opinions on gun control/right-to-carry concealed weapons

[Dale_Valley]

now i would like to ask everyones opinions between on how stron gun control should be and whether or not citizens should have the right to carry concealed weapons with a permit.

for my personal belief, i think that we should be able to have the right to carry concealed guns on our persons as long as we have recieved a permit; which means taking a full course and haveing a background check.

i also beileve that we have the right to own firearms to a certain reasonability, meaning no grenade launchers or tanks. and no other weaopns that can be considered assult weapons, at least not without a very fine and complete test and bouchground check.

i also have other beliefs on the subject but will not post them at this time.
please post and tell the world your veiws on this subject.

and also i would like to ask that all post here are mature, nonadusive, and as proffesional as you can managa. :animesmil

[orbindo]

Yeah, i think citizens should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on their person, but like Dale says, with a high ammount of caution to who is being given a permit.

My father being a police officer and a member of our cities swat team, i know what he has to deal with in that area. A good background check in license giving settles most problems, but there are those that manage to get there hands on dangerous weapons (stupid black market).

I do live in texas and the automatic weapons ban was lifted awhile back so now we can have some power in our hands, and still the fact is that the license process is still as rigerous as ever. evern though the ban was lifted i still feel safe.

[The Newfie]

[COLOR=SeaGreen]I'm quite happy to report that, as a Canadian, I've never had a gun nor have I ever needed one, aside from a hunting trip I took with some friend in Quebec. I've never had to defend myself and I've never had to shoot at other people (Why would I when I can just get them with my hockey stick... *smirk*). Guns have always seemed to be a waste.

I'm also quite happy to note that the Libral Party of Canada, of which I am a supporter and which are the heavy favourites for reelection, have put a plan into action in which all handguns will be banned. I'm not sure how they'll pull it off, but I assume the vast majority will be shipped south of the board, and the rest melted down to make pipes and whatnot.

Sounds like a plan.

'Da Newf

Oowatanite[/COLOR]

[Raiyuu]

[color=DarkGreen][font=Trebuchet MS]Here in the UK it's illegal to carry a gun, and thankful I am for it. Because it's against the law to have one, I don't feel the need to have one to defend myself, see what I mean?

Obviously some people break the law and carry them anyway, but at least then there's no grey area legally; perpetrators of gun crime can't claim that they were acting in self-defence or whatever, because they shouldn't have had a gun in the first place. I'd hate to live somewhere where I knew that just anyone I walked past on the street could be carrying a firearm, background checks or not. I'd be constantly jumping at shadows.[/font][/color]

[JJ]

[Color=DarkBlue]I'd like to pose a question on the first two posters in this thread. Why exactly do you feel the need to carry guns on your person?

I'll let them answer and post my opinion on the matter.

I don't see any point carrying guns on your person at all. All it would do is fuel a fear war in which everyone wa afraid of everyone else. From there, people'd get shot, die and the world become a place of death and whanot.

I also have never touched a gun and I really don't plan on it. I personally would never want to set my hands on something that could kill a fellow man. That kind of power is not one I believe we as people should have. I mean really, who are we to decide who dies and who lives?

Yeah, this thread may turn out interesting after all.[/color]

[Boo]

[QUOTE=JJ][Color=DarkBlue]I personally would never want to set my hands on something that could kill a fellow man. That kind of power is not one I believe we as people should have. I mean really, who are we to decide who dies and who lives?

Yeah, this thread may turn out interesting after all.[/color][/QUOTE]

[size=1]Basically you can kill people with almost anything :P I think you meant " I never want to set my hands on something that is made to kill a fellow man." Right, sorry couldn't resist.

Now to get on the subject. Firearms are lame. I can not make up a single reason to have one, but to use it as selfdefense against someone with a firearm. Which is not necessary if they are not allowed XD

Seriously, if you want to protect yourself, just take some karate classes and leave the toys to the army. :)[/size]

[Starwind]

Well, I would just like to state I am in the army and I have handled guns before. I would also like to state this, I live in florida where, as of October, you can legally shot and kill a person in self-defense as long as you have reason to believe your life was in danger.

I know alot of people here think that's horrible and what not, but it's better then the former. The old law said you couldn't assault an attacker in anyway unless you tired to run away from them. I know some of you are thinking now "But that's what you should do." Fine but let me say this. What if he has a knife or a gun himself? You get up and turn around to run and he stabs or shots you in the back because you didn't stand and fight.

