CDZ Gun laws

Should concealed carry, castle doctrine, and stand your ground, be nationwide?

  • 1. Yes

    Votes: 24 82.8%
  • 2. No

    Votes: 5 17.2%
  • 3. Unsure

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    29

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
2,244
Points
325
you don't seem to understand that a minuscule percentage of crimes and / or murders are committed with rifles of any kind.

You morons fixate on a rifle instead of on the actual causes of crime.
Nobody has suggested that this discussion shouldn't be about handguns too. In fact it's my opinion that is more important than discussion on various rifles or assault weapons.
The discussion is over and has been for some time. The Constitution is the law and it says what it says. End of story.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
86,064
Reaction score
25,135
Points
2,180
I'm all for concealed carry and the castle doctrine.

Stand your ground sounds good on paper but is way too easily abused. It basically means that you can start the confrontation, then pull your gun and start firing once you feel threatened. It's abused daily in Florida.

Actually, nothing that you posted about Stand your Ground is true or accurate.

You can't start the confrontation and shoot someone and claim Stand your Ground as a defense....it isn't abused daily in Florida....where do you get that false information?
If there are no witnesses, you can claim that the other person started it and was about to attack you when you shot them. I know someone that got away with doing just that. Dead men tell no tales.

It may not be happening everyday. That was conjecture on my part.

Sorry.......your story doesn't detract from the importance of Stand Your Ground laws.......too many people who defend themselves are ruined by the following legal procedures...simply because some left wing prosecutor wants to make an example of them.....
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
86,064
Reaction score
25,135
Points
2,180
If there are no witnesses, you can claim that the other person started it and was about to attack you when you shot them. I know someone that got away with doing just that. Dead men tell no tales.

It may not be happening everyday. That was conjecture on my part.
If you want to hear a Canadian's interpretation of 'Stand Your Ground' laws, I would suggest it's just another term for 'legalized murder' of your fellow Americans.
that took a lot of stupid to say,,

stand your ground just means you dont have to run and hide while someone rapes your wife and steals your stuff,,
That is the castle doctrine.

No...that depends on where it happens...in your home it is the Castle Doctrine, on the street it is Stand Your Ground.
 

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
26,567
Reaction score
12,115
Points
1,100
If there are no witnesses, you can claim that the other person started it and was about to attack you when you shot them. I know someone that got away with doing just that. Dead men tell no tales.

It may not be happening everyday. That was conjecture on my part.
If you want to hear a Canadian's interpretation of 'Stand Your Ground' laws, I would suggest it's just another term for 'legalized murder' of your fellow Americans.
that took a lot of stupid to say,,

stand your ground just means you dont have to run and hide while someone rapes your wife and steals your stuff,,
That is the castle doctrine.
both are pretty much the same,, in missouri the castle doctrine goes beyond just your at home,,
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
86,064
Reaction score
25,135
Points
2,180
most are actually repeat offenders and their first crime wasn't with a gun
The distinction is: They were law abiding gun owners before they became criminals with guns.
Wrong.....again, people who use guns for crime are about 90% actual criminals long before they used a gun for crime......normal people who own guns for sport, self defense and hunting don't turn into criminals simply because they have a gun......
 

Hidden

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2020
Messages
1,626
Reaction score
670
Points
163
Location
Texas
Sorry.......your story doesn't detract from the importance of Stand Your Ground laws.......too many people who defend themselves are ruined by the following legal procedures...simply because some left wing prosecutor wants to make an example of them.....
Bah! That's what lawyers are for. You're going to need one whether you are standing your ground or not.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
86,064
Reaction score
25,135
Points
2,180
It appears that it's going to be impossible for the Democratic party to hold any outdoor events now, for risk of shooters being in the crowd.
Lack of appropriate laws to limit the carrying of guns has created the situation.
Public appearances by leftists will likely now need to be behind bullet proof glass!
Is this the outcome a nation would want being created?

Yet, there's little doubt that the situation can't be reversed.

Safety is one of the factors that made America 15th. on quality of life!

Gun Laws, the title of this thread, is nothing but a dead end road. A discussion on what could be done about America being awash with extremists carrying guns would give this thread some direction.

Wrong.......again...you do not know what you are talking about...

Only one person was shot at the Capitol....an unarmed, female Trump supporter.

For 4 years Trump has had rallies of the 10s of thousands.....50-70 thousand people at an event....not one shot fired.

