[Dave12345]

When a society feels that the people in charge are not protecting them,then it is a natural progression for people to arm and protect themselves. I understand that, and agree 100% that I would do exactly the same.

Your country has great wealth,freedom of speach and travel, freedom of choice etc. Your country has the death penalty and also sends people to prison for vast amounts of time (100 year sentences), but still you feel the real need to protect yourselves.

My advice is put some time aside to try and change the society you live in, no matter how small, do your bit.If everyone put in a small amount of time then you would start to see results.

If you had said to me twenty years ago that I would be seperating every bit of my household rubbish and religously putting it out for recycling then I would have laughed out loud....... guess what,we are all doing it,its led by the new generation of school kids and its a good thing!!

You can make a difference,its whether you have the real desire and whether you personally want to make a difference.


Regards

[OldSchoolYoungin]

:frown: I feel very sorry for the children who are growing up in a society where I am told there is a firearm for every man,women and child within the country that they live (USA).

My country is far from perfect and I am not trying to have a go at the states,a country and people that I enjoy very much. BUT, when you add a firearm into a brawl,a domestic arguement, a neighbour dispute, a mental health situation, a drug induced situation etc etc then there is a real risk that it will be drawn and possibly used. It also dictates the way the whole society acts and in particular the methods that have to be deployed by your Police Officers.

As adults you have the power to change the direction in which your society is run and managed... that is a fact. One day the tragedy might effect you personally..... I sincerely hope it doesnt, but if that time comes along,then spare a thought for the change that you didnt make.

Take care.

London

Yea, why don't you come on over here, spend some time in some of the more crime-ridden areas and tell me that you wouldn't feel more safe in possession of a firearm? All the criminals are carrying them, albeit they're all unregistered. It's so easy to sit back and judge when you haven't experienced this for yourself. The US is an entirely different ballgame.

When an intruder breaks into your home at 3am, what're you going to do, talk it out? I've only had to draw my protection once, I can't imagine what would've happened if I hadn't had it on me at the time. Whether you decide to carry is up to you. If you think you're going to go rob a bank with your newly purchased firearm or shoot your wife over burnt toast just before you go to work, then don't buy one.

Edit: In reference to your new post. Who says that gun-owners aren't willing to do their bit to change society? Just because we arm ourselves doesn't mean that's the end of our contribution. You're making it seem as though change happens overnight. Unfortunately, no matter what you do the great majority aren't willing to step up to the plate. Trust me, many of us are trying to do our part. It's up to others to do theirs.

[Dave12345]

I am not trying to tell you how to run things, I am not trying to say that your situation is not as bad as it sounds or that you dont have very real problems... you do.

But when you take a deep breath and put the quick emotional responses to one side, just ask yourself as an educated person (that includes all of us on this site), how long can this situation continue. Do you want your children and their children to grow up facing the fears that you have at the moment. The answer is no, you know that and so do I,its about taking it forward and deciding how you might change things.

Its not going to happen overnight thats for sure, but if you dont do something then the situation will never change, that I can be very sure of.

Good luck and I hope you can understand where I am coming from.

[retired cop]

As a relatively recent retired policeman/detective, I encourage *MOST* American citizens to *LEGALLY* carry concealed firearms. Aside from proper training, be damn sure to educate yourself on the deadly force laws that apply to where you carry that firearrm. In many places, your right to use deadly force is almost identical to those of police officers.

Will add, that by all means respect those citizens who choose not to carry a firearm.

[buzo71]

:frown: I feel very sorry for the children who are growing up in a society where I am told there is a firearm for every man,women and child within the country that they live (USA).

My country is far from perfect and I am not trying to have a go at the states,a country and people that I enjoy very much. BUT, when you add a firearm into a brawl,a domestic arguement, a neighbour dispute, a mental health situation, a drug induced situation etc etc then there is a real risk that it will be drawn and possibly used. It also dictates the way the whole society acts and in particular the methods that have to be deployed by your Police Officers.

As adults you have the power to change the direction in which your society is run and managed... that is a fact. One day the tragedy might effect you personally..... I sincerely hope it doesnt, but if that time comes along,then spare a thought for the change that you didnt make.

Take care.

London

Yeah... I don't see it that way and I'll tell you why.

Your Argument is flawed in that you assume in any of the situations you have described happens, its possible a weapon will be drawn and used. While that is true, its just as true for knives, bats and other impact weapons- so should we keep those from being allowed into our society? I think you would agree- no.

People that would illegally use a weapon against another would have done so anyway. legally carrying concealed allows me and any other law abiding citizen the chance to defend my life or that of another.

And since we are talking about the way a society acts as a whole based on the ability to carry legally, is it your contention that England or any other country that prohibits weapon ownership (or at least restrictions) is a safer place to live? From information I have, crime has actually become worse since the gun bans:

"Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year's Day this year a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice."

"Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent."

You are right on one point however, Adults can change the way society does business. If we wish to be safe, we arm ourselves responsibly. We protect our weapons and store them safely, educate and practice with our weapons often....

[Mysterion]

Gentlemen: You may not agree with Dave12345, but his tone has been respectful, and his commentary clearly was offered in good faith. I believe he deserves to be answered in the same measured tone. Sarcasm and challenges are not in the spirit of the forum, and do nothing to further your arguments.

Obviously, I agree with Dave, but, more to the point, I recognize his overwhelmingly positive message. Sounds to me as if he's part of the solution. Perhaps our society would be better if more people focused on examining the root causes of violence, rather than simply arming up.

(And before you jump down my throat--I've lived in some very marginal neighborhoods, in one of the most violent cities in the US. I've been mugged with both handguns and knives. I've been burgled more than once. I've watched a man bleed to death on my front steps, I've comforted a 15-year old in the hospital with a .38 slug in his chest, and I've lost friends to guns, both at their own hands, and those of others. In common with many men, I love fine machinery, and I like things that go fast, make noise, and blow up. But as a matter of principal, I've never once been tempted to carry a handgun. You may think I'm an idiot, you may think I'm naive, but I beg your respect, and that you extend that respect to other members.)

[OldSchoolYoungin]

The problem with the States is this; people will sit there and complain all day but do NOTHING about the situation. When you take a stand for society and attempt to bring attention to the problem, you're seen as some backwards bigoted rebel rather than someone who cares about their country. It's unfortunate that it doesn't do much good when most of the country is either ignoring the problem or working against you.

David, I didn't intend any offense and again it's easy to judge a situation when you're on the outside looking in. Trust me when I say that there are many people taking a stand, and if it weren't for the current situation in the country I probably wouldn't even carry a firearm. However, there are many, many, MANY around here that would rather see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil and sit and watch American Idol.

[Dave12345]

It is obvious that everyone has their own strong views on this subject. I look at every word you type and listen to the style you use.I can feel the passion that is coming through....hey,I can practically hear you all banging away at that keyboard as I speak...Damn Brit,who does he think he is etc etc :smile:

I have the advantage of growing up in a society where firearm ownership is rare and as such firearm related crime is also very low. We have emerging crime related to guns and I hope that soon our government will wake up to it and begin to deal with it robustly.

Put your passion to good use, make a difference for the future.

This will be my last entry for this subject,its been nice listening to your views.

regards

[iron maiden]

Wow, I am quite surprised this dialog has gone on for 2 pages and is still mostly civil. So, I guess, keep up keeping it civil.:wink:

As an active-duty state trooper in Ohio, I would have to throw my obligatory 2 cents in there. I would encourage anybody who feels the need to carry a gun to do so, legally of course. The background checks for the concealed permits are quite thorough, and the people who have the permits are what you would describe as being part of the solution. Since criminals are going to disregard the law no matter what it dictates, then as law abiding citizens, we should exercise our rights to keep the playing field even.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "An armed society is a polite society." Those citizens who have the permits are actually the good guys (or gals). I stop vehicles regularly where the driver has a gun on his or her person legally. I have never felt threatened by these drivers, as they have already undergone the training and background checks to be "safe" to carry a gun.

