Open carry firearms.. Our 2nd amendment right!!

[JD_2B]

OpenCarry.org - State Information For Wisconsin

Well, Wisconsin is an open carry state.. They have a big problem with concealed carry. I agree completely!! =))

Apparently Pennsylvania is the same..
Pennsylvania Open Carry Gun Laws, Information, Fliers and Forum - paopencarry.org

My understanding is Wisconsin does not have a permit scheme. Maybe the state constituition guarantees something but in practice anyone open carrying is going to jail.
Some states allow concealed carry but not open. TX is one of them.

You can open carry in almost all 50 states, for hunting purposes, and in Texas, you can open carry a firearm from your home to your car, from your car to your home, etc, and there are other instances when you can open carry as well. It is specific in the statutes, which I just looked at a week or so ago.

To the Brit:

I believe you are applying English law to our discussion, here at the US message board. Point of Fact- this is not England. We beat you guys. We won, and you lost. The war is over, and your King does not rule our countrymen anymore. =)

In the majority of states in our country, if someone comes into your house, and is uninvited, you are free and clear to shoot them dead, whether they are armed or unarmed. There is a presumption of risk involved with entering someone's home without permission. The only exceptions to whom may be shot are generally people who live in the home, spouses, and law enforcement officers. There are defenses available for shooting or stabbing, etc, those people also- and all require the infliction of a deadly force being used or threatened against the killer in those situations, as well, and with the leos, they must not be acting in the scope of their duty, or in good faith of acting in a dutiful way.
I know you don't LIKE our laws, and our freedoms, but we aren't trying to get you to live here, either.. lol... Stay put, and be a slave to a criminal- friendly system, if you want.

That comment about gun crime being on the rise has me LMFAO, especially after saying that gun crime is so rare, and still insisting on not wanting one.

Yes they make a big noise, but I would rather be deafened and in a state of shock and trauma for a few days, weeks, years, over dealing with having to kill a potential deathmaker, instead of having my brain cease from functioning, my limbs stopped from moving, my heart stop beating, and my lips stopped from smiling. I value my life and the life of my family enough to accept that an "unsafe" world is already the one we live in, and NOT having a gun is far more dangerous to our lives than having one will be.

But again- you stay on the East Side of the Atlantic, and call the horsebacks, the next time some asshole criminal comes into your home, and rapes your wife, and kidnaps your children.. Wait for the clickety clack of the hooves to show up.. Me- My superfast bullet will simply take that attacker out of the equation. Then I can eat, sleep, and dream happy thoughts again, someday.

 

[germanguy]

OpenCarry.org - State Information For Wisconsin

Well, Wisconsin is an open carry state.. They have a big problem with concealed carry. I agree completely!! =))

Apparently Pennsylvania is the same..
Pennsylvania Open Carry Gun Laws, Information, Fliers and Forum - paopencarry.org

My understanding is Wisconsin does not have a permit scheme. Maybe the state constituition guarantees something but in practice anyone open carrying is going to jail.
Some states allow concealed carry but not open. TX is one of them.

You can open carry in almost all 50 states, for hunting purposes, and in Texas, you can open carry a firearm from your home to your car, from your car to your home, etc, and there are other instances when you can open carry as well. It is specific in the statutes, which I just looked at a week or so ago.

To the Brit:

I believe you are applying English law to our discussion, here at the US message board. Point of Fact- this is not England. We beat you guys. We won, and you lost. The war is over, and your King does not rule our countrymen anymore. =)

In the majority of states in our country, if someone comes into your house, and is uninvited, you are free and clear to shoot them dead, whether they are armed or unarmed. There is a presumption of risk involved with entering someone's home without permission. The only exceptions to whom may be shot are generally people who live in the home, spouses, and law enforcement officers. There are defenses available for shooting or stabbing, etc, those people also- and all require the infliction of a deadly force being used or threatened against the killer in those situations, as well, and with the leos, they must not be acting in the scope of their duty, or in good faith of acting in a dutiful way.
I know you don't LIKE our laws, and our freedoms, but we aren't trying to get you to live here, either.. lol... Stay put, and be a slave to a criminal- friendly system, if you want.

That comment about gun crime being on the rise has me LMFAO, especially after saying that gun crime is so rare, and still insisting on not wanting one.

Yes they make a big noise, but I would rather be deafened and in a state of shock and trauma for a few days, weeks, years, over dealing with having to kill a potential deathmaker, instead of having my brain cease from functioning, my limbs stopped from moving, my heart stop beating, and my lips stopped from smiling. I value my life and the life of my family enough to accept that an "unsafe" world is already the one we live in, and NOT having a gun is far more dangerous to our lives than having one will be.

But again- you stay on the East Side of the Atlantic, and call the horsebacks, the next time some asshole criminal comes into your home, and rapes your wife, and kidnaps your children.. Wait for the clickety clack of the hooves to show up.. Me- My superfast bullet will simply take that attacker out of the equation. Then I can eat, sleep, and dream happy thoughts again, someday.

I personally do like both sides of the Atlantic.
Anyway, coming over by horse is rather a stupid idea...