About three years ago a man in New York was being mugged. He retaliated and broke his attackers arm withhis bare hands. No guns involved here. The guy being mugged was then sued by the mugger, because it was later discoverd that the man was a martial arts instructor. How is that fair? I know alot of you are agains the whole idea of needing a gun to protect yourself, ut here in the states sick crap like that happens everyday. And I do mean everyday. Think about it, here in the US, everyday someone is mugged at gun point and usually killed after the fact, regardless if they gave them the money or not.

At the end of the day, if the guy is desperate enough to mug you, killing you is just as easy in his mind. As a soilder, I am trained and leagally permitted to carry a gun on my person, and where I live it says I can shot somebody on the street if I feel my life is in danger, and that is only logical. I see none of you have probably never been faced with how brutal and senseless some of these crimes can be, but here in the US the muggers, robbers, and rappists hold nothing back. If they can rob you, mug you, rape you then killing you is just as easy as anything else.

I know people say we live in an age of fear, and I'll agree to an extent that's true. But for one to be given the right to protect themselves like that is not a bad thing. Here's another great crime story from the USA. A cop came across a pimp beating the crap out of a prostitute. The officer stepped in and slapped cuffs on that pimp. And when her back was turned the same prostitute stabbed her in the back, leaving the officer crippled and left for dead in the street.

Maybe it's not as bad there, but here it is. Your general public here does need a way to protect itself. Another story, one I was closely tied to. A woman in a neighborhood I used to live in was attacked by a man who was going to rape her. She managed to russel free and started to run. When she did he got to his feet and stabbed her in kidney. She survived and now she carries a gun with her wherever she goes.

Here in the states the likelyhood of being mugged in your own neighborhood, or even by someone you know is about one in ten. Maybe you don't need to protect yourself, but the logic for our needingto his undeniable. I have showed you here that if someone can commit any form of violent crime, the next step (Being murder) in not far outside the spectrum. And when faced with that situation, running is not an option. And even compling can end in your death, so what is the answer here.

If the police can't stop every criminal it is your duty as an american to protect yourself and be ready to do so. If someone breaks into your house, it is your duty to your famiy to decide who's life you hold in higher regard, the robber who will likely kill you and your whole family when he's done or your family. I think I've made my arguement.

[Boba Fett]

[QUOTE=Boo][size=1]Now to get on the subject. Firearms are lame. I can not make up a single reason to have one, but to use it as selfdefense against someone with a firearm. Which is not necessary if they are not allowed XD
[/size][/QUOTE]

[color=green]Exactly!

... because once all the law abiding citizens hand over their guns to the government, only the criminals will have them!

We'll all be safer.

A criminal would be much less likely to break into a house, attempt murder or mug you if he knew that you could be carrying a concealed firearm.

You will never remove all the firearms from a society - the criminals will always get them. The best we can do is level the playing field.[/color]

[Boo]

[size=1]I can already see them grannies on the streets.. "Oh no, he stole my purse, let's shoot the bastard!"

[b]EDIT:[/b] I see Boba posted before me.

[i]They will get them one way or another[/i]. Those are only the real criminals. Not the fellows who are just pissed at someone and shoot them. "You stole my Pokemon card ;_;" [highlight]Bang.[/highlight]

Those people don't take the time to buy a gun and then shoot them. [/size]

[Starwind]

[quote name='Boo][size=1']I can already see them grannies on the streets.. "Oh no, he stole my purse, let's shoot the bastard!" [/size][/quote]

Let me reiterate this, if he was bold enough to steal from you, then the idea of killing you is probably already on his mind. If he took a ladies purse by force, odds are he'd also stab her when he was done and leave her. Even a pickpocket, lots of times here, will run up, stab you from behind, take what he wants quickly and take off running. Your explanation is ridiculous and unrealistic. Why? because your standard, normal, healthy human being has a harder time grasping the concept of murdering a another then the criminal in question.

This has been proven with numerous tests done on the psycology and even the brain structure of noted serial killers. They don't think the same as you or me who would be much more opposed to killing someone. Don't take into account the idea that people will kill jst because they're able. If they can make the decision as easy as you have stated above, then they were probably already or were someday going to be killers.