Democrat party voters have murdered 30 people over the last 7 months while they burned and looted cities.......

You really do not understand the issue.

600 million guns in private hands....over 19.4 million Americans legally carry guns for self defense in public.....

One person was shot at one riot by a tiny group of Trump supporters, and the person shot was an unarmed female Trump supporter.


Nothing you stated in your post is based in the facts on the ground.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
86,064
Reaction score
25,135
Points
2,180
It appears that it's going to be impossible for the Democratic party to hold any outdoor events now, for risk of shooters being in the crowd.
Lack of appropriate laws to limit the carrying of guns has created the situation.
Public appearances by leftists will likely now need to be behind bullet proof glass!
Is this the outcome a nation would want being created?

Yet, there's little doubt that the situation can't be reversed.

Safety is one of the factors that made America 15th. on quality of life!

Gun Laws, the title of this thread, is nothing but a dead end road. A discussion on what could be done about America being awash with extremists carrying guns would give this thread some direction.
Safety is one of the factors that made America 15th. on quality of life!

If safety is a concern then look at the cities where safety is most in danger and you will find the democrat party in charge of those cities....their policies attacking the police, releasing violent criminals over and over again.....those are the policies that erode safety in American cities........

Safety is not eroded by normal Americans owning and carrying guns for self defense......27 years of experience shows this...


Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,547
Reaction score
2,819
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ AZrailwhale, et al,

BLUF: These are working weapons and not sport rifles

I used to own a Colt Sporter AR15. Like most owners, the only thing I ever fired it at were paper targets. AR15s are nice guns to fire, they are reasonably accurate, have low recoil and don't suffer from reliability problems.
(COMMENT)

The Contemporary AR-15
(Semi-Auto) and M-16 (Auto) are not sport rifles. And if they were used as hunting rifles, for most people it would be a very poor choice of a weapon.

Similarly, the M-4
(Contemporary) and the original XM-177 (Vietnam War vintage) are nothing more than combat modified M-16s with various different stocks and a 10" barrel. When I was in Da Nang I had several friends with XM-177s over at TF1 FTAG FTAE and MACV. The M-4/M-177 are easier to maneuver in the Jeep/HMMWV or a Slike/Black Hawk/Chinooks and even in C-130s. But they are used for attriting hostiles → the OPFOR.

Each of these weapons was primarily designed and or modified with one purpose in mind: "people hunting." They are plastic and aluminum death machines (PADMs) used to seek out and engage animals that fire back.
(Not dear or rabbits.) You can rationalize it all you want. But at the end of the day, you are just trying to justify the weapon for civilian use. Can you have some fun with them? Yeah, I suppose you can.

Just my thoughts,
(one man's opinion,)

SIGIL PAIR.png

Most Respectfully,
R
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
86,064
Reaction score
25,135
Points
2,180
And there were also people who were law-abiding social drinkers before they became criminals with cars.
True enough but why is that important to this thread?

I wonder how many violent crimes committed with firearms are the result of alcohol abuse.
A good question as a contribution to this thread! How many legal gun owners got liquored up before they took their guns home to murder their wives or children?
Almost zero........again....when you have domestic violence it isn't gun ownership that is the driving factor......drug addiction, alcohol addiction and a history of crime and violence is the determining factor, not gun ownership.......

You should really look into this issue if you want to post accurately on it....

Public Health and Gun Control --- A Review (Part II: Gun Violence and Constitutional Issues) | Hacienda Publishing

Another favorite view of the gun control, public health establishment is the myth propounded by Dr. Mark Rosenberg, former head of the NCIPC of the CDC, who has written: "Most of the perpetrators of violence are not criminals by trade or profession. Indeed, in the area of domestic violence, most of the perpetrators are never accused of any crime. The victims and perpetrators are ourselves --- ordinary citizens, students, professionals, and even public health workers."(6)

That statement is contradicted by available data, government data. The fact is that the typical murderer has had a prior criminal history of at least six years with four felony arrests in his record before he finally commits murder.