But serious:

Statistically you will be rather raped by your husband, a relative, a colleague from work or after a date going a little bit wrong. So, statistically, a gun will not help you.

Also, statistically, most burglars want to steal something, so they will in most cases not be interested in you, your children or your life.

Leaves kidnapping, which is (correct me) a very rare crime.

So, statistically, someone coming to your home in order to rob, rape and kidnap your children is more than very unlikely. But, I concede, someone simply trying to steal from you will either run away at sight of your gun or shoot it out with you, when feeling cornered. In the latter case a gun might come handy.

But I simply suppose, that having a gun gives you a sense of safety and control.
You can handle anybody coming at you or your loved ones.

Still, personally I believe (and I have made that experience as well) that a burglar being surprised runs away. If surprised by someone with a gun, the situation becomes quickly life-threatening for one or both sides.
In this situation you might be lucky or you might not. Heavily depends upon the situation.

So, personally I think that a lot of people buy guns to feel safe and to have control. Nothing wrong with that.
Only problem is, that hopefully never the situation will come, that this is tested.
If you look closely in situations where firearms were used, you will see, that in a lot of cases things went ugly.
The situation you describe is too neat. No shots hit a child running into the line of fire, no inncocent bypasser harmed, no gun fired in anger at a husband/wife/colleage.

As said before, I really doubt, that in a nice, middle-class suburb a lot of firefights will happen, although the number of arms will be higher than in a comparable area in Spain, Germany or France. Why ?
Because in most cases a responsible citizen acts responsible.
Does this prevent crime ?
Depending upon the situation.

Most likely someone like above will in general have a smaller risk of being a crime victim than someone living in an area with high unemployment, social tensions and a drug problem.
What if he becomes a crime victim, will a gun help ?
Difficult to say, as stated above, it depends upon the crime and the situation.

So, feeling safe and being safe are not necessarily the same thing.

As I see it, Americans and a lot of others rather mistrust their government and police and therefore feel the need to arm themselves.
Also, being able to defend yourself and the right to own and carry a firearm, is a constitutional right, which is held high.

On my side of the pond people rather feel unsafe when seeing a firearm. Also, in general, the mistrust to our government is not so deep-rooted, that we feel the need to arm ourselves.

So, from your perspective we are pussies.
From our perspective you are guncrazy lunatics.

regards
ze germanguy

regards
ze germanguy

 

[The Rabbi]

And statistically, in my home state anyway, you are more likely to be killed by someone you know than by someone you don't.
But that doesn't make a firearm ineffective. Last I heard, bullets don't discriminate between known and unknown assailants.
In the US we have the phenomenon of home invasions, where robbers break in and tie up or otherwise harm the occupants. They know in advance the residents are home, and break in anyyway. In any case, they make easier targets; most homes where people are gone have alarms. When people are home they turn the alarm off.
But in any case, people don't live by statistics. Statistically you are very unlikley to need to change a flat tire out on the road. But everyone I know carries a spare tire. It is pretty much the same here: the penalty for carrying a gun in terms of weight or inconvenience is pretty low. So why not? While the penalty for not having one when you really need it is very very high.

 

[Alvin]

To the Brit:

I rarely use the word "Retarded", and I'm not going to now, despite it being a perfect oppertunity to do so.

I'm Irish.

I believe you are applying English law to our discussion, here at the US message board. Point of Fact- this is not England. We beat you guys. We won, and you lost. The war is over, and your King does not rule our countrymen anymore. =)

I'm still not going to use that word. So do All you Mexicans have a problem with Geography? I'm Irish. Not British.
I was responding to a statement from an English person regarding the law in the UK. I am in the unenviable position of spending 3 days of my week in the UK. As a gun owner it is important that I be aware of the law in both jurisdictions.

In the majority of states in our country, if someone comes into your house, and is uninvited, you are free and clear to shoot them dead, whether they are armed or unarmed. There is a presumption of risk involved with entering someone's home without permission.

Yes, I am aware of that. None of it applies to the reason for this conversation in the first place as I was correcting a misconception regarding UK/Irish law as it were from a UK citizen.

The only exceptions to whom may be shot are generally people who live in the home, spouses, and law enforcement officers. There are defenses available for shooting or stabbing, etc, those people also- and all require the infliction of a deadly force being used or threatened against the killer in those situations, as well, and with the leos, they must not be acting in the scope of their duty, or in good faith of acting in a dutiful way.

That's nice. I like rules. Rules are good....

I know you don't LIKE our laws, and our freedoms, but we aren't trying to get you to live here, either.. lol... Stay put, and be a slave to a criminal- friendly system, if you want.

I couldn't give a toss one way or the other about your laws. They are as bizzare to me as mine are to you. If you wish to discuss which set of laws are better, then we can have that conversation.

That comment about gun crime being on the rise has me LMFAO, especially after saying that gun crime is so rare, and still insisting on not wanting one.

Would you like to read the rest of the fucking statement. This time slowly with particular care to comprehension.

