Would-be crime victims fighting back (credit, purchase, camping)

[Bullbear]

Originally Posted by Caleb Longstreet

To be sure, I am a very staunch advocate of owning firearms. I just don't want anyone, especially a smaller diminutive or physically weak one owning some S&W 500 as they probably just become a danger to the public at large. Asking to demonstrate a basic understanding and knowledge of said firearms is not all that bad.

Maybe there should be height/weight/strength requirements? Or perhaps you can personally pass judgement on who does and does not possess the physical presence to make them worthy of gun ownership. Please.

Only convicted felons and the mentally disabled should be prohibited from owning guns.

Plenty of non-diminutive and physically strong folks have used guns to be become a physical danger to the Public.

[movingsoon2020]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Manson and the Tate-Bianca murders. OJ in Brentwood. John Lennon outside the Dakota.

Those are really ridiculous examples.

[Bullbear]

Originally Posted by arjay57

I truly don't understand the opposition to requiring basic firearms training for people who buy guns. If you can demonstrate that you already have proficiency, then maybe you should be exempt from training, but as Caleb said, we wouldn't let somebody behind the wheel of a car unless it was shown that they knew what they are doing.

I grew up around guns and am a staunch supporter of the private right to own firerarms. I've got a number of them in the house and have had occaision to use them in self-defense before, and was damn glad I had them. I've also got friends who are passionate hunters, collectors and target shooters, and they have every right to do this.

But why the opposition to some basic training? Everybody I know who knows about guns would never take one out without being confident about their abilities. Nor would they go out with people who didn't know what they were doing. You're begging for a Dick Cheney moment when you do that.

Its a really simple concept. Less Government. Less Government intervention in our lives. Get the Government out of our lives as much as possible. The Government is not here to protect us. It is a cancer.

I own three guns and have been around them for decades. I have used a gun, successfully, for self defense.

Dick Cheney was an experienced hunter, surrounded by other experienced gun owners. Training does not eliminate carelessness. In fact, the more comfortable someone feels around a gun, the more likely they may be careless.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by Bullbear

Its a really simple concept. Less Government. Less Government intervention in our lives. Get the Government out of our lives as much as possible. The Government is not here to protect us. It is a cancer.

I'm very much a limited government advocate, but I don't see what that's got to do with making sure that people with dangerous instrumentalities have at least a basic understanding of what to do with them.

There are many things limited government should legitimately be required to do in order to protect the citizens. Driver licensing is a perfect example.

I also want my water tested for purity, my doctors and medicines licensed, and the concrete in my roads and bridges tested for strength. I want my gasoline, electric current and nuclear generating plants to meet standards, I want my chainsaw to be made so that that chain doesn't fly off, my tires not to blow out, and my whiskey to be free of poison. I don't want every yahoo on the planet to be able to waltz into K-Mart and buy a case of dynamite or to get on the internet and buy automatic weapons.

I've also used firearms in self-defense, once in response to some drunken idiot who obviously didn't appreciate the consequences of running into our dock at night and firing a weapon in the direction where people lived.

[plessthanpointohfive]

Originally Posted by Bullbear

You made your liberal position quite clear in your previous post. Im not sure why you felt the need to restate it.

The fallacy of your argument is your BELIEF that govt mandated "training" will result in fewer gun accidents. You have that belief based on an assumption, not facts. Has there been a study showing the number of accidents between a "trained" gun owner group and a non-trained? Until there is one you have only your assumption.

The inherent danger of a mishandled gun is the only incentive needed to encourage proper handling. If somebody isnt smart enough to figure that out, a gun accident is probably the best thing for the gene pool.

Your statistics are quite dated. Regardless, previously you indicated that gun owners were very likely to shoot themselves. That is patently not true. Many tens of millions of people will own guns who will never shoot themsevles (nor anyone else).

My conservative beliefs have NOTHING to do with religion. They have to do with the preeminenece of the individual, the principle on which this country was founded. I dont believe in the "nanny state", where the govt is charged with protecting us from....ourselves! Good lord, that is not the job of the govt!! Given that obesity kills far more people than guns, next I guess we will want the govt to regulate our daily calorie intake, right? After all, society pays for that, doenst it. Better start demanding cakes and cookies be outlawed or restricted!

The govt's job is to keep order so that commerce may proceed at the most expeditious rate possible. Their job is not to protect us from our own stupidity/carelessness. People take themselves out everyday. Sometimes by accident, sometimes on purpose. That wont ever change.

If someone has committed heinous crimes against fellow citizens that are worthy of the death penalty, I have no trouble with it. It should be a much more efficent use of govt resources rather than feeding clothing and housing such an individual their whole life (but often isnt because of all the absurd legal machinations)

The nanny state is a liberal concept based on utopian ideals that have no basis in reality. Darwin and Ayn Rand had it right.

You come off as alarmingly one-dimensional. I'm sure you're not. Nobody is that shallow. But you're a big horse pill in that your byline is hard to swallow.