The rules for the police are quite simple. We can use deadly force to A) defend our life or B) defend another's life. The same rules will apply to a regular citizen as well. I'm not a regular carrier of a pistol off-duty, but I have done so on occasion. The old adage of "It is better to have and not need, than to need and not have" is worthy of consideration here.

As always, YMMV, but I do appreciate you guys keeping this thread from being locked.:biggrin:

[burnwood]

I am allowed to carry my weapon off duty but I do not.

[Rorschuck]

<SNIP>
Your country has great wealth,freedom of speach and travel, freedom of choice etc. Your country has the death penalty and also sends people to prison for vast amounts of time (100 year sentences), but still you feel the real need to protect yourselves.
<SNIP>


Yes, we feel the need to protect ourselves because the justice system is broken. We have a reactive (instead if pro-active; I hate the word too, but it fits) system where more emphasis is placed on meting out punishment than on actual crime prevention.

Too many of our resources are spent dealing with drug users and useless 'wars' (on those same drugs, terror). People (politicians) think other people (voters) simply wouldn't support the "war on poverty" that's really needed to turn the tide of crime.

I don't own a gun, and never have, though I have shot them. I may buy a pistol at some point in the future, or may not; either way, I'm glad I have the right.

[Rorschuck]

Yeah... I don't see it that way and I'll tell you why.
<SNIP>
From information I have, crime has actually become worse since the gun bans:

<SNIP some random stories about gun violence in the UK


While I am taking the pro-gun ownership side on this debate, I have to dispute your argument pretty much in toto here. Random anecdotes hardly constitute an evidence-based approach (which I feel is merited). Each side can certainly tell some pretty grisly tales. What would be a far more illuminating bit of info (and one which, unfortunately, would bode better for Dave's side than ours) would be per-capita murder rates.

Unfortunately (for the pro-gun crowd), the UK's got us dead to rights on that (if you will), in that - rise or no rise after some 'ban' - they still lave lower rates than we do.

And if we're talking about their alleged rise in rates after 'the ban': which ban? The 1870 'ban', or 1903, or 1937? Or could it be the one from 1968? 1988? 1997?

I assume 1997, since that's what most people know, and it pertains to handguns. Per-capita homicides went from 1.62 to 1.37 per 100,000, according to Wikipedia. How's that up?

While I am pro-gun, I do have limits, and ones that NRA members would probably deem unacceptable. I absolutely think assault rifles should be banned (for private ownership), and pretty much anything other than shotguns, rifles, pistols and antiques. The ONLY argument I can discern for ownership of these items is "the government has them too", and that falls down very quickly: the government also has tanks and atom bombs. Should we be able to? Personally, I think many of England's policies should be adopted here, as well. To wit:


To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be convinced that a person has "good reason" to own each gun, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace".
<SNIP>
The current licensing procedure involves: positive verification of identity, two referees of verifiably good character who have known the applicant for at least two years (and who may themselves be interviewed and/or investigated as part of the certification), approval of the application by the applicant's own family doctor, an inspection of the premises and cabinet where guns will be kept and a face-to-face interview by a Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO) also known as a Firearms Liaison Officer (FLO). A thorough background check of the applicant is then made by Special Branch on behalf of the firearms licensing department. Only when all these stages have been satisfactorily completed will a license be issued.

Source: Wikepedia

Now, that sounds great! Expensive, perhaps, but great! I cut out the bit where "self-defense" is not a valid reason for owning them, because that's about the one part I don't agree with. It seems like that could cut out a whole boatload of whack-jobs.

[drewfer]

:frown: I feel very sorry for the children who are growing up in a society where I am told there is a firearm for every man,women and child within the country that they live (USA).

My country is far from perfect and I am not trying to have a go at the states,a country and people that I enjoy very much. BUT, when you add a firearm into a brawl,a domestic arguement, a neighbour dispute, a mental health situation, a drug induced situation etc etc then there is a real risk that it will be drawn and possibly used. It also dictates the way the whole society acts and in particular the methods that have to be deployed by your Police Officers.

As adults you have the power to change the direction in which your society is run and managed... that is a fact. One day the tragedy might effect you personally..... I sincerely hope it doesnt, but if that time comes along,then spare a thought for the change that you didnt make.

Take care.

London

I appreciate the concern, and if one could snap your fingers and magically make weapons disappear from the planet then I imagine that many a man would gladly do so. However, it is realistically impossible for a government to go about removing all of the guns in America today without invading a everyone's homes and destroying civil rights to the point that we would live in a totalitarian state. We could muster together some sort of voluntary campaign to encourage citizens to turn in all weapons but I assure you that the people that wish to take advantages of others will not voluntarily turn over such an advantage, and once we have a largely unarmed society, who protects the unarmed? Remember, the Police generally can't preempt a crime they can only show up to try and contain it and enforce consequences.

In effect I'm given two choices: Usurp my neighbors rights and go house to house searching for and destroying all such items in the name of the public good (and retain the powers indefinitely so as to ensure continuing safety), or arm myself and encourage my neighbors to arm themselves also so that each of us becomes responsible for protecting ourselves and each other.

When I first got my concealed carry permit I gained an immense respect for my fellow man. I remember stopping at a traffic light on the drive home from the court house and glancing at the driver opposite me. That man could be carrying a firearm I thought. If so, he literally held the power to turn and kill me at a moments notice...yet he didn't. My state is fairly well armed and every day I move about passing hundreds of people on the street, each with a fair probability of being armed, yet anarchy does not rule. To me, carrying a gun has become a profound reminder that people are basically good. And I hope that I never, ever have to use it.

Recently, some work mates and I were watching the new Batman movie. There was a scene when the Joker crashed a large party holding what appeared to be about 100 guests hostage with only a couple of henchmen armed with knives and handguns. During the middle of the Jokers rant about the coming anarchy he was about to unleash upon the city, my workmate turned to me and said, "you know, if only 10 out of those 100 or so guests were carrying this movie would have been much shorter."

[professorchaos]

I currently live in Massachusetts where that particular Constitutional right is routinely abused and dismissed. As such, I have neither a concealed carry permit nor a firearm ID, which is required to own a gun or even ammunition.

As onerus and aribtrary as the process to get the proper permits is, I have not re-located my guns to Boston for two reasons. First, transporting them across the country - either by courier or road trip - is a pretty big task. Second, I'll be damned before I'd let this bluest of blue states have a record of my guns!

When I lived in New Orleans, where my rights were largely unfettered, I was rarely less than three feet from a gun. Would it surprise you if I said being armed defused no less than three potentially ugly situations without violence?

[drewfer]

And if we're talking about their alleged rise in rates after 'the ban': which ban? The 1870 'ban', or 1903, or 1937? Or could it be the one from 1968? 1988? 1997?

I assume 1997, since that's what most people know, and it pertains to handguns. Per-capita homicides went from 1.62 to 1.37 per 100,000, according to Wikipedia. How's that up?


Good points. I'd also like to point out that per-capital homicides fell ~17% in the US (6.9 to 5.6) during the same period and no such laws were passed. Since we don't know the cause of the changes we can't say for sure that, all other things being equal, the handgun laws had a positive or negative effect.

[77DX]

I absolutely think assault rifles should be banned (for private ownership).

What's an assault rifle?

[Bowcephalus]

Concerning the English view of arms in America....It's our brothers 'cross the pond who taught us the utility of personal arms in well practiced hands through violence and attempted subjugation over two hundred years ago. And then proceeded to demonstate their effectiveness in securing personal Liberty by surrendering at Yorktown....A lesson well taught by your forebears and well learned and passed down by our own..So much so that our parents had personal firearms that were sent to British citizens to defend against an expected german invasion against an unarmed population....For those lessons I salute you and yours.......

[stobes21]

I have a concealed carry permit, and carry when I can. Unfortunately, as a graduate student, I am unable to carry on campus. Campus is, also unfortunately, in a rather shady neighborhood. Thus, I am unable to carry when I am most likely to need it.

[DanOK]

I am surprised my weekend activities would have sparked such a varied and gentlemanly discourse. Such respect for each other in our disagreements is one of the reason I enjoy everyone here so much.