Yes they make a big noise, but I would rather be deafened and in a state of shock and trauma for a few days, weeks, years, over dealing with having to kill a potential deathmaker, instead of having my brain cease from functioning, my limbs stopped from moving, my heart stop beating, and my lips stopped from smiling. I value my life and the life of my family enough to accept that an "unsafe" world is already the one we live in, and NOT having a gun is far more dangerous to our lives than having one will be.

If that's what you need to feel safe....Personally, I don't even keep my guns at home. I don't miss them or have ever felt the need to keep them there.

But again- you stay on the East Side of the Atlantic, and call the horsebacks, the next time some asshole criminal comes into your home, and rapes your wife, and kidnaps your children.. Wait for the clickety clack of the hooves to show up.. Me- My superfast bullet will simply take that attacker out of the equation. Then I can eat, sleep, and dream happy thoughts again, someday.

Just try to shoot the right person. And use frangibles or the chances are you'll be planting a loved one.

 

[Missourian]

My understanding is Wisconsin does not have a permit scheme. Maybe the state constituition guarantees something but in practice anyone open carrying is going to jail.
Some states allow concealed carry but not open. TX is one of them.

You can open carry in almost all 50 states, for hunting purposes, and in Texas, you can open carry a firearm from your home to your car, from your car to your home, etc, and there are other instances when you can open carry as well. It is specific in the statutes, which I just looked at a week or so ago.

To the Brit:

I believe you are applying English law to our discussion, here at the US message board. Point of Fact- this is not England. We beat you guys. We won, and you lost. The war is over, and your King does not rule our countrymen anymore. =)

In the majority of states in our country, if someone comes into your house, and is uninvited, you are free and clear to shoot them dead, whether they are armed or unarmed. There is a presumption of risk involved with entering someone's home without permission. The only exceptions to whom may be shot are generally people who live in the home, spouses, and law enforcement officers. There are defenses available for shooting or stabbing, etc, those people also- and all require the infliction of a deadly force being used or threatened against the killer in those situations, as well, and with the leos, they must not be acting in the scope of their duty, or in good faith of acting in a dutiful way.
I know you don't LIKE our laws, and our freedoms, but we aren't trying to get you to live here, either.. lol... Stay put, and be a slave to a criminal- friendly system, if you want.

That comment about gun crime being on the rise has me LMFAO, especially after saying that gun crime is so rare, and still insisting on not wanting one.

Yes they make a big noise, but I would rather be deafened and in a state of shock and trauma for a few days, weeks, years, over dealing with having to kill a potential deathmaker, instead of having my brain cease from functioning, my limbs stopped from moving, my heart stop beating, and my lips stopped from smiling. I value my life and the life of my family enough to accept that an "unsafe" world is already the one we live in, and NOT having a gun is far more dangerous to our lives than having one will be.

But again- you stay on the East Side of the Atlantic, and call the horsebacks, the next time some asshole criminal comes into your home, and rapes your wife, and kidnaps your children.. Wait for the clickety clack of the hooves to show up.. Me- My superfast bullet will simply take that attacker out of the equation. Then I can eat, sleep, and dream happy thoughts again, someday.

I personally do like both sides of the Atlantic.
Anyway, coming over by horse is rather a stupid idea...

But serious:

Statistically you will be rather raped by your husband, a relative, a colleague from work or after a date going a little bit wrong. So, statistically, a gun will not help you.

Also, statistically, most burglars want to steal something, so they will in most cases not be interested in you, your children or your life.

Leaves kidnapping, which is (correct me) a very rare crime.

So, statistically, someone coming to your home in order to rob, rape and kidnap your children is more than very unlikely. But, I concede, someone simply trying to steal from you will either run away at sight of your gun or shoot it out with you, when feeling cornered. In the latter case a gun might come handy.

But I simply suppose, that having a gun gives you a sense of safety and control.
You can handle anybody coming at you or your loved ones.

Still, personally I believe (and I have made that experience as well) that a burglar being surprised runs away. If surprised by someone with a gun, the situation becomes quickly life-threatening for one or both sides.
In this situation you might be lucky or you might not. Heavily depends upon the situation.

So, personally I think that a lot of people buy guns to feel safe and to have control. Nothing wrong with that.
Only problem is, that hopefully never the situation will come, that this is tested.
If you look closely in situations where firearms were used, you will see, that in a lot of cases things went ugly.
The situation you describe is too neat. No shots hit a child running into the line of fire, no inncocent bypasser harmed, no gun fired in anger at a husband/wife/colleage.

As said before, I really doubt, that in a nice, middle-class suburb a lot of firefights will happen, although the number of arms will be higher than in a comparable area in Spain, Germany or France. Why ?
Because in most cases a responsible citizen acts responsible.
Does this prevent crime ?
Depending upon the situation.

Most likely someone like above will in general have a smaller risk of being a crime victim than someone living in an area with high unemployment, social tensions and a drug problem.
What if he becomes a crime victim, will a gun help ?
Difficult to say, as stated above, it depends upon the crime and the situation.

So, feeling safe and being safe are not necessarily the same thing.

