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.
People use firearms to protect themselves, plain and simple. And it does happen more frequently than you would like to believe.
And we have your word on this and nothing else at all. The NRA et al. have claimed 2.5 million successful defensive uses of a gun each year. The FBI reports that private citizens kill 150-175 felons in the act of committing a felony with a handgun each year. Are you all really, really bad shots or something?
And we have your word on this and nothing else at all. The NRA et al. have claimed 2.5 million successful defensive uses of a gun each year. The FBI reports that private citizens kill 150-175 felons in the act of committing a felony with a handgun each year. Are you all really, really bad shots or something?
A 10 year clerk in a convenience store was approached by a man with a knife who was ready to stab him and rob the store. The clerk pulled out a handgun and probably saved his own life.
He was on tv tonight and he seems like a perfectly nice, easy going guy who simply wanted to live and go home to his family rather than end up in a hospital or a coffin. He's not really angry and says he will just get another job.
Ordinarily I don't like the idea of people having guns, especially handguns. Too many chances for them to get into the wrong hands (like the hands of a crazy person or a young kid). The store fired him because they have a no gun policy. He was registered to carry a gun though. He did know about the no gun policy. I think IF I had to work in a convenience store AT NIGHT, when there had recently been other INCIDENTS, and I was AlONE, I would want something to protect myself. Is there anything else he could have done? Is there some sort of better protection that the management could put in place rather than just putting guys like this out there to get stabbed and robbed?
What am I missing? I don`t see where the man was ready to stab anyone?
well, the first sentence of the article is "NASHUA – When Shannon “Bear” Cothran was threatened by a knife-wielding robber on Monday morning, he didn’t think twice about what to do."
However, that was the original intent of the Second Amendment.
Oh dear. The well-regulated militia was not for purposes of opposing a standing army, but rather for purposes of comprising one in the event of a crisis requiring such national forces. This is why even as late as the Civil War, both union and confederate forces were identified as the state units they had first been organized and trained as.
let's keep it honest. here is the link to the most recent data compiled by the cdc for causes of death in the u.s.a.
I don't need your help with that. I deal with data and data sources for a living.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boboluv
have a look to see that of those 30k "gunshot wounds", 19 THOUSAND of them were suicides where the gun weilder shot themselves. there were 11,078 "Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms".
Are you proposing then that suicides using guns are not deaths from gunshot wounds?
Quote:
Originally Posted by boboluv
to put that number in perspective. the population of the united states at the time was 308,745,538...
And the global populatiopn was approaching 7 billion. Face it, if death from all causes were not a statistically rare event, the planet would soon be devoid of human life.
I only read a few posts, so some of this may have already been covered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland
A 10 year clerk in a convenience store was approached by a man with a knife who was ready to stab him and rob the store. The clerk pulled out a handgun and probably saved his own life.
He was on tv tonight and he seems like a perfectly nice, easy going guy who simply wanted to live and go home to his family rather than end up in a hospital or a coffin. He's not really angry and says he will just get another job.
Ordinarily I don't like the idea of people having guns, especially handguns. Too many chances for them to get into the wrong hands (like the hands of a crazy person or a young kid). The store fired him because they have a no gun policy. He was registered to carry a gun though. He did know about the no gun policy. I think IF I had to work in a convenience store AT NIGHT, when there had recently been other INCIDENTS, and I was AlONE, I would want something to protect myself. Is there anything else he could have done? Is there some sort of better protection that the management could put in place rather than just putting guys like this out there to get stabbed and robbed?
As the cliche goes, I'd rather be judged by 12 (or, in this case, fired by 1) than carried by 6. The employee knew the rule, violated it in trying to protect himself, and was fired for it. No one is at fault. If I were the employee I would have carried as well. It is unfortunate that protecting himself cost him his job, but I'm sure he won't have a prboem getting hired somewhere else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit
This is exactly why you shouldn't be anti-gun.
The employer should be publicly shamed for firing this guy for self-defending himself. In fact, their policy should be declared unconstitutional (violation of 2nd Amendment).
It has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Why should a private business be forced to allow guns if they don't want to? The 2nd amendment does not allow for any guns, any where, under any circumstances. It simply says we can have guns.
Oh dear. The well-regulated militia was not for purposes of opposing a standing army, but rather for purposes of comprising one in the event of a crisis requiring such national forces. This is why even as late as the Civil War, both union and confederate forces were identified as the state units they had first been organized and trained as.
From the previous link:
"As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, 'Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.' George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been 'to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.' A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
If you can't use the ammo, you can't use the weapon that fires it.
I don't think you understood my post: the AR-15 is not one model of gun made by one company. It is a family of thousands of types of guns with different features in different calibers and different configurations. One AR-15 might fire a .308 Win which is more than enough to take down a white-tailed deer, another might fire a .223 Rem which some people consider not powerful enough for a deer. AR-15s are not banned for hunting in any state, nor should they be. Such a restriction would be nonsensical, since 'AR-15' is such a broad category.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fairlaker
That's part of why people get called "gun nuts".
If someone wants to use a rifle to launch golf balls for fun, I don't see why there's anything wrong with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fairlaker
IED's are a good platform for tinkerers. We don't allow those either.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here, could you please explain your point? AR-15s are semiautomatic rifles designed for civilian use, and not used by the US military for any purpose that I am aware of. IED's are explosives, not rifles. IED's generally are not encountered outside the battlefield. So I don't see any reason to compare them.
I'm not sure IED's would be a good platform for tinkerers either, since they tend to be crude and anyone who messes with one without really knowing what they're doing is likely to blow themselves up. AR-15s can easily be modified by a novice. The upper receiver can be changed in about 30 seconds without any tools at all, resulting in an almost completely different gun. This is part of the reason for the rifle's popularity: you can buy one lower receiver and multiple upper receivers in different calibers rather than having to buy separate guns. This is what I meant when I said 'extremely modular'.
Last edited by lanks; 10-20-2013 at 02:30 PM..
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.
