Crazy ass people.

[Narrock]

Because most of the pro gun arguments are coming from white folks that live in rural Bumfuck, Jesusland.

[Ginzburgh]

Hey you don't see many pro gun people around here. Or at least the people who aren't pro gun are in the vast majority.

[Harrison]

Because most of the pro gun arguments are coming from white folks that live in rural Bumfuck, Jesusland.

Wrong...

Please continue to spout ignorance however, it sure does support your position.

[Lueyen]

D would find your butt in jail, so you go ahead and shoot him.

I would go A. It is the safest of your choices and the reasons you've listed are moot because it could be for drugs or any number of things. Don't attempt to justify a hand gun for the exception.

His examples given may have been in sarcasm, but they are probably the best reasons for taking method A. In putting the at least somewhat understandable circumstance of human need into the picture it shows option A in the absolute best light possible. In other words not only giving reasons of safety but adding the human factor of genuine need as the motivation for a criminal act that if not excusable being at least understandable. In other words if you are mugged by Jean Valjean.

Sorry to say but if you are a victim of a crime and use that as justification to carry a weapon you are insecure and probably think about a threats while you are in a foreign situation, and IMHO you should be counciled to overcome your fear.

... here read what you wrote again and let it sink in a bit:

Sorry to say but if you are a victim of a crime and use that as justification to carry a weapon you are insecure and probably think about a threats while you are in a foreign situation, and IMHO you should be counciled to overcome your fear.

You are in essence suggesting that someone needs counciling because after a bad life experience they take measures to prevent it from happening again. If someone were mugged at an outside atm at night, would you suggest they needed counciling if they refused to use one at night again? What about people who take measures even if they've never been a victim? Do women who carry mace need counciling? You may not like the precautions someone takes, but hands down for self preservation purposes a fire arm is the most potent self defense weapon assuming you are competent with it and have no qualms about doing whatever it takes to not be a victim.

If someone says some crap about I live here or I work there then you live with your choices, you can move, you can get a new job, etc. I would look at it no different than when someones says to the poor inner city kid "get a job, get a life, etc".

There is a difference, one circumstance is taking proactive measures to increase your own opportunity, the other is a reactive measure to keep that which you already have.

Kah, stop taking shit out of reference. If you're going to quote me use the entire scentence.

I don't call anyone that carries a loaded weapon, drawn, pointing at people or threatening them, as "sane" (not talking about police here just the wacko's that do THIS kind of thing).

To further better your reading skills, you may ask yourself, but clark didn't define "THIS".
THIS = http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18233965/

Your statement that classifies people who carry a loaded weapon as being insane has nothing to do with the article. I bolded the key word for you there as it indicates that you think anyone who does any one of the things you listed is not sane (ie insane).

I don't know why you folks are trying to change my mind, I'm pretty set in my ways. I am open minded to sound statements and I've had my opinions shift after reading anothers statements but your attempts are futile on this topic. I don't think hand guns outside of law enforcement by police or the like should legal. I have no issue with rifles as strange as that may sound but hand guns IMHO serve no real purpose other than to kill people.

I really don't care if I change your mind, however I'll point out your ignorance or flaws in logic because of the danger your conclusions drawn from such flawed reasons represent.

There are in fact quite a few purposes for hand guns beyond killing other people.

Hunting is probably the most common use outside of killing people, and it's not just to enhance the "sport". In areas where due to population hunting grounds are relatively near populated areas, hand guns are used for hunting out of safety concerns, this is where and why hand guns as a mainstream hunting weapon got started, not for sport. You see a bullet fired from a handgun compared to a rifle with a similar bullet and powder load loses velocity much more quickly. What this translates into is a bullet that does not travel as far with a missed shot... a pretty good idea if your within a couple miles of a populated area.

The other reason is more one of convenience as it is much easier to deal with a side arm then it is a rifle or shot gun. To give you an example I knew a field hand that carried a hand gun on his 4 wheeler in case he ran into rattle snakes. Of course your probably thinking if he ran into one just to leave it alone, which is a good idea unless it's made it's home around a pump station or the like, and quite frankly he was busy enough without having to worry about capturing and relocating a snake so it wouldn't take him by surprise the next time he was doing maintenance at the location.

You guys bitch about "Don't take my hand guns" or "If they take my hand guns they'll take my rifle". But in the same breath a good lot of you say "it is ok they tap our phones" or "I have nothing to hide so I don't care if they spy on me".

