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.
Don't be a wimp, bring your Barrett M82 with you to dinner. Let everyone in the restaurant know you compensating for something.
_"Ex-CNNer Lynne Russell's husband kills robber in wild motel shootout"_
“I opened the door and he materialized out of nowhere; he was inside,” she told The Post. “And he pushed me into the room and onto the bed and closed the door.”
If that situation does happen I would want that person with a gun to be the police or a Swat team not an armed accountant who thinks he can be a hero. Lets leave the brave work to the professionals.
To second a similar response, I would prefer an armed citizen to the police, ESPECIALLY a SWAT team, should I need outside, armed, assistance against an attacker or intruder. Police round counts tend to be on the high side, and SWAT teams are firm believers in high round counts, over and above and beyond. Police , also, have far less accountability, for where extra fired rounds end up coming to a stop,and tend to be far less discriminate in exactly where the muzzle is aimed( if aimed at all) .
Police firearms handling is far to...militaristic...to make me comfortable with the thought of being dependent on them to protect me. Given the choice, I will rely on myself, but, if in need of "rescue" , an armed citizen would be preferable to the police. Far less projectiles are likely to be airborne, and those that are will be more likely to endanger the criminal than me or any bystanders.
If that situation does happen I would want that person with a gun to be the police or a Swat team not an armed accountant who thinks he can be a hero. Lets leave the brave work to the professionals.
On 42nd and 8th, Manhattan's response? Hand down to the unharmed suspect wading in traffic a nine-count indictment:
_"Unarmed Man Is Charged With Wounding Bystanders Shot by Police Near Times Square"_ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/ny...es-square.html
It is already a federal felony with a minimum of a 5 year federal prison sentence if a felon is in possession of a firearm. Guess what? It still hasn't deterred criminals. Largely because our federal government won't enforce the thousands of existing gun laws. Can't lock up actual criminals now, can we? I do agree with you on a minimum 10 year sentence for someone in possession of a stolen firearm. We can do that today, with no new registration. Just a database where someone can report their stolen guns. But you don't think that would actually be enforced do you? Locking up criminals costs money.
You do bring up a good point about the failure to enforce existing laws. Writing a new law that does not get enforced is a waste of time. I see the problem being with guns being sold from lawful owners to unlawful owners without any paper trace. Also many gun owners don't properly store their weapons, which only helps criminals.
You do bring up a good point about the failure to enforce existing laws. Writing a new law that does not get enforced is a waste of time. I see the problem being with guns being sold from lawful owners to unlawful owners without any paper trace. Also many gun owners don't properly store their weapons, which only helps criminals.
Most avid gun owners who buy from individuals require identification and a gun purchase bill of sale. I do for my own protection. If you want my money, you give me what I want. Plain and simple. The problem with your premiss is still, the only ones you are preventing from purchasing a gun from an individual is again, law abiding citizens. Go to the actual problem rather than a symptom. If you were having a heart attack, would you treat the pain in your arm or would you treat your heart? Your solution is treating the pain in your arm..
I can't help it. There are a couple old sayings. When seconds count, cops are only minutes away. And, a gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
NVplumber, you're right on the money with your assessment of police proficiency with their firearms.
For those who prefer to rely on the police to protect them, Google "Emma Hernandez"
Liberals keep protecting their children (criminals) .
By denying the law abiding their own protection, it insures the criminals don't get shot while robing ,raping or killing them.
Then criminals caught can plea insanity and get off.
Remove the insanity plea, and require the death penalty on all murder convictions, and then watch things change.
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.