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='Boo][size=1][i]They will get them one way or another[/i]. Those are only the real criminals. Not the fellows who are just pissed at someone and shoot them. "You stole my Pokemon card ;_;" [highlight]Bang.[/highlight'] [/size][/quote]

[color=green]This is why we have background checks and only sell guns to adults of legal age. No system is perfect, and you will always have tragic situations like the one mentioned above. You shouldn't take a steak away from a man because a baby can't chew it.

I'd feel a lot safer with everyone armed than just criminals.[/color]

[Boo]

[size=1][quote name='Starwind']This has been proven with numerous tests done on the psycology and even the brain structure of noted serial killers.[/quote]
I was talking about pickpockets, where did I mention serial killers? There is a huge difference between the one crime and the other. A serial killer is, as the name says, a killer. A pickpocket might just need the money. He doesn't have to be mentally ill, or just think of killing someone. Don't think so narrow minded about this subject, lad.

Boba: That's your opinion, I have mine. You live where they have the right to have a gun, I do not. Whoopy, we all lived happily ever after.[/size]

[IceRose]

I would not carry a gun, I would be happy with a taser, I mean there are a lot of psychos out there and people should be protected. I agree with citizens being able to buy weapons as long as they are used to defend themselves.

[Starwind]

If you had read my post ore carefully you could have taken not that I did mention pickpockets and the fact that they might not just take it from you. If the guy needs the money, why does he need it. I know you want to think it's some sweet ambitious goal like getting medicine for his sick mother of sister or something like that. The truth of the matter is more likely he's a drug addict. The odds of there being some extreme sircumstance behind it are actually really remote. Guys in this country who need money that bad usually resort to panhandleing, I see them all the time. They stand out with a sign that says thing like "Homeless war vet Needs food" or something along those lines.

If he steals from you, then he's probably a really desperate guy. A pickpocket is more likely to stab you, while they're taking what they want out of your pocket. Why? Because if your bleeding and crippled you can't follow them. If they needed money bad enough to take it from you, then this is a man capible of almost anything.

I only mentioned serial killers as a token to the idea that, if they could just go "Oh he stole from me, lets kill him." Odd are they would turn to that level of violence regardless of the situation at some point or another.

[orbindo]

All this falls back on is the license giving process.
If someone can take the test (to learn how to shoot), have a clean background check (no thefts and I've even heard of some cases here in TX where they wouldnt give you a gun if you had a few road tickets), and are an upstanding and honest citizen, then i dont wee why not.
And remember that this all falls upon human choice and free will.
You dont have to carry a gun if you dont want to!

[Boo]

[size=1]Starwind, you are the typical pessimistic American guy, through the whole thread. You're ruining my optimistic mood :\[/size]

[orbindo]

Hey I'm optimistic too, but i never let it get in the way of my worldview.
This place aint perfect, but i never let that bother me!
and i guess i should add that my optimism is more of a syndrome than a mood. : D

But there is perfectly good reason for citizens to carry firearms, you just have to look at the crimes and crime rates everywhere: up, up, up, im sorry to say.

[Retribution]

[size=1]I'm pretty much ready for the Second Amendment to be nullified.

Let's look at the context during which it was passed.

- The Colonies had just won freedom from Britain because of the militias.
- The Colonies had the ability to revolt against Britain because they had the arms to do so with. Had they not owned the arms, the American Revolution would've never taken place.

Considering these two points were fresh in the Founder Father's minds, I'm making an educated guess that the following quote: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," means pretty clearly that the right to bear arms exists to keep maintain the security of a free state. I believe this to mean that when the government becomes tyrannical, the "well regulated militia" should take up their arms and fight the best military in the world.

In short, the "well regulated militia" would get destroyed without a real fight -- and therefore, the entire point of the Second is null.[/size]

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.

In all honesty I believe there are two only segments of society who should have access to firearms, the armed forces, and the special branches of the police force. Aside from those two group, if they can do their jobs properly that is, I don't think anyone else needs a gun, but of course my definition of need might be different to someone else's.

My father owns a shotgun, he uses it solely for hunting, is a member of a hunting club which requires a background check and has to acquire a new licence for the shotgun every year from the Gardaí, the Irish police service. Irish people over eighteen have the right to own a hunting rifle or a shotgun and that's it, no pistols, no machine guns, no assault rifles. And I'll tell you right now, I feel a hell of a lot safer knowing that only those who are trained to use such weapons have access to them under the law. Sure the criminal elements of society will have access to firearms, it happens in every country, but allowing your own citizens to arms themselves like a militia is not necessary if you have a competent police service.