I am amazed that no mention of the Swiss has come up in this debate. They have arguable the highest rate of private gun ownership in the world, on a percentage bases, and one of the lowest violent crime rates around. The government subsidies the cost of ammo and provides government sponsored gun education to every man and woman who wished to take the classes.

What's an assault rifle? Its that Czech AK-47 you have been squirrel hunting with again. He wants you to quit assaulting them squirrels. Or was it that Benjamen Pump pellet rifle? I don't know, just quit assault something.

[texcattlerancher]

Concerning the English view of arms in America....It's our brothers 'cross the pond who taught us the utility of personal arms in well practiced hands through violence and attempted subjugation over two hundred years ago. And then proceeded to demonstate their effectiveness in securing personal Liberty by surrendering at Yorktown....A lesson well taught by your forebears and well learned and passed down by our own..So much so that our parents had personal firearms that were sent to British citizens to defend against an expected german invasion against an unarmed population....For those lessons I salute you and yours.......

Well said. It is almost unfair to use the wisdom of history in a debate.

The Swiss, I think, even one up the US. In the US, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But, that does not mean one has to own a firearm. If memory serves, in Switzerland, every able bodied male from 20 to 30 years old is required to keep both an assault rifle and a 9mm pistol. Despite the populace being armed to the teeth, gun related crime in Switzerland is very low.

[Rorschuck]

What's an assault rifle?

There is a multi-pronged test, but for my purposes anything that is capable of selective fire.

See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle)

[77DX]

There is a multi-pronged test, but for my purposes anything that is capable of selective fire.

I ask because that has become a political term rather than a technical term. There's a lot of folks interested in banning "assault" rifles who don't have the first clue what they might be.

If selective fire is the test, they're already illegal in 99.8725% of cases.

[texcattlerancher]

I am amazed that no mention of the Swiss has come up in this debate. They have arguable the highest rate of private gun ownership in the world, on a percentage bases, and one of the lowest violent crime rates around. The government subsidies the cost of ammo and provides government sponsored gun education to every man and woman who wished to take the classes.


I was typing about the Swiss as you posted. You beat me to them. I wonder if I am correct on the years of service, 20 to 30. And, I thought service was only mandatory for Swiss men.

[Rorschuck]

I ask because that has become a political term rather than a technical term. There's a lot of folks interested in banning "assault" rifles who don't have the first clue what they might be.

If selective fire is the test, they're already illegal in 99.8725&#37; of cases.

I thought you were baiting me, just because you're from Oklahoma; it seemed statistically improbably that you really didn't know :wink:

And you are correct, current bans seem adequate. Note, however, that I reserve the right to change my criteria at any time and for any reason to exclude whatever random gun was used in a school shooting that particular day. Say, what kind you got? :biggrin: Kidding; I kid.

[Rorschuck]

Wow, I am quite surprised this dialog has gone on for 2 pages and is still mostly civil. So, I guess, keep up keeping it civil.:wink:


If it helps, I'd be happy to claim your mother reeks of elderberries...

:biggrin:

[77DX]

I thought you were baiting me

Thanks for taking the bait and being a sport about it.

FWIW the wife and I were discussing gun bans in bed the other night. She said she'd favor banning any firearm designed exclusively to kill people. I walked around to her side, took her S&W Airweight .38 out of the night stand and asked, "like this one?"

My point, probably too far buried at this point, is that we've got laws enough to protect us but we lack enforcement.

For the record: I am licensed and I do carry. Usually a Beretta 92FS. Sometimes the wife's Airweight.

[DanOK]

I believe that service is only mandatory for men and I think any adult can take gun classes. Will have to do a little research to be sure.

[Mysterion]

No such thing as an assault rifle? Just a fuzzy-headed liberal canard, designed to deprive sportsmen and enthusiasts of their recreational and/or defensive weapons? Please.

If you really respect your weaponry, can you seriously tell me that your MP5 was designed for plinking? That a 7.62 NATO round is ideal for hunting squirrels? Do you plan on eating whatever is left of those squirrels, or do you just like killing tiny mammals for fun? (Which sort of calls into question whether you're balanced enough to own the AK in the first place...)

I'll concede that the genie is out of the bottle with respect to handguns in the US--as much as I loathe the notion non-police/military ownership, I can't see how it would be possible to recall them all. But there's really no need for private ownership of a full- or semi-automatic rifle that clearly is designed for the purpose of killing humans, typically in a combat situation. Sure, you could probably shave with a machete and cook with a flamethrower, but that wouldn't make them the right tools for the job.

[Bowcephalus]

Mysterion, your post indicates either an ignorance of or an irrational contempt for hundreds of thousands of decent, sane, and moral law abiding Americans who engage in target shooting, as well as hunting with the weapons and calibers you describe. For goodness sake do a little research into folks and their activities before you condemn them....
Many hundreds of thousands of rounds are fired each year by men, women,boys, and girls from semi-auto .223 and semi-auto Gov't model .45. .....Not in anger or danger but in the company of some of the finest folks you'll ever meet. Nowhere else do you get the interaction between civilian, military, and police in such a positive way as is common on the firing line of ranges all over this country. Makes for great community glue as well as safe firearms training......You should join in sometime....Expand your horizons....

[NeckShaver]

Many hundreds of thousands of rounds are fired each year by men, women,boys, and girls from semi-auto .223 and semi-auto Gov't model .45. .....Not in anger or danger but in the company of some of the finest folks you'll ever meet. Nowhere else do you get the interaction between civilian, military, and police in such a positive way as is common on the firing line of ranges all over this country. Makes for great community glue......You should join in sometime....Expand your horizons....

HUGE +1

[Masterofsparks]

I have my permit and do carry on my person and in my car. I have never had any issues but as the old scout motto goes: Be Prepared!

[Rorschuck]

No such thing as an assault rifle? Just a fuzzy-headed liberal canard, designed to deprive sportsmen and enthusiasts of their recreational and/or defensive weapons? Please.



Uh.... apropos nothing, I presume? I mean, who in this thread has claimed full-auto assaults with high-caliber rounds should be perfectly attainable? I don't see anybody. You're not one of them fuzzy-headed liberal canards, are you? :wink:

[Mysterion]

Bow, I don't live in some liberal vacuum. A number of my friends own weapons--handguns, hunting rifles, target guns, MP5s, AKs, there's even a 12 ga. streetsweeper in there. I hold no irrational contempt for these people; I simply don't agree with their choices.

I'm also not completely ignorant in some of the details. I've written articles about handguns, one of which received letters of praise from both Handgun Control, Inc. and The NRA. I'm not claiming total impartiality, nor do I have the depth of knowledge in this area that you do. But I'm well equipped to understand mechanical and technical minutiae. When I referenced full- and semi-automatic weapons, I wasn't referring to your 9mm Glock/SIG/whatever handgun. I was referencing guns that were designed for military-style combat situations. Again, can you really tell me with a straight face that an MP5 was designed for plinking?

You'll also note from my earlier post that I do love machines, as well as things that are loud and fast. But I recognize that my individual desires don't necessarily trump the best interests of the collective (oh man, there's a can o' worms.) I'd enjoy running straight pipes on a Hemi Dart to drive to the store (if I had the money.) But I recognize that uncorked exhaust would make me a self-indulgent a-hole, and my neighbors would suffer the consequences. If I had a back 40, I might very well enjoy playing with a full-auto AK. But I don't feel it's in the best interests of the community to have this type of weapon in private hands, so I make a mindful trade-off.

As far as going to the range...I was cleared to take the local police firearms training course, for an article I was writing. But someone in a suit got wind, and they pulled the permission.

[Bowcephalus]

Oh yeah and one other thing Myst.

That a 7.62 NATO round is ideal for hunting squirrels? Do you plan on eating whatever is left of those squirrels, or do you just like killing tiny mammals for fun? (Which sort of calls into question whether you're balanced enough to own the AK in the first place...).....The AK was chambered for a 7.62x39, not the 7.62 NATO....You see the Ruskies were not members of NATO and their round was shorter than ours....;).....Recent novel rechamberings notwithstanding, this is exactly the kind of stuff you learn at the range....