(17) The FBI statistics reveal that 75 percent of all violent crimes for any locality are committed by six percent of hardened criminals and repeat offenders.(18)



Less than 2 percent of crimes committed with firearms are carried out by licensed (e.g., concealed carry permit holders) law-abiding citizens.(11)

Violent crimes continue to be a problem in the inner cities with gangs involved in the drug trade. Crimes in rural areas for both blacks and whites, despite the preponderance of guns in this setting, remain low.(11,19)



Gun availability does not cause crime. Prohibitionist government policies and gun control (rather than crime control) exacerbates the problem by making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, their families, and their property. In fact, there was a modest increase in both homicide and suicide after prohibition and passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.(20)
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
86,064
Reaction score
25,135
Points
2,180
You don't understand the analogy I'm making between guns and alcohol?
You could say that I don't understand the distinction that you think I should understand. I'll be the one who chooses my distinctions.

Attitudes on gun rights are likely the biggest factor that has created the gun violence problem. But the first step is having some people agree that there IS a problem.

Some who are taking part on this thread are loudly advertising their attitude problems.

Let's have a good clean discussion on the gun problem in America. There must be 'some' issue that can be discussed in the CDZ that doesn't become poison?

There isn't a problem.....the problem is the democrat party and it's criminal justice policies......

Of the 10,265 gun murders in 2019, 70-80% of them are criminals murdering other criminals.....the rest? The majority of those victims are friends and family of criminals engaged in criminal activity.

The democrat party and its policies.......attacking law enforcement which creates a lack of proactive, crime disrupting policing....and the non-stop releasing of repeat violent offenders drives our gun crime rates....not normal people who own and carry guns for self defense.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
86,064
Reaction score
25,135
Points
2,180
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ AZrailwhale, et al,

BLUF: These are working weapons and not sport rifles

I used to own a Colt Sporter AR15. Like most owners, the only thing I ever fired it at were paper targets. AR15s are nice guns to fire, they are reasonably accurate, have low recoil and don't suffer from reliability problems.
(COMMENT)

The Contemporary AR-15
(Semi-Auto) and M-16 (Auto) are not sport rifles. And if they were used as hunting rifles, for most people it would be a very poor choice of a weapon.

Similarly, the M-4
(Contemporary) and the original XM-177 (Vietnam War vintage) are nothing more than combat modified M-16s with various different stocks and a 10" barrel. When I was in Da Nang I had several friends with XM-177s over at TF1 FTAG FTAE and MACV. The M-4/M-177 are easier to maneuver in the Jeep/HMMWV or a Slike/Black Hawk/Chinooks and even in C-130s. But they are used for attriting hostiles → the OPFOR.

Each of these weapons was primarily designed and or modified with one purpose in mind: "people hunting." They are plastic and aluminum death machines (PADMs) used to seek out and engage animals that fire back.
(Not dear or rabbits.) You can rationalize it all you want. But at the end of the day, you are just trying to justify the weapon for civilian use. Can you have some fun with them? Yeah, I suppose you can.

Just my thoughts,
(one man's opinion,)

SIGIL PAIR.png

Most Respectfully,
R

And you are wrong...the AR-15 is a civilian rifle...it is used by law abiding citizens and law enforcment.......there are 20 million of them in private hands, and they are used to commit murder less often than knives, clubs and empty hands........

The AR-15 is not a military rifle......the pump action shotgun is an actual military weapon in current use by the military.....the bolt action rifle is a military rifle...in current use by the military......

You really don't know what you are talking about.
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,547
Reaction score
2,819
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ AZrailwhale, et al,

BLUF: You are dead right. These other activities are quite numerous. But the AR-15 was a modification of the M-16 so that the automatic sear could not be used. That alone does not change the purpose. It only brings the weapon into compliance.

And you are wrong...the AR-15 is a civilian rifle...it is used by law abiding citizens and law enforcment.......there are 20 million of them in private hands, and they are used to commit murder less often than knives, clubs and empty hands........

The AR-15 is not a military rifle......the pump action shotgun is an actual military weapon in current use by the military.....the bolt action rifle is a military rifle...in current use by the military......

You really don't know what you are talking about.
(COMMENT)

Yeah, Yeah, and I don't want to argue with you about multi-purpose weapons versus military-purpose weapons. But what you have just done here is an example of "rationalization." It is in the family of fallacies.



Rationalization.png


I bow to your greater knowledge.

Again → Just my thoughts, (one man's opinion,)

SIGIL PAIR.png

Most Respectfully,
R
 

Bob Blaylock

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
14,921
Reaction score
6,809
Points
400
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
you mean spammers like people that dont [sic] live in this country telling us how we should do things???
Perhaps a little more to the point, those who live in a country that was founded on kissing the ass of a horrendous tyrant, on cowering and groveling before that tyrant; trying to tell those of us who live in a country that was founded in violent defiance and rebellion against that same tyrant, how we should run our country.