I'm not insulting you, you understand. It's just an observation on how you're coming off. At my age, I don't need a lecture from anyone, much less someone from my own generation.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by Bullbear

If someone has committed heinous crimes against fellow citizens that are worthy of the death penalty, I have no trouble with it. It should be a much more efficent use of govt resources rather than feeding clothing and housing such an individual their whole life (but often isnt because of all the absurd legal machinations).

I've had to change my opinion on that over the last 20 years, since it has now been conclusively proven by DNA evidence that over 200 Americans on Death Row are actually the wrong guy. Thousands more have served time for lesser crimes that they didn't commit.

I know some people would say, "Who cares?" but to me that is the worst kind of big government intrusiveness. If the government is so humongous that they get you for something you didn't even do and lock you up or kill you, then things are pretty bad.

That's why you have to have all that legal wrangling. While it's a complete PITA when we "know" somebody is guilty, what about those 200+ guys who were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt yet it turned out to be the wrong guy? They're totally innocent men who could have been out barbecuing in the back yard or hanging at the lake with their kids.

Many of these cases involved crooked experts, fabricated evidence, totally inept defense lawyers, "eyewitnesses" who totally missed the boat, jailhouse snicthes who'd been promised all kinds of favors by the DA, etc., etc. Are we going to cut off folks right to fight the government and tell them that once the system comes down on you, right or wrong, you're toast?

[brownhornet]

The advice I usually give is to first time gun owners... buy a gun with a safety. Ruger's are usually good starter guns although a bit bulky IMO for concealed carry. I've been carrying for almost 10 years now and the glock 40 is my concealed weapon of choice. For home protection nothing works better than a pistol grip mossberg IMO. Slug, buckshot, slug, buckshot, slug, buckshot.

[Bullbear]

Originally Posted by arjay57

I've had to change my opinion on that over the last 20 years, since it has now been conclusively proven by DNA evidence that over 200 Americans on Death Row are actually the wrong guy. Thousands more have served time for lesser crimes that they didn't commit.

I know some people would say, "Who cares?" but to me that is the worst kind of big government intrusiveness. If the government is so humongous that they get you for something you didn't even do and lock you up or kill you, then things are pretty bad.

That's why you have to have all that legal wrangling. While it's a complete PITA when we "know" somebody is guilty, what about those 200+ guys who were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt yet it turned out to be the wrong guy? They're totally innocent men who could have been out barbecuing in the back yard or hanging at the lake with their kids.

Many of these cases involved crooked experts, fabricated evidence, totally inept defense lawyers, "eyewitnesses" who totally missed the boat, jailhouse snicthes who'd been promised all kinds of favors by the DA, etc., etc. Are we going to cut off folks right to fight the government and tell them that once the system comes down on you, right or wrong, you're toast?

Oh, so these are good family men "totally innocent" who are wrongly on death row? Folks who never committed a crime, never hurt a flea, just got screwed by the system, huh? I mean, I might get grabbed tonight while watching TV and thrown in the slammer for multiple murders. The system is that capricious.

Sorry hoss, that is just pure wishful thinking. The fact is no system will ever be perfect. You either accept that or you just say, you know, because there is a risk of wrongful conviction nobody goes to prison. Nobody. (Unless ten people see the person in broad daylight, with his name on his jacket, committing the crime, he/she goes free. )

Its utter bunk. The folks on death row are not saints in waiting. They are multiple felon thugs/scum who deserve to be there, most likely for the crime they are in there for, and/or another.

Ive never been arrested, and I have no fear that I will ever be on death row. Why? Because I dont do bad things, I dont hang out in bad places and I dont run with the wrong crowd.

The system has so many (too many?) failsafes that its exceedingly, exceedingly rare that some upstanding community member would ever ever find themselves on death row. The wrongful execution stories are a myth, a crock concocted by the leftists and trial lawyers to try and sow discord and doubt.

[Bullbear]

Originally Posted by plessthanpointohfive

You come off as alarmingly one-dimensional. I'm sure you're not. Nobody is that shallow. But you're a big horse pill in that your byline is hard to swallow.

I'm not insulting you, you understand. It's just an observation on how you're coming off. At my age, I don't need a lecture from anyone, much less someone from my own generation.

You know, I dont know why people here seem to prefer passing judgement on others they dont know/have never met/never seen for even one second, instead of just arguing their POV. Why is that? Why do you attack the person (nobody is that shallow and you're a big horse pill ARE ABSOLUTELY meant as insults, but dont worry, Im a big boy, and they dont phase me one whit)

You werent lectured. You were bested in a debate. Learn from it and do better next time.

PS: Never assume. You have NO idea how old I am. Unless you are truly clairvoyant.

[plessthanpointohfive]

You bested me in your own mind. Proof? I haven't changed my mind about how I think it should be done. And you haven't done a good job changing anyone else's from what I can tell.

But, you read it how you want.