[Mysterion]

As I said, my knowledge of the minutiae isn't as deep as yours. But I believe that Valmet was making an AK-variant that would accept 7.62 NATO as far back as the mid-80s.

[Bowcephalus]

When I referenced full- and semi-automatic weapons, I wasn't referring to your 9mm Glock/SIG/whatever handgun. I was referencing guns that were designed for military-style combat situations. ...My reference was to a semi-auto .223 andGov't .45..(not a sig or glock which by the way fire identical rounds in identical ways)..Both designed for and issued to the military...Military arms are the "tool" of choice in civilian marksmanship clubs all across the country.... And as I said your use of 7.62 NATO in reference to an AK certainly describes the extent of the atmosphere in which you function.
A number of my friends own weapons--handguns, hunting rifles, target guns, MP5s, AKs, there's even a 12 ga. streetsweeper in there. I hold no irrational contempt for these people; I simply don't agree with their choices.

Then does the post below apply to your friends?
"If you really respect your weaponry, can you seriously tell me that your MP5 was designed for plinking? That a 7.62 NATO round is ideal for hunting squirrels? Do you plan on eating whatever is left of those squirrels, or do you just like killing tiny mammals for fun? (Which sort of calls into question whether you're balanced enough to own the AK in the first place...)....as much as I loathe the notion non-police/military ownership, I can't see how it would be possible to recall them all. But there's really no need for private ownership of a full- or semi-automatic rifle that clearly is designed for the purpose of killing humans, typically in a combat situation."


It's no biggie man and I ain't pickin' on ya, just trying to help one so adamant in his policy to be accurate in his arguement.....

[Bowcephalus]

But I believe that Valmet was making an AK-variant that would accept 7.62 NATO as far back as the mid-80s. ....Thus,"Recent novel rechamberings notwithstanding"

[Mysterion]

Absolutely correct--you did reference Gov't .45, and I rebutted referencing 9mm Glock, an unconscious error, but borne of editorial error, not ignorance. (Probably influenced by the prevalence of this round on the streets where I live; I've got a slightly crushed 9mm shell sitting on a shelf here--I kicked it down the sidewalk as I was walking home from the store.)

And I think we'd better just agree to disagree on the 7.62 NATO/AK issue. As noted above, Valmet's M-series guns have been produced in a NATO variant. Though not a Kalashnikov-made model, I think the vulgar tongue would tolerate calling that gun an AK, or at least an AK-variant.

[Mysterion]

...Then does the post below apply to your friends?...
Yes. See below.

...I hold no irrational contempt for these people; I simply don't agree with their choices...

[Bowcephalus]

What was their reply to your questioning their "balance" and statement of "loathing"?....

[AACJ]

Gentlemen,

While this has been a lively discussion, the mods appreciate the civility that has been shown in and expect said civility to continue.


Thanks

The Mods

[Rorschuck]

Gentlemen,

While this has been a lively discussion, the mods appreciate the civility that has been shown in and expect said civility to continue.


Thanks

The Mods



Yeah, it'd be nice, but somebody seems intent on taking this a different direction. Later.

[Mysterion]

Bow, please go back to my original statements, in context.

I expressed loathing only for the notion of private handgun ownership, stating that I would prefer to see handguns restricted to police and military use. I also noted that it was an essentially academic issue, as I don't believe that all the handguns in private hands can be practically eliminated. I expressly avoided making negative statements about gun owners. I will, however, stand by my statement that folks who enjoy vaporizing squirrels for recreation (with no pretense of producing food) perhaps lack the measured frame of mind I'd hope to see brought into play when handling a weapon.

And my friends are grown-ups; they can handle a lively disagreement. Life would be pretty dull if I only associated with folks with whom I agreed on every issue.

I now bid you good night. It's been fun, but it's reminded me why I generally eschew participation in the more politically-charged threads.

[Bowcephalus]

Fun here also Myst. good night as well.

We'll forgive you yet again Chuck........

[buzo71]

It seems like this threat has really moved away from the self defense/concealed carry discussion, not that I mind, but...

I personally believe, as a Law Enforcement Officer, that there are advantages to the trained, educated and capable persons carrying weapons. Anyone that has been in a dangerous situation can attest that, without a gun, you are at a disadvantage.

For those opposed to carrying guns, what is you solution to violent encounters? What would you do if you were involved in a situation that you could not run from? What would you do if someone was injured or killed that you could have saved by being armed?

[Austin]

Gents, I have owned a gun for years. I also have a concealed weapon permit. I rarely carry my Glock with me except when I travel. I rarely shoot my weapon except once a year at the range. I have mad respect for my weapon and treat it with respect. I have no need for assault weapons nor do I think the general public needs them. My son is proficient in weapons and has also shot heavy artillery in his unit.

[bigmo]

I've been a gun owner for several years now and just recently decided to get my ccw permit. Last week my wife told me of a story that had recently happened just a few miles from us, in small town America. An individual just a year older then I answered a sale ad in the local paper to purchase a bobcat. He went to pickup the bobcat and was met by 3 people in ski masks with guns looking to rob him. He pulled his weapon and fired back to protect himself they took off. Had he not had his concealed carry permit he may be laying dead in that quarry. I would rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it.

[goodsamaritan]

I am aware that the poster I am about to respond to, has stated their desire to walk away from this thread. That is fine with me, however I would be remiss if I did not offer some response. I realize it won't convince anyone who doesn't recognize nor respect the our forefathers wisdom in guaranteeing our rights as human beings. The right to bear arms, is as important as our right of free speech and freedom of religion. I will go so far as to say our right to own and carry weapons, is the only thing that keeps the other nine in place. It is a safety built into our government that allows it to be overthrown by it's citizens if it ever becomes tyrannical.

As far as CCW holders go, I am pretty typical in my motivations. I did not choose to arm myself out of fear or some misguided attempt to be macho. I do it for the same reason I have fire extinguishers, and life insurance. I do it for the same reason, I keep our vehicles in good repair. I do it because I love my family, and nobody else is as motivated to provide for their safety as I.


:frown: I feel very sorry for the children who are growing up in a society where I am told there is a firearm for every man,women and child within the country that they live (USA).

Don't feel sorry for my children. Rather weep for your own. Your population is now as defenseless against tyranny as Jews were in pre-WWII Europe. You are completely at the mercy of anyone who chooses to prey on their fellow man.


BUT, when you add a firearm into a brawl,a domestic arguement, a neighbour dispute, a mental health situation, a drug induced situation etc etc then there is a real risk that it will be drawn and possibly used.
Licensed CCW permit holders are those who can pass a thorough background check, and have passed a course covering the law, and safe handling of a firearm. Less than &#37;1 are ever revoked. Of those the vast majority are revoked for non firearm related issue.

If you look at our crime statistics, (Try reading unbiased government studies, not Moveon.org or the Brady Campaign or to be completely fair the NRA.)the areas with the lowest violent crime rates, are those which do not violate citizens rights to own and carry a firearm. Those with the highest crime rates are those which infringe the most. Washington DC. for example has the highest murder rates in the US. They have also had a total ban on handguns, since the 1970's. Anti rights groups have predicted blood baths and shootouts in the streets in each of the 36 "shall issue" states when the CCW permits were enacted. They have been wrong every single time. Even the National enquirer gets one of their predictions right now and then. These people have a 100% track record, of being in error. It doesn't seem to deter them from spreading further propaganda though.


It also dictates the way the whole society acts and in particular the methods that have to be deployed by your Police Officers.
An armed society is a polite society. As for police officers, my father was a policeman. He was an advocate of private citizens arming themselves.

I am going to turn your own words against you in a way. The potential exists for your family to suffer violence at the hands of some goblin. Whether they wear a familiar uniform, a turban, or a ski mask is irrelevant.
As adults you have the power to change the direction in which your society is run and managed... that is a fact. One day the tragedy might effect you personally..... I sincerely hope it doesnt, but if that time comes along,then spare a thought for the change that you didnt make.

Take care.

