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.
Well maybe if more people began owning firearms and carrying openly or concealed if you have a CCW permit (which is what most states have) mentally insane individuals would know to behave themselves for fear of risking death or serious injury from their fellow citizens. You do have a right to protect yourself from that insane person with a gun, which is why you have a right to keep and bear arms. TO PROTECT YOURSELF. An armed society is a safer society. It doesnt take a genious to figure that out. Vermont has no restrictions on their laws pertaining to guns and as scary as the state looks it is one of the safest states in the country. And no I dont want to hear the lame excuse well thats Vermont.
Lets forget about the insane person going to a square to start a neighborhood massacre how about having our unstable friend go to a police precient to play cowboys and indians and LETS SEE WHATS HAPPENS TO OUR INSANE BUDDY WITH A GUN .
Law enforcement will light him up like a Christmas tree. WHY BECAUSE ALL OF THE POLICE ARE CARRYING. Police are regular citizens like you and me why should it be Ok for them to be able to respond with the use of a firearm when they encounter someone who is a threat .
Most states have waiting periods so they cant buy a gun and take it with them anywhere right away.
Criminals and insane people target gun free zones where they know people are unarmed. criminals would be reluctant to enter into any zone where they feel someone may be armed its why they dont enter areas where there are police presence.
So you are suggesting that we have everyone be armed so that if need be we can have a full on shoot out at any given time? Yeah, not sure I see the logic of that.
Oh and in case you don't know, we don't just randomly hand guns to people that want to be a cop, they actually have to test for that and go through safety training, which in this day and age, I would totally vote for making anyone who wants to own a gun have to take a safety class to get a license and have to renew it every so many years to prove that you still have a strong understanding of gun safety laws.
As far as killing someone with words... yell FIRE in a crowded club or tell 6 burly New York Giants fans their tems in a bunch of pu$$ies and see what words can do.
I would suggest for future discussion ammo you look into the laws governing gun ownership in your own state. You might be surprised how the back ground check you suggest is already done.
You really don't know what it takes to own a gun in New York do you? The federal government requires every state to back ground check everyone that want to buy a gun. You need to look into it so you have a better understanding for the discussion.
So you are suggesting that we have everyone be armed so that if need be we can have a full on shoot out at any given time? Yeah, not sure I see the logic of that.
Oh and in case you don't know, we don't just randomly hand guns to people that want to be a cop, they actually have to test for that and go through safety training, which in this day and age, I would totally vote for making anyone who wants to own a gun have to take a safety class to get a license and have to renew it every so many years to prove that you still have a strong understanding of gun safety laws.
NO I said more people I didnt say everyone. Even though the law of the land says you have a right to keep and bear arms (which if you so choose and can safely do so feel you are a responsible individual to freely carry then you should). If you are someone who doesnt like to carry a firearm then by all means dont carry one, and Im sure not everyone would carry one. Some may just want to have it for home use.
With all do respect the only one suggesting a shoot out is you. Why? That doesnt have to be the case if more people were armed.
My point is this if more people carried firearms there would be less casualties if a madman decided to go on a shooting spree on people who are not armed as he is. Why should we wait for police to arrive 5 minutes later to take care of him with 10 injured and 3 dead when the law abiding gun carriers can stop him in an essence to minimize the casualites is all Im saying.
Most cops themselves are poor users when it comes to firearms and then there are those who are just trigger happy which makes them just as dangerous as criminals if not the insane person . Ive heard of way to many stories of innocent people getting gunned down by police due to their irresponsible judgement and use of a firearm, so what makes them more qualified to handle a gun (A BADGE) lets not get carried away now .
And yes I agree with you that in order to be a responsible gun owner you should take safety classes not just once but as much as possible over time to expand upon your knowledge of safety. Which is what legal gun owners and firearms enthusists do hence they make it a hobby to go shooting or target practice. But I dont think its necessary for NYer's that have a gun to renew it every 3 years and pay such high fees to renew it.
I posted this before and Im gonna repost because it is exactly what you are describing interms of a madman on a wild hunt. In this vid the lady's victims were her parents and she wasnt angry at the gunman she was angry at her lawmakers in Texas for passing an anti gun law just days before this incident resulting in her not carrying her gun with her which could have changed the outcome of things had it been in her possession at the time of the shooting. Maybe her parents would have still been here today.