For those people who come from a country that won it's freedom through armed insurrection, I'd like to point out that the Irish were fighting the British in such struggles long before, and after you guys were founded and we don't feel the need to keep our "arms". I don't begrudge people who want guns to have them, I just don't understand their reasons for needing them.[/SIZE]

[The Newfie]

You don't need an AK-47 to shoot Bambi.

That's my position and I'm stickin' to it.

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]"Oh, the criminals will get guns anyway, you're safer if you own a gun" True, true. But lets have a look at shootings a bit, shall we?

You either shoot someone in cold-blood, or warm-blood, right? Those who shoot in cold-blood are generally the criminals who want something. These people will probably already have a gun, and basically, will get you no matter what. You won't be expecting it. They have the advantage of surprise, and they are willing to kill you over it. It is premeditated, and they have already made the commitment to shoot you if they need to.

On the other hand you have people who kill in a fit of anger. Generally [b]not[/b] criminals, generally just a regular person. Who is really angry. And hey, guess what, in the US this person has a gun! Which, because of it's immediate accessibility, reduces any chance of calming down over a period of time! Which leads to more rage-spurred shootings!

Excellent, hey? The thing is, whilst you all think that owning the guns makes you safer, it doesn't. Australia has gun control laws, and so the circulation of guns is relatively low. People don't walk around, scared of being shot. Because, whilst it does happen, it isn't a regular occurrence by [b]any[/b] means.

I urge all of you to visit [u][url=http://www.gunguys.com/]this site[/url][/u]. See what you think of shootings then. The 'necessity' for guns is ********. [/size]

[Dale_Valley]

ok, i wrote a fairly rough report on the right-to-carry for a school project. now it may be missing a couple of things, but i garauntee, that i didnt make any of this up, i did my research. and i stress the need to visit the site that i have a link to.

PS i hope it isnt to long.



The Right

Imagine this: your home alone late one night, trying to sleep. The house is dark and still. You hear not but silence, until; ?rattle, rattle, rattle? What was that? Silence. There it is again! It?s coming from the back door. Somebody is trying to get into the house. Questions race through your mind faster than your mind can register them. ?Who is it? What do they want? What should I do? What can I do?? Suddenly you hear the door burst open, followed by the sound of the perpetrator coming inside and rifling through the kitchen. You?re frozen in your bed, unable to move. Then realizing, you must act; defend your home, your valuables, and most importantly, yourself. Immediately you get out of bed search desperately for something to defend yourself with; but come up with only a small blunt object. Then, yet another noise reaches your ears. Footsteps on the other side of your closed bedroom door. You freeze in place, petrified in fear. Again another sound comes from beyond your door, the worst sound you could possibly hear. So faint, yet still very noticeable. Almost unrecognizable, yet you would know that sound anywhere; you?ve heard it so many times in countless movies. The sound of a gun being cocked. You?re at a loss for what to do, uncertain if you can protect yourself with your unknown club. Once more, a sound comes to you; the door handle is being turned, the person is coming in.
Every year, thousands of people are left defenseless in the face of crimes, such as robbery, breaking and entering, assault, murder, and rape, and become ?victims. At the same time, though, there are others who refuse to become victims, and are the cause of crimes being stopped by the use of firearms.
Thorough studies and investigations have proven it over and over again. In states, and countries, where there are right-to-carry laws and lesser gun control, crime rates are extremely lower than those with no right-to-carry laws and greater gun control. For example:
In 1987, Florida was one of the first states to issue a true right-to-carry law, allowing citizens to carry concealed hand guns. People everywhere expected crime rates to skyrocket, however, the crime rate dropped quite drastically. The homicide rate fell 36%, firearm homicide rate-37%, and handgun homicide rate fell 41%.
In Washington D.C., a virtual ban on handguns was enacted in 1976.Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (Just the facts) And since then, D.C. has earned the title of the murder capitol, 19 years running; having more homicides in its boundaries than any other city in the US. (AFF). Similar laws have resulted in such statistics all around the US and the world.
There are many people who say that by giving citizens the right to carry concealed weapons; they will misuse the right. However, less than .02% of people with concealed carry permits have been convicted of violent crimes. And even further studies show that citizens with concealed carry permits are far less likely to commit any crime than the average citizen. (Just the facts)
When people in certain are given the right to own firearms and conceal carry, it provokes two thoughts. One, it jolts the average citizens to realize the responsibility, if they decide to carry, and become more law abiding. Two, (happening the most) it jolts the mind of criminals. Telling them that their jobs just got a bit more dangerous, and many times, it is enough to pull the criminal straight all together. Most criminals with any intelligence at all think twice about robbing the Kwik-E-Mart, when there is a chance that Farmer John on isle 3 with the pickles just might be carrying a concealed gun in his dirty overalls.
So, lets all put a little logic to this. With both statistics and common sense in mind, does it really and truly make sense to install large scale gun control, and with it the massive potential for disaster.