Sincerely,
a free man

[Wily Whiskers]

Sincerely,
a free man

+ April 19th 1775
(For those interested in maintaining freedom in America please consider www.appleseedinfo.org)

[goodsamaritan]

+ April 19th 1775
(For those interested in maintaining freedom in America please consider www.appleseedinfo.org)

I'm afraid I'd be ranked as a cook, of course one meal from me and they'd change their mind. I just don't have the long range vision to hit things that far away without a scope.

[iron maiden]

If it helps, I'd be happy to claim your mother reeks of elderberries...

:biggrin:

....and I fart in your general direction, English pig-dogs...:wink:


Just to clarify a point...selective fire weapons...aka assault rifles, i.e., machine guns..are registered to the highest point of scrutiny in the USA. Violent crimes committed with a true "assault rifle" has been nonexistent since the National Firearms Act went into effect in the 1930's. Just FYI, of course. You obviously are referring to the Bill-CLintonesque "assault weapons" Colt AR15, AK47 etc. These weapons are only semi-automatic in nature and were once "banned"...but they were just reclassified as sporting rifles and some of their features were changed, removed, or otherwise altered. This "ban" has since expired under its own dead weight.

[Wily Whiskers]

I'm afraid I'd be ranked as a cook, of course one meal from me and they'd change their mind. I just don't have the long range vision to hit things that far away without a scope.

Scopes are welcome for anyone who needs them and the teaching of our history at lunch break is an eye opener for even those who consider themselves informed.

[goodsamaritan]

Now you are speaking my language. I am an incurable history buff.

[Jimbo]

I am of the opinion congress should not infringe on the rights of lawful gun owners but criminals with guns should be prosecuted without mercy.
--I believe there is nothing wrong with a shooting hobbyist or collector being able to own and shoot a fully automatic weapon, subject to the current procedures (weapon is registered, owner is finger printed and passes FBI background check).
--I believe almost none of the gun related crimes are committed by legal gun owners.
--I have a problem with no more fully autos being manufactured for civilian ownership. If the market is there for lawful ownership, it should be allowed. Not allowing the manufacture has caused an incredible increase in the cost of the existing full autos and has increased the number of illegal full autos on the streets.
--I would love to buy a fully auto M16 or UZI, even a Thompson but the price is far out of my reach.
--I have a problem with people illegally converting a weapon to fully automatic.
--I have a huge problem with thugs (a lot of them under 21 - which in itself is illegal) running around with stolen, concealed handguns, without a permit (or proper training) and having the intent to do ill.
--There are plenty of gun laws on the books that, if enforced, would put a huge dent in crime where guns are involved.
--Drugs are illegal. Enforce the drug laws and drug related gun violence will drop. (By the way, I am for decriminalization of personal use/nonviolent/victimless crimes. Growing a couple of pot plants and blowing a doobie now and then is not the same as running coke and selling crack or smack or the violent drug wars going on in South and Central America and in US cities.)
--If Obama wins (and probably if he doesn't) I am planning to purchase a Bushmaster .450 Cal AR-15 Style Rifle. I would use it for long range target shooting, hunting and as a collector item. I have been an avid hunter all my life and yes, I do eat the animals I shoot. I would have absolutely no intention of unleashing 30 rounds at an animal but at a paper target or a watermelon :eek: , yes. If you've never shot an ouuu "assault rifle", try it and see how challenging and gratifying it is to put 30 rounds in a 12" circle at 100 yds in less than 60 seconds. This is a sport just like auto racing. If you are going to outlaw guns, also outlaw cars that are capable of going over 75 MPH (as far as I know, the highest legal speed in the US). Cars kill far more people than legal fire arms each year. Throw in a bottle of vodak and you've got Ted Kena...uhm I mean a far greater danger to humanity than my 12 gauge.
--->end off rant, for now...

[Rorschuck]

Glad to see this has moved on from the "Bowceph/Mysterion Ammunition Calibre Show". Were those guys arguing over calibres in some other thread that got locked, so they took it here, or what?

Sorry to further derail the thread...

[knlgskr]

Without proper training and extensive practice few (if any) could hit the side of a house even if they were inside; with an automatic weapon. The History Channel showed that even expert machinegunners firing their weapons from bi/tripods averaged one hit per five rounds fired.

As for ownership of firearms; own anything you want but be responsible for the consequences of your actions in its use.

[Mysterion]

Glad to see this has moved on from the "Bowceph/Mysterion Ammunition Calibre Show". Were those guys arguing over calibres in some other thread that got locked, so they took it here, or what? Sigh. Just to set the record straight, Bowcephalus tried to invalidate the substance of my ("anti-gun") argument by calling into question the accuracy of my technical knowledge--I believe "ignorant" was the word he used. Pick, pick, pick, it's a great way to distract from the point being made. Sorry for the thread drift.

[texcattlerancher]

Do you keep a weapon in your car or on your person?


In answer to your original questions, almost always and no. I am a sporting clays and skeet shooter. I almost always have a shotgun in the back, but I never carry a handgun around.

In Texas, one does not need a concealed carry permit to have a handgun in a vehicle while "traveling." I would like to get my concealed carry so that I can have a handgun in the vehicle without having to be "traveling" from one county to another.

The "traveling" requirement never applied to longarms, such as rifles and shotguns. There are still places in West Texas where people still have gun racks in their pickup trucks.

[Jimbo]

Without proper training and extensive practice few (if any) could hit the side of a house even if they were inside; with an automatic weapon. The History Channel showed that even expert machinegunners firing their weapons from bi/tripods averaged one hit per five rounds fired.

As for ownership of firearms; own anything you want but be responsible for the consequences of your actions in its use.
Just to be clear, the gun I was talking about is a semi-automatic and the 30 round down range accurately comment was intend for semi-automatic fire. I agree, it's difficult to stay on target with a "full auto" but they are loads of fun to shoot :lol: .
A large number of handgun owners can't shoot accurately with them either.


In answer to your original questions, almost always and no. I am a sporting clays and skeet shooter. I almost always have a shotgun in the back, but I never carry a handgun around.

In Texas, one does not need a concealed carry permit to have a handgun in a vehicle while "traveling." I would like to get my concealed carry so that I can have a handgun in the vehicle without having to be "traveling" from one county to another.

The "traveling" requirement never applied to longarms, such as rifles and shotguns. There are still places in West Texas where people still have gun racks in their pickup trucks.
For several years I would shoot skeet at least once a week. Then, things change and the nearest skeet range is 30 miles away :frown:
Also, unless I'm mistaken or the laws have changed, part of the -- traveling out of your home county with the intention of spending the night, carrying a large sum of money, traveling directly to or from a shooting event-- law included the weapon be unloaded and in plain sight, ie not concealed. Which I always thought was odd.

[Rorschuck]

--I believe there is nothing wrong with a shooting hobbyist or collector being able to own and shoot a fully automatic weapon, subject to the current procedures (weapon is registered, owner is finger printed and passes FBI background check).
<SNIP>
--I have a problem with no more fully autos being manufactured for civilian ownership. If the market is there for lawful ownership, it should be allowed. Not allowing the manufacture has caused an incredible increase in the cost of the existing full autos and has increased the number of illegal full autos on the streets.
--I would love to buy a fully auto M16 or UZI, even a Thompson but the price is far out of my reach.


See, that's where I have to draw the line. There's no compelling reason for the public to own full-auto weapons. It's overkill for self-defense. I've already rebuffed the "I need to keep the evil government in check" argument, above. The only other reason to own one is simply because they're fun to shoot, and I'm not disagreeing with that. But it'd also be fun to roll around in a tank shooting some really big ammo. However, just because there is legitimate satisfaction to be had doing something doesn't mean it should be permitted.

[iron maiden]

Chuck,

The "self-defense" angle concerning machine guns is outdated and biased against legitimate, law-abiding firearms ownership. This same argument, if applied to say, "transportation," would outlaw any of the super fun 200MPH crotch rockets and Hemi powered muscle cars that are traveling the highways of this country.

If you own such a vehicle and are caught violating the law, you get punished. The same should apply to criminals committing acts of violence with a gun. I should still be allowed to have my machine guns and fast car because I'm a grown man and am also responsible for my actions.