As I see it, Americans and a lot of others rather mistrust their government and police and therefore feel the need to arm themselves.
Also, being able to defend yourself and the right to own and carry a firearm, is a constitutional right, which is held high.

On my side of the pond people rather feel unsafe when seeing a firearm. Also, in general, the mistrust to our government is not so deep-rooted, that we feel the need to arm ourselves.

So, from your perspective we are pussies.
From our perspective you are guncrazy lunatics.

regards
ze germanguy

regards
ze germanguy

Statistically, your chances of getting a flat tire today are extremely low...no need to take that cumbersome spare with you.

Statistically, the chances of your car being stolen are incredibly low...so why bother locking it?

Statistically, the odds of your house burning down are extraordinarily low..might as well cancel the insurance.
.
.
.
.
.
As you can see, the "statistical argument" falls on it's face when confronted with reality.

 

[Alvin]

Depends on what statistics you care to use. Anyone can find the ones to back their ideals if they try.
But there are things that both sides can agree on.
1. Guns are here. There is no way that is ever going to change.
2. You are more likely to be shot in an accident, or by a family or friend than in a home invasion.
3. If you are going to be around guns, it's best that you know how and when to use them.
4. And just becasue it's a right, - doesn't mean that every arsehole should be let near them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Depends on what statistics you care to use. Anyone can find the ones to back their ideals if they try.
But there are things that both sides can agree on.
1. Guns are here. There is no way that is ever going to change.
2. You are more likely to be shot in an accident, or by a family or friend than in a home invasion.
3. If you are going to be around guns, it's best that you know how and when to use them.
4. And just becasue it's a right, - doesn't mean that every arsehole should be let near them.

That's sort of true and still incomplete.
Point #1 is the most salient. With some pipe and other items from Home Depot and a drillpress and maybe a saw and files I could make a gun. Most people could. There are places on the Pakistan/Afghan border where they churn out pretty good copies of AKs, 1911s, Hi Powers etc in stores about the size of my bedroom.
Point 2: But the likelihood of that happening is very very low. You are 100 times more likely to be killed in an auto accident than by a gun, no matter who is holding it. Yet no one talks about banning cars.
Point 3, agreed.
Point 4, it depends on how you want to define arsehole. I would define it as someone who has demonstrated a propensity for really poor judgment and law violation with violent tendencies. That leaves an awful lot of "dodgy" people out there. But I would rather trust my fellow citizens to do the right thing than dictate to them what they can and cannot do.

 

[Diuretic]

Really? Who in Congress was responsible for the last AWB? It sure wasn't conservatives. Who is pushing "card check" to limit workers' ability to work without unions? Who is opposing free trade initiatives? Who is proposing to put law abiding people in jail for not buying a financial product?

You said "Leftists". Now you're starting to sharpen your focus and that's good. You've apparently identified the Democratic Party which is right of centre and not "leftist". If you want to attack the Dems then go ahead, but realise they are not on the left. Over to you.

That's funny. I don't believe I have ever heard anyone claim that Democrats were right of center before.

That's because you and I have a different perspective Ollie - for me the Dems are just another right wing party, it's Coke v Pepsi.

 

[Alvin]

That's sort of true and still incomplete.
Point #1 is the most salient. With some pipe and other items from Home Depot and a drillpress and maybe a saw and files I could make a gun. Most people could. There are places on the Pakistan/Afghan border where they churn out pretty good copies of AKs, 1911s, Hi Powers etc in stores about the size of my bedroom.

That's a given, but I meant that banning guns of all types currently allowed is not a viable option. In the US that horse is looooooong gone. And to tell you the truth any bugger who suggests something like that is either an idiot or clinically insane. - You can tell the difference by the amount of drool appaently...

Point 2: But the likelihood of that happening is very very low. You are 100 times more likely to be killed in an auto accident than by a gun, no matter who is holding it. Yet no one talks about banning cars.

See above. Nobody in their right mind should consider trying to ban guns for self defence or home protection in the US. And here is where it ties back to our discussion regarding the law in the UK/Eire, In the US you are more likely to encounter an intruder armed with a firearm than you would in my country because the intruder is more likely to encounter an armed householder. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. That will not change without the pipedream of removing all guns from the equasion. (See point #1)

Point 3, agreed.

I have an idea on that, amazingly. I'll go into that in a second.

Point 4, it depends on how you want to define arsehole. I would define it as someone who has demonstrated a propensity for really poor judgment and law violation with violent tendencies.

That's pretty much how I would describe it.

That leaves an awful lot of "dodgy" people out there. But I would rather trust my fellow citizens to do the right thing than dictate to them what they can and cannot do.

That doesn't include those who can't tie their shoelaces unassisted, you know the F.O.Ds? I'd be great if you could cut them out as well. And here is my hypothetical to do just that:

Manditory training and requalification anually. If you want to own a gun for bench shooting, then a manditory safety course and rangecraft course. If you want a gun for hunting, a safety and fieldcraft course. If you want a gun for home defence, then a manditory safety course and a home inspection.
If you want one for concealed carry? all of the above.

