Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It probably will happen but it won't be a gun. It will be either explosives or gas. Maybe then they'll decide a national CCW is the way to defeat terrorists.
As a CCW holder myself, I have to smile when I read stuff like this. First, there is no standard for what a CCW class should cover and many states do not even require qualification at the range. Much of a CCW class is about understanding the law and there is no requirement for ongoing training. What it isn't is training in how to defeat terrorists.
I am sure that many of the posters on here are pretty good shots and confident in their ability to 'take out' a terrorist. However, there is a difference between theory and practice and intervening in a live situation, with your adrenaline pumping, where you are not necessarily sure who the 'bad guy' is, where you may well be outgunned and where the target is both mobile and shooting at you is not a situation that the vast majority of CCW holders are equipped for.
And while gun ownership is up over the past 20 years, gun homicide rates are down. But the gun controlling politicians are counting on the sheeple to remain ignorant of the facts. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...why/?tid=sm_tw
In the humble opinion of this Liberal the only way to protect yourself , your family and even perfect strangers from criminal assault, including terrorism, is to be armed, to be aware and to be skilled. When it comes right down to it the only gun control that matters is to be able to select a legitimate target and hit it with the first shot.
This position is unacceptable to most people that have been protected from violence by their families, school authorities and, supposedly, by the police. Most people are apparently unwilling to defend themselves. The rest of us that are willing to defend themselves have a duty to protect the unwilling.
I actually trust most of America's gun owners. I do not expect my neighbor to shoot me and I do not expect to need to shoot him. I am becoming increasingly wary of attending political rallies or speeches because these tend to attract the crazies and the terrorists and I do not expect the government agents to do anything but protect the politicians before they protect the rest of the crowd that includes me. I deeply resent not being able to carry one of my weapons concealed when I am attending one of these events.
As far as "assault weapons" are concerned I see no reason for more regulation or outright bans. Yes, people can fire a lot of rounds in a short time but you do not need a rifle with a 20 round capacity magazine to do that. All you need is a couple of pistols. But I guess they want to ban those as well.
Location: MA/ME (the way life should not be / the way it should be)
1,266 posts, read 1,389,092 times
Reputation: 735
On another note, i feel like stating that most gun voilence is a suicide (normally about 60-65%), which should not count, as if you are going to hurt yourself, you will do so anyways sadly.
you should all head to the Maine thread, ask any questions on guns, they have very lax laws, as do other states.
Open carry allowed
concealed carry allowed (no permit)
registration only for automatic/muzzled
hunting with muzzleloaders
no magizene restrictions
however, maine is almost yearly considered the SAFEST state to live for per-capita voilence, and rarley has mass shootings.
Californa however is much more restrictive, and it
has registration for all guns
restricts capacity
carry is heavily restrictided, in most cases is up to the local sherrif to issue (may issue)
despite all these laws, californa still has many shootings, mass shootings, single shootings, ect.
Maine is more homogeneous and much less populated than California. I would also guess Maine doesn't have as much poverty or gang activity as California. California is also a border state to Mexico, Maine is probably the furthest state from Mexico.
Their gun laws ARE working though. As this article states (and as I've said dozens of times) weak laws at the Federal level undermine their progress. That is why the laws need to be the sane across the board.
On another note, i feel like stating that most gun voilence is a suicide (normally about 60-65%), which should not count, as if you are going to hurt yourself, you will do so anyways sadly.
Suicides should count and I'm sure you would want them to if it was your family member. They should count because the vast majority of people who attempt and fail don't try again. The success rates of suicide by gun is very high, so keeping guns unavailable to suicidal people will most likely save their life.
Guns, by themselves, are inanimate objects & not the only way to kill many. I think we need to find out why many seem to be going insane, but that could be stepping on some corporations toes. Like anti-depressants that can make people violent, homicidal & suicidal. Pill cos. admit it. But those that buy the laws get their way.
Suicides should count and I'm sure you would want them to if it was your family member. They should count because the vast majority of people who attempt and fail don't try again. The success rates of suicide by gun is very high, so keeping guns unavailable to suicidal people will most likely save their life.
In the humble opinion of this Liberal the only way to protect yourself , your family and even perfect strangers from criminal assault, including terrorism, is to be armed, to be aware and to be skilled. When it comes right down to it the only gun control that matters is to be able to select a legitimate target and hit it with the first shot.
This position is unacceptable to most people that have been protected from violence by their families, school authorities and, supposedly, by the police. Most people are apparently unwilling to defend themselves. The rest of us that are willing to defend themselves have a duty to protect the unwilling.
I actually trust most of America's gun owners. I do not expect my neighbor to shoot me and I do not expect to need to shoot him. I am becoming increasingly wary of attending political rallies or speeches because these tend to attract the crazies and the terrorists and I do not expect the government agents to do anything but protect the politicians before they protect the rest of the crowd that includes me. I deeply resent not being able to carry one of my weapons concealed when I am attending one of these events.
As far as "assault weapons" are concerned I see no reason for more regulation or outright bans. Yes, people can fire a lot of rounds in a short time but you do not need a rifle with a 20 round capacity magazine to do that. All you need is a couple of pistols. But I guess they want to ban those as well.
I agree with most of your post and find it contrary to most claiming to be a liberal. Good on ya, mate. Do you consider yourself to be a progressive?
What I don't agree with is your stand on "assault weapons" and magazine restrictions. What is the best tool at any given time? What is the difference between the 30 rd mag designed for the weapon versus 3 10 rd mags? A 17 rd mag designed for a pistol versus 2 10 rd mags? It makes a difference when at a target range; if you have been to one you well know of what I speak. I would imagine you have practiced with your own. A revolver might be the best for those you think don't need standard capacity. Then again, it is your opinion.
I, too, trust most owners of firearms. Most of my neighbors are ex military and all have weapons. My neighborhood is not a gun free zone.
Simply make it a life or death sentence for any felon or parolee that uses an automatic weapon in the commission of a crime. We can't control what is out there. We can only get rid of dangerous people that propose a threat to others. I am a gun owner. I see absolutely no reason why full automatic weapons should be sold to the public. Additionally, there should be a mandatory 10 year sentence for those carrying a concealed weapon without a permit if he/she has a criminal record. We need to tighten up on the laws that exist and stop the revolving door policy as a means to placate black leader with the idiotic complaint of racial percentages in prisons.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