Besides, auto accidents are still the #1 killer of the younger generation in this country, no matter what Nancy Pelosi or Handgun Control wants us to think, and I don't hear any talk of making them illegal. Registered machine guns are not involved in ANY violent crime. Period. Why? Because they're expensive, the people who own them have passed the background checks, and they realize that the penalties are quite severe.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, so please don't think of it that way. I just get tired of the same old rhetorical speeches aboout assault rifles and we don't need them for self defense. I'm a cop, the only reason I don't carry a big honking machine gun every day is that they're too heavy. A pistol is just the last ditch effort in a real gunfight.

[DanOK]

But it'd also be fun to roll around in a tank shooting some really big ammo. However, just because there is legitimate satisfaction to be had doing something doesn't mean it should be permitted.[/QUOTE]

Got to step in here, If I am willing to provide fingerprints I'm probably willing to cough up some DNA and pay all kinds of fees to have legitimate fun (big boys big toys). I currently can own a tank, James Gardner use to have one he drove to the studio for publicity stunts, and I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to pay some fee and drive down to Ft. Sill and shoot off the cannon if I want to hear it go bang. Hell, I can book a weekend in Russia to 2nd seat a MIG and fire off a few shots if I want. John Travolta keeps a small jet in his garage at home and that's great but it could as easily be an old P-51. As long as he is properly licensed I will assume he isn't going to go play kamikaze with his plane, but he might (whats that church he goes to).

IMO, the debate always revolves around the question of why are my rights as a citizen being abridged because of someones fear of the few or dislike of me freely exercising my rights. My concerns (and fears) made me determined to get properly license to carry an concealed weapon. It is in my character to to the right thing, its the way I was raised. I also believe in everyone's right to freely voice their opinion, I have three kids in the service who I raised to believe it also, but (there's always a but, right) I remain on the side of it being my constitutional right to own firearms. I will continue to teach the necessity of that right to my children and grandchildren as it was taught to me. It does not, sir, revolve around anyone's understanding of why I enjoy the shooting sports, it revolves around my Constitutional rights and the rights we persevere for future generations.

Its with great pride as an American I can say " Well Gentlemen, I guess we will have to agree to disagree".

[stobes21]

Without proper training and extensive practice few (if any) could hit the side of a house even if they were inside; with an automatic weapon. The History Channel showed that even expert machinegunners firing their weapons from bi/tripods averaged one hit per five rounds fired.

As for ownership of firearms; own anything you want but be responsible for the consequences of your actions in its use.

It really depends on the gun. In my CCW class's range portion the instructor brought a few full auto guns to let us use after we all qualified. I fired a Glock 18 9mm that was extremely difficult to keep on target for more than 3 or 4 shots. But even that I could keep ~ 90% on a 10 yard distant human sized silhouette for the full 30 round mag after practicing for 3 mags or so. I also fired a thompson sub machine gun (of Tommy-gun and WWII fame) that was quite accurate. Standing up, I put all the rounds I fired (10-15) on full auto into a paper plate-sized target roughly 35 yards out. This was the first and only time I fired a weapon of this type. Someday I want to own one...

[Bowcephalus]

So... not that I have any particular members in mind or anything, but - just out of curiosity, now - is there a way to ignore all posts from a certain user?....Still having trouble with that I see....



Sigh. Just to set the record straight, Bowcephalus tried to invalidate the substance of my ("anti-gun") argument by calling into question the accuracy of my technical knowledge--I believe "ignorant" was the word he used. Pick, pick, pick, it's a great way to distract from the point being made. Sorry for the thread drift.

You don't have to "set the record straight"......The whole thing is here for any interested party to see. It is the record and it is straight.

What folks choose to shoot is subject to their desires for fun or defense within the law. Not the whim of some internet poster. That is a good thing.

[ScottS]

Besides, auto accidents are still the #1 killer of the younger generation in this country, no matter what Nancy Pelosi or Handgun Control wants us to think,...



True in general, but homicide is at least 50% more common than accidents as a cause of death for black people or either sex aged 15-35.

BIG DOC WARNING: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_05.pdf

[Rorschuck]

Chuck,

The "self-defense" angle concerning machine guns is outdated and biased against legitimate, law-abiding firearms ownership. This same argument, if applied to say, "transportation," would outlaw any of the super fun 200MPH crotch rockets and Hemi powered muscle cars that are traveling the highways of this country.

If you own such a vehicle and are caught violating the law, you get punished. The same should apply to criminals committing acts of violence with a gun. I should still be allowed to have my machine guns and fast car because I'm a grown man and am also responsible for my actions.

Besides, auto accidents are still the #1 killer of the younger generation in this country, no matter what Nancy Pelosi or Handgun Control wants us to think, and I don't hear any talk of making them illegal. Registered machine guns are not involved in ANY violent crime. Period. Why? Because they're expensive, the people who own them have passed the background checks, and they realize that the penalties are quite severe.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, so please don't think of it that way. I just get tired of the same old rhetorical speeches aboout assault rifles and we don't need them for self defense. I'm a cop, the only reason I don't carry a big honking machine gun every day is that they're too heavy. A pistol is just the last ditch effort in a real gunfight.

I haven't taken your post as being argumentative; or rather, it was, but the whole thread is argumentative, but not the bad kind of argument: rather, an educated, civil debate (which is still just an argument). Anyway, I certainly take no offense at your defending a perfectly defensible position.

You make sound arguments all around, and you leave me in a tricky place to have to argue my way out of, but I believe I can do it. I suppose it really only leaves one place for me to go, though, and that's the banning altogether of excessive speeds on vehicles, because you are correct: autos can be just as misused as guns. I'm not just talking about "making it illegal to go fast" (it already is), I'm talking about making it so that it is technically impossible. Your rights end where mine begin, and it can be argued that your driving 100MPH on a bike - except in *tightly* controlled circumstances - is a threat to the safety of the public, regardless of how good a rider you think you are and how responsible you may be. Unless a way could be found to permit high rates of speed only under the aforementioned tightly controlled circumstances (say, a chip that racetracks have and can plug into your bike thereby overriding the 80MPH governor), all vehicles (save emergency) (and this is under my theoretical, mostly for the sake of argument scenario) would be required to have upper limits of speed greatly under what they are now.

I don't necessarily buy into this, BTW; it's clearly a half-cocked thought and will require further thought.

[Doc4]

See, that's where I have to draw the line. There's no compelling reason for the public to own full-auto weapons. It's overkill for self-defense. I've already rebuffed the "I need to keep the evil government in check" argument, above. The only other reason to own one is simply because they're fun to shoot, and I'm not disagreeing with that. But it'd also be fun to roll around in a tank shooting some really big ammo. However, just because there is legitimate satisfaction to be had doing something doesn't mean it should be permitted.

... but you can't conceal-carry a tank, now can you? :001_rolle


Well, i tlooks like there's a fair number of B&Bers who would answer the famous quetion with ...
"No, Miss, I'm not just glad to see you ... that IS a gun in my pocket."

[DanOK]

Thanks Doc, Laughter is the best medicine.

[Rorschuck]

... but you can't conceal-carry a tank, now can you? :001_rolle



If I'm wearing my clown pants...

[Jimbo]

See, that's where I have to draw the line. There's no compelling reason for the public to own full-auto weapons. It's overkill for self-defense. I've already rebuffed the "I need to keep the evil government in check" argument, above. The only other reason to own one is simply because they're fun to shoot, and I'm not disagreeing with that. But it'd also be fun to roll around in a tank shooting some really big ammo. However, just because there is legitimate satisfaction to be had doing something doesn't mean it should be permitted.
If you got the money to do it legally and safely, I don't have a problem with that.
Moreover, The Founding Fathers were so concerned that citizens be allowed to arm themselves to protect themselves and maintain freedom, they wrote it into the Bill of Rights, second only to being able to speak out against "the evil government". So important it came before the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and the much too exploited unreasonable search and seizure and the self incrimination protection.
While it can be argued the order wasn't important, it stands these rights are not the government's to take away. They are our rights just because we are citizens. The Founding Fathers were pretty clear about that and the Second Amendment is pretty clear "...the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That's pretty specific.
So it is about maintaining freedom whether it be protecting ourselves from our own government become a tyranny, invading governments, al qaeda or crack addicts, it is our right keep and bare Arms. The fact that I enjoy shooting and collecting guns makes me more passionate about the Second Amendment.
It's not because I enjoy shooting therefore guns should be legal. It is one of my civil rights. And this nonsense of -- nobody needs an assault weapon and sportsmen don't need those things is absolute rubbish. The Bill of Rights doesn't mention anything along the lines for hunting use or for bona fide sportsmen use or except if the guns could possibly be used to commit a crime... quite the opposite. The Second Amendment is there to make sure the People are Armed to maintain a free State.