The aim would be to turn out responcible citizens that know how and when to use a firearm properly and know when not to. They know how to store it, and they are always aware of it.

I think that that is not an unreasonable idea.

 

[The Rabbi]

I just have a problem making people jump through hoops. They ought to. They should. People ought to do a lot of things but I don't want to pass laws insisting on it.

 

[Alvin]

I just have a problem making people jump through hoops. They ought to. They should. People ought to do a lot of things but I don't want to pass laws insisting on it.

Unfortunatly it's human nature that those who should jump through hoops are the very people who don't think they should and so won't. But making it compulsory should ensure that those who have access to leathal weapons at least know how to use them correctly. Or otherwise you have a lot of accidental discharges and a smack load of paperwork for the police.
A manditory safety course at least should ensure that those who qualify for a license will store and use those weapons as they intended and not be a hazard to themselves and others. The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution ensures a right to bear arms, but it does not state the type or manner of arms. IMO if you prove yourself incapable of responsible posession of a firearm, then you are free to "bear" a stick with a nail in it. That's "armed" isn't it?

 

[JD_2B]

I personally do like both sides of the Atlantic.
Anyway, coming over by horse is rather a stupid idea...

I never said anything about coming over by horse. I said you can call your horseback officers (on your side of the pond) and wait for them to come to your rescue, rather than relying on the sure and speedy use of a bullet, if you choose. THAT, as I said before, is a stupid idea.

But serious:

Statistically you will be rather raped by your husband, a relative, a colleague from work or after a date going a little bit wrong. So, statistically, a gun will not help you.

If I have a permit to carry that gun, and I inform the people I date, marry, and am related to of that fact, then STATISTICALLY, my chances of them risking their lives to use power and control over me, and attempt to rape me, suddenly become greatly smaller.

Also, statistically, most burglars want to steal something, so they will in most cases not be interested in you, your children or your life.

Statistically, most burglars ARE just wanting to steal something.. But what they want to steal and why are two more statistics that add to a burglary victims potential mortality, which you obviously do not wish to address. No worries, I will edumacate you.

Leaves kidnapping, which is (correct me) a very rare crime.

Unfortunately, these statistics can be higher or lower depending on your gender, age, looks, and where you live. Being a female, or a teenage runaway (homeless) greatly increases the chances of being kidnapped and flung into some bizarre and horrifying sex trafficking ring, for example. Being attractive also adds to the risk of being abducted. Ever heard a man offer to give a woman a ride home, and end up taking her to his house, or a motel room, against her will? People generally overlook the fact that this is an abduction... But it is illegal, nonetheless, and EXTREMELY common, thanks.

So, statistically, someone coming to your home in order to rob, rape and kidnap your children is more than very unlikely. But, I concede, someone simply trying to steal from you will either run away at sight of your gun or shoot it out with you, when feeling cornered. In the latter case a gun might come handy.

Most criminals are looking for only a few types of things to steal, and no- your DVD player is not one of them. They look in the bathroom medicine cabinet for prescription drugs, and the bedroom dresser for a jewelery box. They want stuff that is easy to pawn or sell on the street, or get a drug fix off of.
So, being caught, they will generally have a knife or grab whatever is nearby, including a lamp or a chair, and, in a state of agonizing pain (from the drug withdrawals that most of these criminals are experiencing), will go into a fit of desperation and do whatever it takes to get that fix.
You are more than welcome to take your chances, and even leave your doors unlocked, because of how "rare" it is for someone to come and try to rob you, but I prefer to play it safe, and keep a gun nearby. =)

But I simply suppose, that having a gun gives you a sense of safety and control.
You can handle anybody coming at you or your loved ones.

Still, personally I believe (and I have made that experience as well) that a burglar being surprised runs away. If surprised by someone with a gun, the situation becomes quickly life-threatening for one or both sides.
In this situation you might be lucky or you might not. Heavily depends upon the situation.

True, it does depend on the situation.. but I feel that without a gun, I would simply be MORE likely to get shot, stabbed, hit, etc, than if I was not armed, and the criminal reacted in a violent way. I will not take chances on this.

So, personally I think that a lot of people buy guns to feel safe and to have control. Nothing wrong with that.
Only problem is, that hopefully never the situation will come, that this is tested.
If you look closely in situations where firearms were used, you will see, that in a lot of cases things went ugly.
The situation you describe is too neat. No shots hit a child running into the line of fire, no inncocent bypasser harmed, no gun fired in anger at a husband/wife/colleage.

I have had my own experiences, and seen a lot, dear, and I think you would be surprised at how many innocent children are almost shot, and how many wives I know that are more than willing to shoot back at their old man. For women, just being the woman is sometimes where things get ugly. In the case of one woman I know, her husband, to whom she was denied a restraining order, countless times, came to her house (with their teenage daughter in the back of the car), got out, and pistol whipped her, and then went to the car, and was shooting at her, from the car. She had no idea her daughter was in the car, and shot back in self defense. She almost killed her own daughter. She was arrested, based on shit, lost her cwp, and spent three months in jail. Her charges were eventually dropped, but her daughter still cant (I guess) shake the notion that she was being shot at personally, and now she lives with grandma and grandpa.