NO I said more people I didnt say everyone. Even though the law of the land says you have a right to keep and bear arms (which if you so choose and can safely do so feel you are a responsible individual to freely carry then you should). If you are someone who doesnt like to carry a firearm then by all means dont carry one, and Im sure not everyone would carry one. Some may just want to have it for home use.
With all do respect the only one suggesting a shoot out is you. Why? That doesnt have to be the case if more people were armed.
My point is this if more people carried firearms there would be less casualties if a madman decided to go on a shooting spree on people who are not armed as he is. Why should we wait for police to arrive 5 minutes later to take care of him with 10 injured and 3 dead when the law abiding gun carriers can stop him in an essence to minimize the casualites is all Im saying.
Most cops themselves are poor users when it comes to firearms and then there are those who are just trigger happy which makes them just as dangerous as criminals if not the insane person . Ive heard of way to many innocent people gunned down by police due to their irresponsible judgement on what makes them more qualified to handle a gun lets not get carried away now .
And yes I agree with you that in order to be a responsible gun owner you should take safety classes not just once but as much as possible over time to expand upon your knowledge of safety. Which is what legal gun owners and firearms enthusists do hence they make it a hobby to go shooting or target practice. But I dont think its necessary for NYer's that have a gun to renew it every 3 years and pay such high fees to renew it.
I posted this before and Im gonna repost because it is exactly what you are describing interms of a madman on a wild hunt. In this vid the lady's victims were her parents and she wasnt angry at the gunman she was angry at her lawmakers in Texas for passing an anti gun law just days before this incident resulting in her not carrying her gun with her which could have changed the outcome of things had it been in her possession at the time of the shooting. Maybe her parents would have still been here today.
Well I am not saying all gun laws are good, I do agree with her that she should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon if she wanted to as long as she has a permit to carry one and has gone through proper training. I will point out a comment she makes that bugs me because I do think she is clouded on her judgement over the law she is arguing about, she goes on to say how easy it is for the gunman to load his gun (which I am assuming was a handgun, but I am not sure), no one needs to carry around an assault rifle for any reason other than hunting, which I question the need for anything above semi-auto. If the man had an assault rifle (which again, not totally sure he didn't) he would of been able to kill a lot more people....but that is a different topic about gun laws.
I would however ask, how did this man get a gun to begin with and begin looking at the root problems to the situation that happened, as well as get rid of a ridiculous law that banned people completely from having a gun. Which for me doesn't really matter because I wouldn't ever be carrying anyway, but I have nothing against those who wish to carry as long as they meet proper requirements.
Yes, I have brought up the idea of a lone gunman questions because we have seen that before, but I also have brought up wanting to make sure there are complete background checks as well as extensive training (which I do understand that gun enthusiasts often do extensive gun training (I have watched some serious sharp shooters in gun competitions) but that doesn't mean everyone who wants to own a gun knows how to properly handle them...but that might be drifting far too off topic.
I am a strong believer in looking at the root of gun issues and peoples' backgrounds, as well as things like reducing the number of bullets a clip can have, heavily regulating assault rifles (if not making them illegal within cities,) increasing gun safety training, as well as making gun laws more universal rather than being a state by state issue.
In the case of NYC, the having to renew guns every 3 years and pay hefty fees is an easy one to understand, it is intended to take away guns from poorer neighborhoods, plain and simple, therefore making it easier for a cop to assume who is legally carrying and who isn't. I am not saying NYC has the best gun control laws and I am sure in some sense they do overstep their boundaries, but I don't see their regulations as being unconstitutional unless it is a complete ban on guns in the city no matter what.
Whoa! As a 'foreign' observor I always find the debate on the right to carry firearms in the USA very interesting. I suspect that the blokes who drafted your Constitution, particularly the Second Ammendment, must be saying to themselves 'What a s**t fight!'. I thought the Second Ammendment was about maintaining a militia!
Here where I live in Australia, the laws relating to the carrying of firearms, particularly pistols, is pretty strict. You have to have a good reason (member of a sporting shooter's, pistol or collector's club, or a primary producer) to own a firearm. And even then you need to pass a pretty rigorous police check and attend a certified training course to obtain a licence. In some cases, such as pistol licences, you also need to attend so many club meets and shoots each year to retain the licence. Storage laws are also pretty stiff. Carrying a pistol in public is almost completely banned.