Just the facts. [URL=http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm ]http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm [/URL] Gun control

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Starwind]If you had read my post ore carefully you could have taken not that I did mention pickpockets and the fact that they might not just take it from you. If the guy needs the money, why does he need it. I know you want to think it's some sweet ambitious goal like getting medicine for his sick mother of sister or something like that. The truth of the matter is more likely he's a drug addict. The odds of there being some extreme sircumstance behind it are actually really remote. Guys in this country who need money that bad usually resort to panhandleing, I see them all the time. They stand out with a sign that says thing like "Homeless war vet Needs food" or something along those lines.

If he steals from you, then he's probably a really desperate guy. A pickpocket is more likely to stab you, while they're taking what they want out of your pocket. Why? Because if your bleeding and crippled you can't follow them. If they needed money bad enough to take it from you, then this is a man capible of almost anything.

I only mentioned serial killers as a token to the idea that, if they could just go "Oh he stole from me, lets kill him." Odd are they would turn to that level of violence regardless of the situation at some point or another.[/QUOTE] Starwind, here's why your entire..."argument" about the pickpocket absolutely sucks:

If the pickpocket stabs you, cripples you, whatever, [i]then he is no longer a pickpocket[/i]. You see, if someone on a crowded train is going to slip his or her hand into your pocket and yoink your wallet without you knowing...that's being a pickpocket. Sliding out your personal possessions right under your nose is a pickpocket. Pickpockets are all about sly hand movements, distractions...what basically amounts to an almost covert op of the street.

The minute someone stabs another person to rob them...they were never intent on being a pickpocket (or for that matter, a successful one). If someone stabs someone else to rob them...they were going to stab them to begin with. Sure, sometimes criminals act out of desperation or whatever, and initially don't plan on using a knife, or weapon, or whatever...but just think about it.

Pickpocketing requires a fairly well-"trained" individual acting rationally and planning gestures and movements.

Stabbing someone...doesn't for the most part.

Just think about what you're saying, please. I don't give a crap about the rest of your argument, because I'm not entirely sure what it is you're actually arguing for. I suppose the right to carry concealed weapons, but I don't really care, because I think your reasoning needs work.

You're trying to say that pickpocketing can lead to armed robbery, because the same thought process found in the act of pickpocketing is the same thought process found in the process of armed robbery.

But it isn't. The thought process for pickpocketing (I'm going to steal from this person without them knowing) is entirely different than the thought process for armed robbery (I'm going to steal from this person through the threat of force). That's why pickpocketing is pickpocketing and armed robbery is armed robbery.

And I'll use a personal example:

A family friend, Tom, and his girlfriend, Linda, took a trip to France a while back. They're both in their late 50s, and Tom knows a thing or two about being smart when walking in a dangerous area. They get on a train, in an empty car (clearly, a mistake). Linda is sitting closer to the front of the car, while Tom gets up to check the map, for no reason other than he enjoys that kind of thing.

Two men approach him. They ask him for his money. He russles some change in his pocket, but they inform him they "want the bills." Tom is pretty skeptical usually, so he asks them what they think they're doing. You know, appeal to rationality. One of them then produces a handgun. He tried to call a bluff, but they weren't bluffing.

Now, if they wanted to just pick his pocket...I think it was very much within their power to do just that. These guys were no chumps. They knew what they were doing, and they appeared fully prepared to unload that clip. They depended on the threat of force.

Had they wanted to just pick Tom's pocket...there would never have been any gun. Pickpocketing and armed robbery are two different types of illusions. With pickpocketing, you're looking to slip [i]under[/i] the radar (to appear harmless, in a sense). With armed robbery, you're looking to [i]destroy[/i] the radar in a really loud, flashy way (to appear harmful).

So how in the hell can you even begin to attempt to establish some parallel between the two? Pickpocket will be prepared to kill you? No. Injuring you would not be effective in their ultimate goal of picking your pocket without your awareness.