My own husband chased me with a rifle, asshole. Thank God my son was at a neighbors house that night. Women are treated like shit in America. You just don't see it, probably because you are a man, and you don't experience it. I now wish I had just picked up that rifle (that I owned) myself, and kicked his ass out, but I just don't believe in intimidating people using firearms. Oh and that was a middle class suburb. Real artsy fartsy, too.. And that jackass also got away with it, along with all of his other crimes. And yes- I got lucky, but I was smart. I knew he would only fire if he felt he could get away with it, and I got my ass on the phone, called 911, and pretended the operator had already picked up. That was what saved my life. Thankfully he wasn't on coke that night, or he would have killed me, as soon as he heard me SAY I was calling 911. Cocaine makes people ultra swift, feeling like they are invincible. Any other man would have shot me anyways.. The husband (ex husband, well we are separated, I am still too scared to file for divorce, 7 years later) was a sociopath, but smarter than the average bear.

As said before, I really doubt, that in a nice, middle-class suburb a lot of firefights will happen, although the number of arms will be higher than in a comparable area in Spain, Germany or France. Why ?
Because in most cases a responsible citizen acts responsible.
Does this prevent crime ?
Depending upon the situation.

My ex doesn't have a criminal record. He is not responsible, though..
And in middle class neighborhoods, you would be surprised at how much gun violence there is. Violence is not something that only occurs in the slums, you know. It happens EVERYWHERE.

Most likely someone like above will in general have a smaller risk of being a crime victim than someone living in an area with high unemployment, social tensions and a drug problem.
What if he becomes a crime victim, will a gun help ?
Difficult to say, as stated above, it depends upon the crime and the situation.

Bullshit. You don't know what you are talking about, obviously. Every type of neighborhood has drug problems, sex offenders, unemployment, social tensions, and violence. Look at Tiger fucking Woods, for Christ's Sake! The man is worth a billion dollars, and his wife probably just about wants him dead right about now.. Even in the "safest" places on the planet- Jails, and hospitals, even, full of armed guards- there are still murders, drug use, and violence.
A person's risk of death depends MAINLY on how well prepared they are to defend themselves against that criminal. Period. The situation does not matter at all.. You have to be a good chess player, and anticipate your opponent's move before he makes it.
You need to understand- when you are walking down the street, walking into the grocery store, and screwing around on the cellphone, not paying attention to your surroundings, that is something a criminal will notice, and when they will strike. A woman standing close to the street, waiting for a ride, will be more likely to be attacked, than one standing near the wall, away from the road. A child who is outside by himself is more likely to be the one who is molested. And if you want to talk statistics, do you know that one in five kids in America are molested? It is NOT an uncommon problem, as you like to think. One in three women are raped. Half of all women who are killed, are murdered by an intimate partner, and the majority of all murders, in total, men and women, are by a stranger. Check the DOJ website. There are fact sheets on this stuff.

So, feeling safe and being safe are not necessarily the same thing.

No, but being prepared and aware of the possibility of violence, in ANY type of neighborhood, sure help your chances of survival. And leaving a gun in some storage unit sure isn't the best way to prepare, IMHO.

As I see it, Americans and a lot of others rather mistrust their government and police and therefore feel the need to arm themselves.
Also, being able to defend yourself and the right to own and carry a firearm, is a constitutional right, which is held high.

On my side of the pond people rather feel unsafe when seeing a firearm. Also, in general, the mistrust to our government is not so deep-rooted, that we feel the need to arm ourselves.

It used to be..and for some of ya, it still is- Hence the fact that WE pretty much all hail from that side of the pond.

So, from your perspective we are pussies.
From our perspective you are guncrazy lunatics.

regards
ze germanguy

regards
ze germanguy

Not pussies, just unprepared self made slaves to criminal activity, and your own government. And we aren't lunatics, although I do like the word "guncrazy".
Hope you have a safe night.. I KNOW I will.

 

[JD_2B]

I just have a problem making people jump through hoops. They ought to. They should. People ought to do a lot of things but I don't want to pass laws insisting on it.

Unfortunatly it's human nature that those who should jump through hoops are the very people who don't think they should and so won't. But making it compulsory should ensure that those who have access to leathal weapons at least know how to use them correctly. Or otherwise you have a lot of accidental discharges and a smack load of paperwork for the police.
A manditory safety course at least should ensure that those who qualify for a license will store and use those weapons as they intended and not be a hazard to themselves and others. The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution ensures a right to bear arms, but it does not state the type or manner of arms. IMO if you prove yourself incapable of responsible posession of a firearm, then you are free to "bear" a stick with a nail in it. That's "armed" isn't it?

Honestly, if the person is not in jail, then the person should be allowed a gun. I don't give a shit what their past crimes were, or how violent they were, or what kind of drug problems or mental illness they have. Everyone has a right to defend themselves, in my opinion. Trading your freedom for a little safety is only the first stage in allowing a tyrannic government ruin your life. (and don't start with me and the whole "Why don't you trust the government", bull. I am sick and damned tired of all the governmental disarming strategies that have succeeded.) Hell, I am a veteran, and even I don't trust the government. Why would a common citizen, then?