Just like I support oversight in fire arm possession I support oversight in communications interception. I'm all for making sure government can't violate rights to fire arm ownership or rights to privacy with out reasonable just cause.

I have yet to see any numbers on how weapons being carried by the public has reduced or stopped a measureable level of crime and until you can provide this, you have no hope to change my mind or opinion.

There are a plethora of studies and conclusions on both sides of the fence, if you haven't seen the numbers supporting the idea then you haven't looked. In fact even when you look at anti-gun lobby statements, they generally don't go so far to say that CCW increases crime rate, but argue the significance of decrease.

[kaharthemad]

clark, please explain what personal privacy you are referring to? Patriot act? Or how about the fact I believe in racial profiling if it saves the life of my family and friends.

As for calling you a pussy, you are. If you believe standing there and being violated and taken advantage of is the way out then you are nothing more than a spineless jellyfish. Jesus Christ man, stand up and fight back. You dont have to own a gun or be armed to say no. Being armed helps when the man is coming at you.

Tell me for one instance that the outcome would have been the same if the ROTC student that was killed at VT had been armed?

As for my Harlem reference actually work in a place like that and then see if your attitudes change. Own a store say downtown Atlanta.


Handgun removal it is a personal freedom. How do you plan on taking those guns away from citizens? How about a door kick in and search? going house to house using the firearms registration and sending to jail all law abiding citizenry that own a firearm.


Zan, As I had said when I go armed the weapon is in plain sight. If someone is dumb enough to take advantage of me while I am armed thats fine. One less thug on the streets. I am to kill. Have I ever drawn down on someone? Not as a civilian.

As for shooting the fucker in the back, it happened in Atlanta 3 years ago. The storeowner, after arriving on scene to see his store being robbed fired one shot shattering the tibia of one perp. The other turned to flee when he was shot in the back and killed. What happened to the owner? Not a damn thing. Charges were never pressed, because the store owner could prove he was in fear for his life and his property.Am I sorry that the perp is Tango Uniform? Nope. less paperwork.

Now lets play some roleplaying. Just for a second to explain my point of view. Your a home invader. You have the ability to pick from three houses, each house has the same alarm, which you will have no problems disabling, each a fairly easy target. You plan on going in atnight while the people are asleep.

You have the first house is in a gun free area (for sake of arguement D.C.).

the second house you know has a NRA sticker in the front window and you know the gentlemen to be a hunter.

The third house is in a gun zones (Kennesaw is a good example) where there is a fine to not have a handgun present.

Which house do you chose?
I know which one I would chose. The softest target.

'll tell you what. Any of you anti-gun people need to go and live in one of these neighborhoods for awhile. then form an opinion. cause until you actually been there you have no clue.

ban this ban that. any banning of anything is a removal of personal freedoms, and no matter what you say, it wont solve anything. so lets actually come up with a plan that WILL do something. Like start holding people responsible for their own actions and start teaching the next generation things like respect and honor and trust. how about that?

Well put. I tore up my republican card a long time ago and became a libertarian because most of the time republicans are just as bad as the democrats when it comes to stripping of personal freedoms.

[Zanchief]

You have serious issues my friend. Your gun is compensating for something you're missing in a big bad way and you don't even realize it.

[Narrock]

You have serious issues my friend. Your gun is compensating for something you're missing in a big bad way and you don't even realize it.

Your argument is retarded.

[Harrison]

You have serious issues my friend. Your gun is compensating for something you're missing in a big bad way and you don't even realize it.

Stick to your dayjob, Freud.

[Zanchief]

If at all possible can I have your day job? Watching porn on internet and whining about some made up illness to skirt any real responsibility?

[Tacks]

You'd have to move back in with your parents to lose any and all responsiblity.

[Zanchief]

Sweet deal.

[Harrison]

It was hardly made up, and was finally rectified when a doctor with a clue gave me the right treatment. Thousands of dollars later lol

[Tacks]

Let us know when you join the adult world.

[Harrison]

Likewise little boy

[kinghooter00]

You have serious issues my friend. Your gun is compensating for something you're missing in a big bad way and you don't even realize it.

Compensating for what??? not being able to shoot bullets out of my finger?? That a pretty stupid comment...