And forget serial killers. They're irrelevant when it comes to examining common street trash.

I don't care what studies you've read, I don't care what "psycology" you've studied. What you're saying here is entirely illogical, so please don't try to pass it off as a reasonable argument. Because I just blew it wide open. lol

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1][QUOTE=Dale_Valley]ok, i wrote a fairly rough report on the right-to-carry for a school project. now it may be missing a couple of things, but i garauntee, that i didnt make any of this up, i did my research. and i stress the need to visit the site that i have a link to.

PS i hope it isnt to long.



The Right

Imagine this: your home alone late one night, trying to sleep. The house is dark and still. You hear not but silence, until; ?rattle, rattle, rattle? What was that? Silence. There it is again! It?s coming from the back door. Somebody is trying to get into the house. Questions race through your mind faster than your mind can register them. ?Who is it? What do they want? What should I do? What can I do?? Suddenly you hear the door burst open, followed by the sound of the perpetrator coming inside and rifling through the kitchen. You?re frozen in your bed, unable to move. Then realizing, you must act; defend your home, your valuables, and most importantly, yourself. Immediately you get out of bed search desperately for something to defend yourself with; but come up with only a small blunt object. Then, yet another noise reaches your ears. Footsteps on the other side of your closed bedroom door. You freeze in place, petrified in fear. Again another sound comes from beyond your door, the worst sound you could possibly hear. So faint, yet still very noticeable. Almost unrecognizable, yet you would know that sound anywhere; you?ve heard it so many times in countless movies. The sound of a gun being cocked. You?re at a loss for what to do, uncertain if you can protect yourself with your unknown club. Once more, a sound comes to you; the door handle is being turned, the person is coming in.
Every year, thousands of people are left defenseless in the face of crimes, such as robbery, breaking and entering, assault, murder, and rape, and become ?victims. At the same time, though, there are others who refuse to become victims, and are the cause of crimes being stopped by the use of firearms.
Thorough studies and investigations have proven it over and over again. In states, and countries, where there are right-to-carry laws and lesser gun control, crime rates are extremely lower than those with no right-to-carry laws and greater gun control. For example:
In 1987, Florida was one of the first states to issue a true right-to-carry law, allowing citizens to carry concealed hand guns. People everywhere expected crime rates to skyrocket, however, the crime rate dropped quite drastically. The homicide rate fell 36%, firearm homicide rate-37%, and handgun homicide rate fell 41%.
In Washington D.C., a virtual ban on handguns was enacted in 1976.Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (Just the facts) And since then, D.C. has earned the title of the murder capitol, 19 years running; having more homicides in its boundaries than any other city in the US. (AFF). Similar laws have resulted in such statistics all around the US and the world.
There are many people who say that by giving citizens the right to carry concealed weapons; they will misuse the right. However, less than .02% of people with concealed carry permits have been convicted of violent crimes. And even further studies show that citizens with concealed carry permits are far less likely to commit any crime than the average citizen. (Just the facts)
When people in certain are given the right to own firearms and conceal carry, it provokes two thoughts. One, it jolts the average citizens to realize the responsibility, if they decide to carry, and become more law abiding. Two, (happening the most) it jolts the mind of criminals. Telling them that their jobs just got a bit more dangerous, and many times, it is enough to pull the criminal straight all together. Most criminals with any intelligence at all think twice about robbing the Kwik-E-Mart, when there is a chance that Farmer John on isle 3 with the pickles just might be carrying a concealed gun in his dirty overalls.
So, lets all put a little logic to this. With both statistics and common sense in mind, does it really and truly make sense to install large scale gun control, and with it the massive potential for disaster.




Just the facts. [URL=http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm ]http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm [/URL] Gun control[/QUOTE]
Why yes, yes it does make sense to install large scale gun control, therebye lessening the chance of incidents like [u][url=http://www.wtoctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4299082&nav=0qq6]this[/url][/u] or [u][url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10642024/]this[/url][/u] or even [u][url=http://www.oneidadispatch.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15843270&BRD=1709&PAG=461&dept_id=68844&rfi=6]this[/url][/u].

Oh, and the NRA sucks.

[quote=gunguys.com]

In Florida, a man chased another man down and stabbed him in the back, killing him. Before he was charged, authorities considered letting him go completely free. In Colorado, Gary Lee Hill fired on from behind and killed John Knott as Knott drove away from Hill?s house, and a jury acquitted him on all charges. Sound like a strange, dystopian picture of a lawless future? Welcome to America at the end of 2005.