 

[The Rabbi]

I just have a problem making people jump through hoops. They ought to. They should. People ought to do a lot of things but I don't want to pass laws insisting on it.

Unfortunatly it's human nature that those who should jump through hoops are the very people who don't think they should and so won't. But making it compulsory should ensure that those who have access to leathal weapons at least know how to use them correctly. Or otherwise you have a lot of accidental discharges and a smack load of paperwork for the police.
A manditory safety course at least should ensure that those who qualify for a license will store and use those weapons as they intended and not be a hazard to themselves and others. The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution ensures a right to bear arms, but it does not state the type or manner of arms. IMO if you prove yourself incapable of responsible posession of a firearm, then you are free to "bear" a stick with a nail in it. That's "armed" isn't it?

Here every state sets the requirements for a permit. Some states, like TN, require an 8 hour class and a written and range test. Others, like IN, only require you to fill out a form and pass a background check.
Now, both states have had their permit schemes in place for over 10 years. You would expect a big variation, with Tennesseans having significantly fewer ND's, fewer bad shoots, etc. Funny thing is, the data don't support that contention. As far as I know the incidences of such things are pretty much the same in both states.
In fact, it appears, after 40 years' worth of experiment, it appears that states with the most restrictive laws also have the worst gun crimes and accidents.

 

[Missourian]

Depends on what statistics you care to use. Anyone can find the ones to back their ideals if they try.
But there are things that both sides can agree on.
1. Guns are here. There is no way that is ever going to change.
2. You are more likely to be shot in an accident, or by a family or friend than in a home invasion.
3. If you are going to be around guns, it's best that you know how and when to use them.
4. And just becasue it's a right, - doesn't mean that every arsehole should be let near them.

1. I agree.


2. I'm not sure what your point is here. Here are the statistics from the CDC:

Accidental Deaths, firearm .......................................642

Homicides, firearm...............................................12,794
.
.
.
.
.


Accidental non-fatal injuries, firearm ......................17,215

Assault non-fatal injuries, firearm ..........................56,626
.
.
.

Total non-fatal assaults, all weapons..................1,620,622

CDC - WISQARS (Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System)


​

Neither the CDC nor the FBI nor the Bureau of Justice Statistics broke out any numbers by "family or friends" that I could find.

3. I agree.

4. If you use Rabbi's definition:

"I would define it as someone who has demonstrated a propensity for really poor judgment and law violation with violent tendencies."

I concur.
​

 

[Missourian]

I just have a problem making people jump through hoops. They ought to. They should. People ought to do a lot of things but I don't want to pass laws insisting on it.

Unfortunatly it's human nature that those who should jump through hoops are the very people who don't think they should and so won't. But making it compulsory should ensure that those who have access to leathal weapons at least know how to use them correctly. Or otherwise you have a lot of accidental discharges and a smack load of paperwork for the police.
A manditory safety course at least should ensure that those who qualify for a license will store and use those weapons as they intended and not be a hazard to themselves and others. The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution ensures a right to bear arms, but it does not state the type or manner of arms. IMO if you prove yourself incapable of responsible posession of a firearm, then you are free to "bear" a stick with a nail in it. That's "armed" isn't it?

Here every state sets the requirements for a permit. Some states, like TN, require an 8 hour class and a written and range test. Others, like IN, only require you to fill out a form and pass a background check.
Now, both states have had their permit schemes in place for over 10 years. You would expect a big variation, with Tennesseans having significantly fewer ND's, fewer bad shoots, etc. Funny thing is, the data don't support that contention. As far as I know the incidences of such things are pretty much the same in both states.

In fact, it appears, after 40 years' worth of experiment, it appears that states with the most restrictive laws also have the worst gun crimes and accidents.

I've never compared accidents, but I did compare homicides by state.

[FONT=arial,arial]These are the 13 states with the most pro-Second Amendment laws according to the Brady Center (Oklahoma being the most pro-Second Amendment in the nation) with total firearm murders from 2007 according to the FBI and population from the Census Bureau:[/FONT]​

----------State-----------------------------# of Firearm Homicides-----------Population​

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

• Arkansas ----------------------130 ------------2,810,872
• [FONT=arial,arial]Idaho -------------------------------------------------25 ---------------------1,466,465[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]New Mexico ---------------------------------------81 ---------------------1,954,599[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]South Dakota ---------------------------------------4 -----------------------781,919[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]West Virginia --------------------------------------37 --------------------1,818,470[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Mississippi ---------------------------------------119 ---------------------2,910,540[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Alaska -----------------------------------------------21 --------------------- 670,053[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Louisiana ------------------------------------------455----------------------4,287,768[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Missouri -------------------------------------------247 ---------------------5,842,713[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]North Dakota ----------------------------------------3 -----------------------635,867[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Utah ---------------------------------------------------38 --------------------2,550,063[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Kentucky ------------------------------------------131 --------------------4,206,074[/FONT]
• [FONT=arial,arial]Oklahoma -------------------------------- --------132 --------------------3,579,212[/FONT]