[Tacks]

Likewise little boy

Haha and what would your definition be?

[10sun]

You have serious issues my friend. Your gun is compensating for something you're missing in a big bad way and you don't even realize it.

Compensating for what??? not being able to shoot bullets out of my finger?? That a pretty stupid comment...

That was the first time you made me laugh with you and not just at you.

[ClakarEQ]

Lue, thanks for agreeing with me on the options Kah presented.

Lets look more closely at my statement you all seem to be so hung up on:

Scentence A Section 1
I don't call anyone that carries a loaded weapon, drawn,

Scentence A Section 2
pointing at people or threatening them,

This concludes two options for Scentence A

I don't call anyone that carries a loaded weapon, drawn, pointing at people

OR

I don't call anyone that carries a loaded weapon, drawn, threatening them.

Tell me Leu, what sane person outside of law enforcement does either of these things?

How is it connected to the article, why I thought this NASA killer had a hand gun, you know, people saw it from what I understand, I mean the guy did kill someone and them himself, this obviously is a sane person, correct?

Leu, My logic much to your dislike is solid. While I'm not attempting to say I've concluded every aspect or perversion of hand gun use, your futile attempts to justify your cause do not fly with me, sorry.

If there is any location to hunt where a hand gun is required to avoid accidental death or harm to humans, then IMHO you shouldn't be allowed to hunt there and you sure as hell shouldn't have a "bullet" but a shotgun or something else.

As for your snake and field worker example, you're reall reaching now. Killing of said snake doesn't make the 2nd trip any less "dangerous" as any number of critters could take nest there including another snake. DNR for example I would feel ok with them having a side arm while on the job as I place them near police. I would concede to an extent that there are jobs outside of "law" where folks may require a gun, but only while on the job, these would be authorized uses though, not the common joe public.

Just like I support oversight in fire arm possession I support oversight in communications interception. I'm all for making sure government can't violate rights to fire arm ownership or rights to privacy with out reasonable just cause.

Lue, you only agree with oversight because it agrees with you. Just like you agree with comm interception and I do not. The moment oversight says, "lets outlaw hand guns for the general populace" is the day you'll change your tune and I'll change mine. Gun control laws are broken though so I'm not sure what good thing has come from this oversight you mention.

Just like I support oversight in fire arm possession I support oversight in communications interception. I'm all for making sure government can't violate rights to fire arm ownership or rights to privacy with out reasonable just cause.

And here lies the problem. I think they do have reasonable just cause to outlaw hand guns for the general populace.

I don't recall ever saying CCW's increase crime and you still have not provided any info to say it reduces it either. I suspect we could go on for days with links that are with or against our opinions though so this is probably a futile excersize.

Kah, You won't like my answer but if it were me, I'd hit the house with the NRA logo or the hand gun zone for the intent to get my hands on more guns and I would succeed in my theft and/or murder because you would awake with my gun pointed at your head, not the other way around. I can disable the alarm undetected. This means I am "in". Now all I have to do is find 1 person in the house and I win, you lose, I will get everything I want and you will get a bullet. Softest target is what military folks hit, not criminals. Obviously your common criminal is less than smrt

I don't care for your examples though because I wouldn't say they are "typical". I also don't think most criminals would care. I think a criminal has one thing on his mind and it would be money, so they would have value on the mind, not guns. Whom can I rob that will net me the largest reward or the greatest gain.

Is it not "standard" gun saftey and education explicit when it comes to loaded weapons at home. Are you trying to tell me that the NRA or folks of that like think having a loaded weapon at home is a "good thing". From all the education I've read and participated in as I own two rifles and hunt, folks go to great extents to do the exact opposite, storing fireams and rounds in different locations, placing special locks on firearms (trigger, cabinets, etc), etc.

You realize this isn't the ol'west we are living in here where folks keep loaded weapons under their pillow or between the matress's.

Now back to leu and the mace examples and such. I didn't know mace kills, does it? If you are a victim of a crime and feel the need to compensate by having a gun, yes you should be counciled as you have an issue you can't let go of, fear or something else like revenge. If you got mugged at an ATM at night and don't want to use an ATM at night, I see no issue with it but you do have an issue non-the-less. I'm not saying you are sane or insane, I said you are insane with-in the context of scentence A, you should really stop taking shit out of context.

Here, this is something out of context that I KNOW you didn't mean.

have no qualms about doing whatever it takes to not be a victim.