[Bowcephalus]

And this nonsense of -- nobody needs an assault weapon and sportsmen don't need those things is absolute rubbish. The Bill of Rights doesn't mention anything along the lines for hunting use or for bona fide sportsmen use or except if the guns could possibly be used to commit a crime... quite the opposite. The Second Amendment is there to make sure the People are Armed to maintain a free State.
....Exactly right, and an excellent point. To allow the "rubbish" you describe to overcome or influence the rights recognized in The Bill of Rights is to subject them to social whim and fad.......Absurdity defined.

[Rorschuck]

If you got the money to do it legally and safely, I don't have a problem with that.
Moreover, The Founding Fathers were so concerned that citizens be allowed to arm themselves to protect themselves and maintain freedom, they wrote it into the Bill of Rights, second only to being able to speak out against "the evil government". So important it came before the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and the much too exploited unreasonable search and seizure and the self incrimination protection.
While it can be argued the order wasn't important, it stands these rights are not the government's to take away. They are our rights just because we are citizens. The Founding Fathers were pretty clear about that and the Second Amendment is pretty clear "...the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That's pretty specific.
So it is about maintaining freedom whether it be protecting ourselves from our own government become a tyranny, invading governments, al qaeda or crack addicts, it is our right keep and bare Arms. The fact that I enjoy shooting and collecting guns makes me more passionate about the Second Amendment.
It's not because I enjoy shooting therefore guns should be legal. It is one of my civil rights. And this nonsense of -- nobody needs an assault weapon and sportsmen don't need those things is absolute rubbish. The Bill of Rights doesn't mention anything along the lines for hunting use or for bona fide sportsmen use or except if the guns could possibly be used to commit a crime... quite the opposite. The Second Amendment is there to make sure the People are Armed to maintain a free State.

If the intention was to ensure we have the power to violently overthrow the government, then we really need tanks, bombs, grenades, fighter jets, drones and more.

Do you really think your locker of MP5s and AKs are going to do jack against a vastly technologically superior force?

[iron maiden]

Chuck,

I'll have to give you this.....it has been fun "arguing" with you. I don't think of us yelling at each other, but we're agreeing to disagree. Just to clarify a couple of points on the whole car/speed limit thing.

1-Even as a trooper, I don't think we should limit the capacity of vehicles. We already have speed limits and guys like me in place to keep the would-be speed demons in their place.

2- My point in bringing up cars was this: Cars kill people, so do guns, in fact, I hate to break the news, but we're all gonna die someday. I just don't think the whole "collective responsibility" mindset of these governmental liberals should apply to the rest of us. If Joe goes out and drives over a bunch of little kids, or sells illegal drugs to some nuns, they don't punish me for driving a fast car or living in close proximity to a church....but if Joe would go out and shoot up a house or something, then suddenly the fact that he used a whatever/assault rifle/high capacity handgun etc. somehow gives carte blanche to the government to "ban" whatever type of weapon which was used. I didn't commit the crime, and therefore I shouldn't be punished for Joe's misdeeds. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can't legislate morality. If a guy wants to do something evil, he's probably going to go out and do some evil, I just think it is unfair to those of us who are abiding by the law being punished for something somebody else has done or might do, if this makes any sense. Our freedoms we enjoy today weren't necessarily civilly debated...in fact, lots of blood was shed over what we take for granted today. I'm not trying to get into a patriotic debate, but I just think our modern trend of following the disarming trend of Europe is a dangerous thing. Alcohol Prohibition was a wonderfully sanitary idea on paper...it just didn't work out that way. Gun Prohibition would be much the same, I'm afraid. Hopefully we have learned from our mistakes enough to avoid repeating them.

Whatever we all feel on the this whole issue, we're going to have some differences amongst ourselves. The wonderful thing about this country is that we are free to express our differences....and I'd like to think that the 2nd Amendment helps to ensure we can flap our gums ad nauseum without fear of reproach.:wink:

[Rorschuck]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can't legislate morality.

A good point, and one I agree with most strongly. I think you've probably swayed me over to 'your' side; I'm a rational creature, and it's getting harder and harder to come up with a rational rebuttal. A couple of points of clarification, though:

Where do we draw the line? Are there weapons that you think shouldn't be permitted? And what about drugs? All drugs? Prostitution? Do you think these are or are not covered by the Bill of Rights/the Constitution? I think these should be legalized, or at least partially decriminalized, but I also recognize that a wealth of other problems could spring from such actions, so I'm kind of on the fence a bit, too. Where do you stand on legislating non-gun related morality? Or are guns simply a special case because of the 2nd ammendment?

Oh, and we're definitely not yelling at each other.

[DanOK]

Or are guns simply a special case because of the 2nd ammendment?

Oh, and we're definitely not yelling at each other.

Yes,to some extent I think guns are a special case because of the second amendment. Our British friends have something they keep trying to fiddle with they refer to as a bill of rights and our dear friends to the north had some legislation under Pierre Trudeau, I think, they referred to as a bill of rights. But in both cases it seemed they were/are mainly trying to give the judiciary more authority. I am unaware of any "free nation", other than ours, that has a founding/national document than clearly states citizens have the right to be armed. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

It changes the context, I believe, because I expect my fellow citizens to be armed and responsible citizens no matter if the are law enforcement, military, a neighbor, book maker, baker or candlestick maker.

Not yelling, just thoughtful.

[cl00bie]

Where do we draw the line? Are there weapons that you think shouldn't be permitted?

Well, I draw the line at suitcase nukes. I really wouldn't want to use a bazooka, but if someone else wants to who am I to stop them. The government's responsibility is only to restrict freedom when it interferes with others' freedom. This means the government should protect me from force and fraud of other people.


And what about drugs? All drugs? Prostitution? Do you think these are or are not covered by the Bill of Rights/the Constitution?

Well, I didn't see them there, but if you apply my formula, then it seems to be ok. However, if you steal from me to buy drugs, or hurt someone while driving under the influence, then you should be punished.

Consider the same for prostitution, etc.



I think these should be legalized, or at least partially decriminalized, but I also recognize that a wealth of other problems could spring from such actions, so I'm kind of on the fence a bit, too.

If problems happen, deal with the individuals involved. If you can use drugs recreationally without infringing on the rights of others through force or fraud then legalize them.

We can restrict them to adults like we do with liquor. Children are not competent to make these decisions until a certain age.


Where do you stand on legislating non-gun related morality? Or are guns simply a special case because of the 2nd ammendment?

Oh, and we're definitely not yelling at each other.

Every right has an associated responsibility. If you own a gun, you have a responsibility to know your weapon, train with it, and not hurt innocent people or other people's property with it. If you do, you get punished. The same applies to the first amendment. You are not to yell "fire" in a crowded theater (unless the place is on fire). You are not to advocate the overthrow of your government or plot to commit other crimes.

But I think if you follow the "force or fraud" paradigm, you can maximize our freedom and minimize conflict.

[Doc4]

It changes the context, I believe, because I expect my fellow citizens to be armed and responsible citizens no matter if the are law enforcement, military, a neighbor, book maker, baker or candlestick maker.



Does anyone out there remember the classic British comedy show Yes, Minister? One of my favourite running gags there was when the assistant Bernard would come up with one of his "irregular verbs" ... along the lines of "I enjoy my food, you overeat, and he makes a pig of himself."