And the 13 strictest gun control states according to the Brady Center (California being the strictest in the nation) with total firearm murders from 2007 according to the FBI and population from the Census Bureau:

• California -----------------------1,605-----36,457,549
• New Jersey ----------------------260-------8,724,560
• Connecticut ----------------------57 -------3,504,809
• Massachusetts ------------------114 -------6,437,193
• Maryland ------------------------414------- 5,615,727
• New York ------------------------500 -----19,306,183
• Rhode Island -------------------- --9 ------ 1,067,610
• Hawaii -----------------------------3 -------1,285,498
• Illinois ---------------------------343* -----12,831,970
• Pennsylvania ---------------------527 ------12,440,621
• Michigan -------------------------444 ------10,095,643
• Delaware--------------------------22 ---------853,476
• North Carolina--------------------369 --------8,856,505

* incomplete data received by the FBI


The District of Columbia is not listed on the Brady Center ranking list but it did have the strictest gun control in the nation in 2007:

• District of Columbia-----------------181--------581,530

So here is the break down for firearm homicides per number of citizens per state plus the District of Columbia with Washington D.C. being the most dangerous place to live with 1 out of every 3,212 residents murdered by firearms and Hawaii being the safest with 1 out of every 428,499 residents murdered by firearms.


The number listed is the population divided by the total firearm homicides to render 1 homicide per (X) number of residents. (Red are Strict Gun Control, Blue are Pro-gun)

1. District of Columbia -----------1 / 3,212
2. Louisiana ---------------------1 / 9,423
3. Maryland ---------------------1 / 13,564
4. Arkansas ---------------------1 / 21,622
5. California ---------------------1 / 22,714
6. Michigan ---------------------1 / 22,737
7. Pennsylvania -----------------1 / 23,606
8. Missouri ----------------------1 / 23,654
9. North Carolina ----------------1 / 24,001
10. New Mexico ------------------1 / 24,130
11. Mississippi --------------------1 / 24,458
12. Oklahoma --------------------1 / 25,115
13. Alaska -----------------------1 / 31,907
14. Kentucky ---------------------1 / 32,107
15. New Jersey -------------------1 / 33,556
16. Illinois ------------------------1 / 37,410
17. New York ---------------------1 / 38,612
18. Delaware ---------------------1 / 38,794
19. West Virgina ------------------1 / 49,147
20. Massachusetts ----------------1 / 56,466
21. Idaho -------------------------1 / 58,658
22. Connecticut -------------------1 / 61,487
23. Utah --------------------------1 / 67,106
24. Rhode Island -------------------1 / 118,623
25. South Dakota ------------------1 / 195,479
26. North Dakota -------------------1 / 211,955
27. Hawaii -------------------------1 / 428,499

Bottom line, stricter firearm laws have no effect on firearm homicides.


That is why the Brady Center uses violent crime or firearm deaths instead of actual firearm homicides even though the firearm homicides are provided by the FBI online every year.






Link to FBI Stats Table 20 - Crime in the United States 2007

Link to Brady Center state rankings list http://www.stategunlaws.org/xshare/p...d_rankings.pdf

Population from the U.S. Census Bureau State and County QuickFacts

Wikipedia Firearm Homicides for the District of Columbia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.


This blog is entirely my own work and research...reproduce it freely in support of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Chris]

Horseshit.

The Japanese have almost no firearm homicides.

 

[Missourian]

Obviously there are other variables at play. Suicide is considered "honorable" in Japanese culture for example. But in the United States loose gun laws make it easier for people to kill themselves and others, and the state statistics show this clearly.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rting-gun-ownership-rights-12.html#post991243


Learn from your past mistakes, Idiot.

You were proved wrong then, you are wrong again now.

The only horseshit in this thread is between your ears.

Begone, retardotroll.

 

[Missourian]

Another blast from the past from retardotroll:

No they don't they have slightly more gun violence but much more of everything else of everything else.

Your second listing is estimates of this tied to estimates of that. Very scientific. It is also interesting to note that DC with the toughest anti gun ordinances in the country has nearly twice as much violent crime as any state in the union and it is but one city.

The other problem with your study is that you are going state wide when in fact only a county by county survey is truly useful in derterming whats at play

Wrong.

We are only concerned the laws of this country, not Belarus.

And DC's murder rate has fallen by more than HALF in the last 15 years.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ting-gun-ownership-rights-15.html#post1002927


Or Japan.

 

[B94]

I am a citizen of the USA. I like guns. Try to take my guns and there will be a fight. Try to hurt me or my family and I will use them to stop you or die trying. I believe open carry and concealed carry should be legal in the USA.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgrIsuO5PLc[/ame]

1 - A hand gun for carry.

2 - A shotgun for at home.

3 - An AR-15 to protect the first two.


Oh, and remember when seconds count the police are just minutes away.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/97661-homeowner-shooting-killing-intruder.html


.