Including shooting through your mom to stop the crimnal? Including using another as a human shield? Including some kid becoming your victim because you can't aim, whatever it takes right, fuck everyone else, this is about ME ME ME.

It is good to get another in this debate though, not much value for the amount of words unfortunately but hey Leu, at least you tried. Care to try again?

Kah, yes it was the patriot act and I fully believe this will be your downfall re: hand guns, you just didn't see it. For the saftey of the general populace, it is no longer safe to own a hand gun. That was my point regarding the removal of ANY right, as soon as one right is taken, ALL of them are for the taking, including your right to bear arms. Some folks agree with the patriot act, some folks agree with banning hand guns (and I hope I can sway as many to my side as possible to make it come true, just as you have done to make the patriot act come true). Ironic enough the patriot act is the foot in the door for my hand gun ban.

I wish you knew me so you'd know I'm not a pussie as you say but if I'm a pussie for giving a theif my wallet when they have a knife or gun, then a pussie I'll be and I'm a-ok with that

Now, all that said, and to make sure folks don't attempt to call me a hypocrite (and maybe even change Kah's mind ), in another post I wrote that if I had been at VT and was a student but with "my" mind, I would have rushed the killer even knowing I'd die for the sole purpose to save others. I truthfully have no issue risking my life to save another. But so far, nothing written here has had that impact or suggestion. This has not been about "life" choice, this has been about money. So to be clear, if a criminal busted into my house, and shot my wife or one of my kids, I can promise you I'd risk my life to save anyone them. However if there is ANY chance to let him steal my stuff and leave, sorry to say I'd pretty much let it go. money < life.

/book off and a bit of rambling

[Harrison]

You'd be willing to risk that chance instead of taking control of the situation and preventing it altogether?

I sure as fuck wouldn't cower in my closet hoping this guy is only in the house to steal shit and not rape/kill my family as well.

He's already gone as far to break in my home. Now I just better hope this is candyland and rainbows from there on out!

[ClakarEQ]

You'd be willing to risk that chance instead of taking control of the situation and preventing it altogether?

I sure as fuck wouldn't cower in my closet hoping this guy is only in the house to steal shit and not rape/kill my family as well.

He's already gone as far to break in my home. Now I just better hope this is candyland and rainbows from there on out!

What are you talking about?
Risk what chance what?
Who's to say you even woke up?
Your awaking could be the gun shot to your kneecap?

B&E is not in the same legue as murder or even rape.

That is what I don't like about Kha's examples, there are far too many unkown variables.

Regardless though, my personal assets are worthless compared to life.

EDIT
I missed a question for Kha regarding an ROTC guy being armed and the VT incident. Sure things could have been different if they had been armed, like the ROTC guy could have shot a student in the shoot out, or maybe he is a marksman hang gun guy and nails Cho in the head before he gets of any rounds, it could go both ways.

There is no way I'll ever agree with guns of ANY kind being at a school outside of on the armed guards. It is one thing to have target practice with your .22 single shot rifle, I understand some schools do this but it is another regarding "arming" the students, for the "what if" scenarios.

[Lueyen]

Clakar I'm not going to start arguing with you about the meaning of the word "is". The statement you made makes it appear that you group people who merely carry firearms in with the rest as not being sane. If it was not your intent to call someone who simply carries firearms insane then please clear it up and say so.

As far as what constitutes reasonable and just cause to restrict firearms what I support is quite simple. I support the restriction of firearms to people based on past reasons related to an individual. I recognize that most people are responsible well adjusted human beings, and that putting a gun in their hands is not suddenly going to change their rational behavior. Removal or restriction of firearms to someone who has never given any indication of irrational behavior based on the actions of others is revoking rights without just reason.

While there are issues that need to be addressed with firearm restrictions, the biggest issues surround internal operations of the system it's self, and not the restrictions themselves. Mentally instable people can be cleared for firearm purchase, not because the law allows for it, but because history of mental issues doesn't appear on a background check because of client patient privilege and privacy issues. Any database used for the purposes of background checks for firearm purchases should be privy to history of mental issues, but due to privacy issues it's not.