The culprit in all of this is the NRA?s ?shoot first? law. Passed earlier this year in Florida (and in other states around the country before and after that), the law removes the responsibility of those threatened to avoid violence at all costs. In short, it makes murder legal. A victim no longer has the responsibility to back down, well, ever. In the Florida case, the victim walked two blocks away and then stabbed his original attacker in the back. In Colorado, Knott was very clearly leaving the area, and Gary Lee Hill chased him down and shot him in the back and got off scot free (even the sponsor of the bill there called the law he helped create ?a miscarriage of justice?).

This law is a ?license to murder,? and, thanks to the NRA?s tireless efforts to make this country as dangerous as possible, it?s coming to a state near you. Like, for example, Wyoming.

Wyoming could both ease legal restrictions on the use of deadly force and allow more citizens to carry concealed weapons under measures some lawmakers are pushing in the coming legislative session.

Reps. Stephen Watt, R-Rock Springs, and Mick Powers, R-Lyman, are sponsoring a measure that would put Wyoming in the ranks of ?no-retreat? states.

In addition to specifying that Wyoming citizens have no duty to try to escape before using deadly force against assailants, their bill would specify that a person has a right to assume that anyone breaking into his home poses a deadly threat in most instances.

?It expands when you can use deadly force,? Watt said of his bill. He said he?s sponsoring the measure because he believes people have a fundamental right to protect themselves.

?Right now, it?s very subjective to a county attorney?s whims,? Watt said of state law on self defense.

Eric Johnson, assistant professor at the University of Wyoming College of Law, also serves as faculty director of the university?s prosecution assistance program ? a clinic where law students provide assistance to prosecutors ? and he sees problems with the ?no retreat? proposal.

?It?s not that I want people to have to walk away with their tails between their legs,? Johnson said. ?It?s a concern that this could be misused by people who are clearly culpable, to create reasonable doubt in a case in which they?re clearly at fault.?

Mike Krampner, a Casper criminal defense lawyer, said it?s established fact that most break-ins are committed by people intent only on stealing property.

?There is a respectable school of thought that the human life, no matter how depraved, is worth more than any amount of property, and that we ought not to encourage summary execution for attempted theft,? Krampner said.

And yet that?s exactly what this law is. Someone steal your pudding pop in first grade? Go shoot them, because they attacked you, and you have a right to fight back. Someone accidentally open the door to your apartment? Chase them down and end their life. Someone use your driveway to turn around? That?s trespassing? they must die!

Sound scary? It is, and yet the NRA is behind it full throttle. They?ve promised to bring this law to all fifty states, including yours. This isn?t a theory, or a dire warning about something that might happen under the right circumstances. This is happening, has already happened. Gary Lee Hill is a killer walking free, because this law has already passed in Colorado.

?Shoot first? is insane, and if common sense and standard human decency has anything to say about it, the NRA?s pleas to pass it will fall on deaf ears. ?Shoot first? is a license to murder, and nothing like that belongs in any state, much less all fifty.
[/quote][/size]

[ForgottenRaider]

I carry a small pocket knife and two screw drivers around so I don't forget them at work...According to police and airports they are concealed weapons though they are purely work related tools and I dislike not being able to carry them without risking the fine. (I carry them anyway.)

As for firearms I am a big fan of rifles and I'm a rather good shot though I support Australian style firearm laws almost completely. The gereral population has absolutely no need for projectile weapons of any description out side of sport and even then there is no need for anything more powerful than a 303 target rifle or a mid caliber pistol. As one of those who enjoys the sport I have no problems getting hold of a weapon and clubs to join to fire to firearm. (In Australia in a sporting club you sign two forms, hand over money for the rounds, and borrow a club weapon as you go onto the range and all up takes about five minutes.)

I also sleep soundly at night enjoying the thought that if some one breaks into this house the most they will be carrying is a knife. If there is a complication or the robber is nervous there is no chance than I can be accidentally shot in the following confusion. It does however confuse me how some in this thread support the arms race idea of leveling the playing field when it is clearly not the case in every other country (according to Michael Moore) and hasn't been the case in historically similar events (Cold War anyone?).

Maybe you Americans are just to stupid not to kill each other even if the civil population was disarmed?