While these laws are not iron-clad, they are, I believe, pretty good. Obviously crooks 'down under' can access weapons as they do all over the world but overall, I am happy with the way our gun laws work. And I speak as a retired law enforcement officer (street cop, undercover narcotics, organised crime intell analyst and always armed) and Army veteran with active service in South East Asia 1967/68. Is the USA really that bad?
And while I respect the 'right' to bear arms, I wonder if there really is such a 'need' to have weapons so readily available and legally accessible.
And while I respect the 'right' to bear arms, I wonder if there really is such a 'need' to have weapons so readily available and legally accessible.
People have a right to defend themselves. That's enough.
As a police officer where I used to attend church told me, "If someone's coming after you with a pipe, their fists, or even a frying pan, you have a right to defend yourself". Moral superority is not obtained by being a victim, and for many, a gun is the only means they have of defending themselves.
In the case of NYC, the having to renew guns every 3 years and pay hefty fees is an easy one to understand, it is intended to take away guns from poorer neighborhoods, plain and simple...
True. It's all about controlling people, and the poor are easy prey.
Whatever happened to liberals and their concern about the poor?
The innocent people who live in poor NYC neighborhoods...the weak...the infirm...the elderly...hiding in their apartments... they're not allowed to defend themselves.
I guess I'm actually not surprised...liberals thrive on creating as many victims as possible.
Last edited by mistergus75; 01-10-2012 at 07:03 AM..
True. It's all about controlling people, and the poor are easy prey.
Whatever happened to liberals and their concern about the poor?
The innocent people who live in poor NYC neighborhoods...the weak...the infirm...the elderly...hiding in their apartments... they're not allowed to defend themselves.
I guess I'm actually not surprised...liberals thrive on creating as many victims as possible.
Thanks for the overly biased reply....as a liberal, most liberals want better gun safety not more victims. These laws come from people who don't properly secure their guns and their kid shoots a friend or some nutjob walks in and buys a gun without a proper background check. These measures are initially created as safety laws, but when people like you make these statements, I can understand why we have the mess of poorly put together gun laws we have now.
You do agree that there needs to be gun safety right? Or are you so hard up to disagree and hate liberals that you will argue against this and try to throw the 2nd Amendment in my face as if I am not American or something for wanting gun safety?
". . . the having to renew guns every 3 years and pay hefty fees is an easy one to understand, it is intended to take away guns from poorer neighborhoods, plain and simple, therefore making it easier for a cop to assume who is legally carrying and who isn't. I am not saying NYC has the best gun control laws and I am sure in some sense they do overstep their boundaries, but I don't see their regulations as being unconstitutional unless it is a complete ban on guns in the city no matter what.
"
Your own words convict you urbanlife. You are OK with your elitists friends owning guns but you just don't want the folks living in poorer (usually Black) neighborhoods to own firearms. Maybe "open carry" is the best solution. I actually prefer it over Concealed Carry.
Thanks for the overly biased reply....as a liberal, most liberals want better gun safety not more victims. These laws come from people who don't properly secure their guns and their kid shoots a friend or some nutjob walks in and buys a gun without a proper background check.
You still don't get it. I don't think you want to get it.
Gun safety...People not securing their guns...nutjobs...these are all secondary issues. Besides, it's the law-abiding, the good citizens you're actually denying gun ownership to, not the whack-jobs, and you know it.
The right of a person to defend himself is absolute, and shouldn't be denied until every possible situation is resolved to your liberal satisfaction. And since they can never be resolved to your satisfaction, this is just a dishonest means to deny people their right to self-defense.
A person has a right to defend themself (with a gun if necessary), and you have no right to interfere with that.
Last edited by mistergus75; 01-10-2012 at 09:14 AM..
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.
.
.
you look into the laws governing gun ownership in your own state. You might be surprised how the back ground check you suggest is already done.
I said more people I didnt say everyone. Even though the law of the land says you have a right to keep and bear arms (which if you so choose and can safely do so feel you are a responsible individual to freely carry then you should). If you are someone who doesnt like to carry a firearm then by all means dont carry one, and Im sure not everyone would carry one. Some may just want to have it for home use.
. Ive heard of way to many stories of innocent people getting gunned down by police due to their irresponsible judgement and use of a firearm, so what makes them more qualified to handle a gun (A BADGE) lets not get carried away now 
. 