This distinction really shows in Donald H's arguments; he wants us Americans to change our attitude, rooted in the defiant foundation of our country, to be more in line with one more suited to the cowardly foundation of his own country.

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” — Samuel Adams​
 

Donald H

Active Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
929
Reaction score
246
Points
43
Thank you to everyone who has observed the 1 hour cooling off period. Perhaps we can resume the conversation now with cooler heads and more on-topic comments.

I suggest we pickup where we left off on Americans attitudes toward their use of their guns. Is my suggestion of not allowing human silouette targets on civilian ranges, worth considering?
 

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
26,567
Reaction score
12,115
Points
1,100
Thank you to everyone who has observed the 1 hour cooling off period. Perhaps we can resume the conversation now with cooler heads and more on-topic comments.

I suggest we pickup where we left off on Americans attitudes toward their use of their guns. Is my suggestion of not allowing human silouette targets on civilian ranges, worth considering?
what would you know about the attitudes of people in a country you dont live in??

and NO your opinion isnt worth considering,,
 

Donald H

Active Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
929
Reaction score
246
Points
43
Thank you to everyone who has observed the 1 hour cooling off period. Perhaps we can resume the conversation now with cooler heads and more on-topic comments.

I suggest we pickup where we left off on Americans attitudes toward their use of their guns. Is my suggestion of not allowing human silouette targets on civilian ranges, worth considering?
Also possible would be banning anyone wearing camo costumes on private civilian ranges. It would only need an interpretation of rights to consider dressing up with an intention of inciting violence, is not necessary and is harmful to others who are only interested in peaceful use of their guns.
 

Briss

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2021
Messages
286
Reaction score
87
Points
143
I asked you a legitimate question. Short of disarming the whole country, what do propose?
Disarming the entire country is obviously impossible and so I took it as a silly question that didn't deserve an answer.

My proposal is: Changing attitudes in America so that extremists wouldn't be so preoccupied with using their guns for killing people. And that's not a simple task.
But accepting that something needs to be done is perhaps the first step!

Even something as simple as ranges supplying their own targets that don't include human silouette targets would be a very big step forward on changing attitudes. (maybe charging 10 cents each)

Can you think of any other small first steps?

What is the pleasure of owning and using an AR type assault weapon if your local range doesn't allow human silouette targets?
This is just silly to the Max. You're one of those who've assigned magical powers to shapes that scare you, like silhouettes and plastic things that hang down from the trigger housing of rifles. You don't honestly believe that catering to peoples' irrational fears of silhouettes and plastic things is any kind of a solution, do you. What's your beef with pistol-grips?
 
Last edited:

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
86,064
Reaction score
25,135
Points
2,180
Thank you to everyone who has observed the 1 hour cooling off period. Perhaps we can resume the conversation now with cooler heads and more on-topic comments.

I suggest we pickup where we left off on Americans attitudes toward their use of their guns. Is my suggestion of not allowing human silouette targets on civilian ranges, worth considering?

No. Normal gun owners are not the problem. The policies of the democrat party that demonize the police, and release violent, repeat gun offenders over and over again cause 95% of our gun crime.......why don't you focus on that instead of the gun owners who don't use their guns for crime?
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
86,064
Reaction score
25,135
Points
2,180
So your solution to a demonstration turning violent is to use automatic weapons, grenade launchers and rockets on a crowd. How many innocent bystanders and protestors are you willing to sacrifice to kill a few or a few hundred violent rioters? You are worse than the Chinese Government that used tanks for crowd control at Tiananmen Square.
There's little doubt that the current situation surrounding your Capitol is so dangerous as to need 25,000 armed troops there for the duration of the inauguration ceremonies.
and--
PERHAPS ON A PERMANENT BASIS!

That's worth at least suggesting, even though it deviates a little from the topic.

Another solution could be helicopter gunships in the air over the Capitol permanently.
or
Heavy caliber machine guns placed 50 feet apart on the roofs of the Capital.

They don't need those troops...what you don't understand is that those troops are there for theatrical and propaganda purposes....the democrat party is lying about the need for those troops in order to smear Trump supporters...............the democrat party put those troops there because they want to lie to the American people.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top