Firearms ownership can sometimes fit in one of those irregular verbs ... "I need to protect myself, you I sorta trust, and he ought not be let near a weapon of any sort". :001_rolle The point I'm making is that I've come across a lot of people whom I would not trust with a firearm. I've seen what hot-heads they are, or drug-addled paranoics, or what-not, and do I want them walking down the street with a gun, concealled or not? No bleeding way! Sure, there's lots of people I have no problem with owning firearms, and I certainly would think me owning a firearm would be an actual benefit to society (since I know what an upstanding and level-headed gent I am ... :wink:) ... but those people ... ugh!

I would love nothing more than an armed and responsible citizenry. But the "responsible" only covers so many of us, and do I want "armed and irresponsible" citicens? :eek:

... I don't have an answer to that yet, this is as far as I've got: just an observation.

[rickw]

I carry a gun everywhere I go... well, except the shower

Get one in stainless.:lol:

[Jimbo]

If the intention was to ensure we have the power to violently overthrow the government, then we really need tanks, bombs, grenades, fighter jets, drones and more.

Do you really think your locker of MP5s and AKs are going to do jack against a vastly technologically superior force?
AK-47s have been used successfully in a number of regime changes and have stopped militarily advanced invaders.
If I did own a Jet Fighter, I couldn't afford the jet fuel it would take just to get it off the ground. :frown:


...... A couple of points of clarification, though:

Where do we draw the line? Are there weapons that you think shouldn't be permitted? And what about drugs? All drugs? Prostitution? Do you think these are or are not covered by the Bill of Rights/the Constitution? I think these should be legalized, or at least partially decriminalized, but I also recognize that a wealth of other problems could spring from such actions, so I'm kind of on the fence a bit, too. Where do you stand on legislating non-gun related morality? Or are guns simply a special case because of the 2nd ammendment?

Oh, and we're definitely not yelling at each other.
Guns are a big deal because of the 2nd amendment but;
Drugs-- decriminalize use but not smuggling an 18-wheeler load of smack. I could go for all drugs being legal but .... don't steal to pay for your habit and don't suckle off the public teat to buy them, get cleaned up or treat your Hepatitis from using dirty needles.
Prostitution-- legal for the act between the hooker and johns but not for pimps.

[TheBigShow]

Does anyone know if and who Connecticut has reciprocity with? Thanx

[Bowcephalus]

"I would love nothing more than an armed and responsible citizenry. But the "responsible" only covers so many of us, and do I want "armed and irresponsible" citicens?"
The armed responsible have a way of effectively reducing the number of armed irresponsible..... responsiblity makes them more accurate......

[Bowcephalus]

If the intention was to ensure we have the power to violently overthrow the government, then we really need tanks, bombs, grenades, fighter jets, drones and more.
........Nope...That is a misinformed opinion...History proves otherwise and the examples are plentiful.....

[Rorschuck]

It changes the context, I believe, because I expect my fellow citizens to be armed and responsible citizens no matter if the are law enforcement, military, a neighbor, book maker, baker or candlestick maker.

Not yelling, just thoughtful.

But surely we must draw the line somewhere? Or should ordinary citizens be able to own anything they desire in terms of "arms": C-4, grenades, atomic materials/bombs...

And what of biological "arms", ala anthrax? What's the test? Is there one?

[Rorschuck]

I would love nothing more than an armed and responsible citizenry. But the "responsible" only covers so many of us, and do I want "armed and irresponsible" citicens? :eek:

... I don't have an answer to that yet, this is as far as I've got: just an observation.

The British have (IMO) a pretty good solution; they require face-to-face interviews and references from third parties, plus more. It might mean having to wait a year for your AK, but...

[Groundhog]

Does anyone know if and who Connecticut has reciprocity with? Thanx

Check here (http://handgunlaw.us/) or here. (http://www.usacarry.com/)

[Alacrity59]

Well I'm Canadian . . . I've been in the reserves and enjoyed handling and firing many weapons. I would trust myself with anything but I have known a whole sh.. load of folks who I am glad have no access to guns. I'm ok with giving up a right to a firearm if it keeps weapons out of the hands of . . . well who ever. I'd up the penalty here for carrying a gun if was up to me. . . hanging sounds about right.

[kelbro]

Open carry here in AZ. Let me tell you, a bad guy walking into a convenience store and seeing a couple of guys packing really has to think twice about his idea of robbing the store.

Thank God there are still a few bastions of freedom where we are not legislated into potential victim status.

What's our Senator's name???

[goodsamaritan]

Well I'm Canadian . . . I've been in the reserves and enjoyed handling and firing many weapons. I would trust myself with anything but I have known a whole sh.. load of folks who I am glad have no access to guns. I'm ok with giving up a right to a firearm if it keeps weapons out of the hands of . . . well who ever. I'd up the penalty here for carrying a gun if was up to me. . . hanging sounds about right.

Congratulations. You have just wished for the execution of some single mom, who has fled her violent ex after she realized that the police can't protect her.

[TheBigShow]

SHERIFF JOE rules!!!!


Open carry here in AZ. Let me tell you, a bad guy walking into a convenience store and seeing a couple of guys packing really has to think twice about his idea of robbing the store.

Thank God there are still a few bastions of freedom where we are not legislated into potential victim status.

What's our Senator's name???

[TheBigShow]

Check here (http://handgunlaw.us/) or here. (http://www.usacarry.com/)

THANK YOU SIR.....that was a great help! :lol:

[kelbro]

SHERIFF JOE rules!!!!

Yep. He must have a set as big as basketballs!

This country needs more like him.

[Bowcephalus]

Or should ordinary citizens be able to own anything they desire in terms of "arms": C-4, grenades, atomic materials/bombs...
....That is an absurdly dead horse made of straw and no great compliment to the artist who constructed and continues to groom it.....

[TheBigShow]

Yep. He must have a set as big as basketballs!

This country needs more like him.

I will definately second that...I mean come on...making inmates wear Pink..i mean everything right down to the underwear!! The Tent Prison...I mean damn.... and everyone there loves him too. GO SHERIFF JOE

ok, sorry to sidetrack the thread..... :lol:

[Rorschuck]

Well, I draw the line at suitcase nukes. I really wouldn't want to use a bazooka, but if someone else wants to who am I to stop them. The government's responsibility is only to restrict freedom when it interferes with others' freedom. This means the government should protect me from force and fraud of other people.

The problem is, that's easy to say, but there needs to be a specific legal test, otherwise EVERY new thing that comes out needs to be re-tested in court. That's what I'm looking for here: is there a line, and where -precisely, and in a way that's applicable to future scenarios - is it?

[Maximilian]

I don't take a piss and a shave without my Glock. :smile:

Seriously, I have my concealed carry permit and always carry when I'm outdoors but with any weapon comes great responsibility and what you learn to get your permit is good basics, State and general laws but you should hit the shooting range more often and work on your shooting and defense abilities and stay that way. Safety, safe storage, regular cleaning and checking the functioning of your gun even if not used for a prolonged period of time should be part of your responsibility. Just my 02 cents.

[Big Fella]

I worked in law enforcement all my life. 25 years as a police firearms instructor. I've met people who have killed other people just to see what it was like. There is EVIL outthere!!! I walk around my house with a loaded gun, take one every where I go. Best to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Stay safe!!!

[crazycliff200843]

I got this link through my govt class. It's the hearing on the dc gun ban case. It's interesting to hear the arguments put so eloquently. I'm glad their decision got shot down.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290/argument/07-290_20080318-argument.mp3

Fear the government that fears your guns.

[Isaias]

Well, I draw the line at suitcase nukes. I really wouldn't want to use a bazooka, but if someone else wants to who am I to stop them. The government's responsibility is only to restrict freedom when it interferes with others' freedom. This means the government should protect me from force and fraud of other people.



I understand your point.

[SRock]

In a few months when I am old enough to get said permit I plan to. I may not carry right of the bat since I am in school. I cant carry there but after that who knows?
Anyone know how hard it is to do down here in Texas?

Most important thing... Take a safety class whether your state requires it or not. It is irresponsible to get a permit and carry a gun unless properly trained!


I would also encourage everyone who can get one, to do so, for the reasons DanOK stated.

+1

[crazycliff200843]

The legal test is whether or not the arms in question are commonplace. There's too much govt to allow much else.