Your opinion that a criminal would see a home with firearms as a more attractive target is laughable, because it introduce an element of chance that could have fatal consequences for the criminal, it is this chance that presents a greater risk and one that is not overcome by the possible benefit of a greater "take" due to firearms. Unfortunately we don't have any known burglars here to say either way, but I guess we could do the next best thing and refer to those who've worked in law enforcement who have had direct dealings with criminals and their psychology. Of course you won't accept that because the ex-police officer here will confirm what I've said and it's contrary to what you want to believe... and that in a nutshell is the problem your placing what you want to be over what really is.

When I made the statement about having no qualms in doing whatever it took to not become a victim that was in the context of choosing a firearm over other forms of self defense, and meaning that you had no concerns about the difference in effect toward an attacker. In other words I don't consider someone insane because the method they choose isn't conducive to the survival of an attacker (ala mace, pepper spray, tazer or any other device designed to have a short term impact that could be unreliable due to conditions that would make it ineffective).

[Gargamellow]

I know people who have big guns and big cocks as well. This is the USA. We can own guns. And with the world all aiming theirs at us, perhaps we should own guns. When someone storms onto our shores, I am comforted knowing that a lot of people are going to be firing back at them.

I don't really care if I missed the point here. As usual, I chose one comment out of all of them to talk about.

P.S. I will buy a bunch of guns once my children move out.

[ClakarEQ]

Leu, my statement was not meant to imply every person that carries a weapon is insane, hope you feel better but I did NOT say the opposite of this (i.e. every person who carries a weapon is insane, this was never said).

Lets talk about criminals a bit then. I know two cops, one is a MI state trooper, the other is a Warren local city cop. I can certainly ask them next time I've got a get together to see what they have to say, in fact I'm going to the state cops daughters b-day party on Saturday so if the oppertunity is there, I'll ask him then.

Why do criminals hit banks, even ones with an armed guard? How about jewelry stores and such, do you believe criminals don't think there is risk invovled? I'm not saying your common "thug" doesn't hit what Kha is calling "soft targets" but that is not the type of criminal he is describing. He is talking about a rather intelligent one, implying some re-con has taking place, (i.e. the crook knows each house has an alarm, one that the crook can bypass).

You'd be better off having a big dog then you would having a gun in this case. If a criminal has the means and skill to enter a house, with you in it, why do you assume you'll even wake up? Why do you assume the crook isn't looking for the highest profit? Why would a crook want to hit 2-3-8 houses when he could potentially hit 1 more dangerous house to get the same return?

You make it sound like these guys don't care about the money when I'd bet that is priority one and they do in fact risk life and limb in attempts to reap the biggest reward.

It also sounds like you are willing to risk anything, at all costs, in the attempt (not sure thing, but an attempt) to stop a criminal. In cases like the VT event, I would agree, stop they guy at all costs. The VT event is not the norm though, a car jacking, a stick-up at 7-11 or a gas station, where typically life is not on the line, yet you would want to put life on the line, you want to risk life for money in an ATTEMPT to stop a crook. Your logic is far more flawed than mine. I'm more than confident most victims of robbery where the crook has a gun, that the victim is not shot, yet you want to shoot, you want to kill the guy, you want to kill for money, not saving a life. That is the exact reason to not allow hand guns.

It sounds like you are in favor of losing more rights of privacy for the benefit of gun control laws.

This topic is dead though now, it is only a matter of opinions. Kha thinks folks that don't want to risk life for money are pussies, Leu thinks you should do whatever it takes to stop a crimnal including the loss of more privacy rights. I think hand guns should be removed from the general populace.

I think you are clear on my opinions, just as I am clear on yours. We all have our reasons and opinions, it is obvious no sway will take place so there isn't need for further discussion. It is a good debate though, and regardless of what you think of me, I do not hold any hard feelings or whatnot. We are lucky to live in a place where we can voice opinions like this, I think we can both agree with that

[Harrison]

We're lucky to live in a place where we can voice our opinions, for now.

One of the first steps in removing that freedom is disarming everyone.

[ClakarEQ]

No, the first step was loss of privacy, we've already lost some aspects of free speach but that is an entirely different issue.

Disarming the people IMHO is an inevitability, it is just a matter of time. Our country is alone in its opinion to have handguns.

Harri so I'm clear with you on this, I don't want to disarm everyone, I want to ban hand guns for the general populace and I do think this is possible without going the extra steps of removing ALL firearms. Just like folks think it is possible to lose some privacy rights but not "all" privacy.