How Again is Gun Control Beneficial?

[K9Buck]

I can't even assure you that you and my family won't be the target attacked by a helicopter gunship.

That is correct. Nobody can assure us that gun-wielding thugs will not come into our homes and kill us and/or our families. Until I can be persuaded otherwise, my vote is for those that respect my right to own a gun to protect myself and my family.

I think the only thing that can be "assured" is that, when some lowlife murders a family in cold-blood, the anti-gun nuts will not lose any sleep for the murdered yet will cry, whine and protest when the lowlife is sent to the gallow to get what is rightfully coming to him.

 

[ConHog]

I'm anti gun laws restricting ownership, but I DO feel more control should be in place as to who can own guns , and so forth. I mean i have a 25 y/o female cousin who is about 5'2" and 130 lbs who carries a .357 Magnum around in her purse just because she can. I've seen her shoot, it's pathetic, she has NO business carrying a gun, and I've told her that a million times, but it's her right she screams as she can't hit a standard sized pistol target for 25 feet. My own wife carries a 9mm ladysmith and can shoot the pecker off a grasshopper at 25'.

 

[Cantancrus]

I think you people that argue over guns are amusing, because in close quarters I don't want a gun, I want a nightstick or a baseball bat.

 

[Cantancrus]

While you clowns are whipping out the tape measure to see whose gun is bigger, I'll be hacking you to death with a machete.

 

[JBeukema]

I'm anti gun laws restricting ownership, but I DO feel more control should be in place as to who can own guns , and so forth.

The first and second halves of that sentence seem to contradict eachother

 

[FA_Q2]

I think you people that argue over guns are amusing, because in close quarters I don't want a gun, I want a nightstick or a baseball bat.

A pistol is FAR more effective, close range or not. A baseball bat may hurt but a gun will STOP a perpetrator and ensure that you are not harmed further.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm anti gun laws restricting ownership, but I DO feel more control should be in place as to who can own guns , and so forth. I mean i have a 25 y/o female cousin who is about 5'2" and 130 lbs who carries a .357 Magnum around in her purse just because she can. I've seen her shoot, it's pathetic, she has NO business carrying a gun, and I've told her that a million times, but it's her right she screams as she can't hit a standard sized pistol target for 25 feet. My own wife carries a 9mm ladysmith and can shoot the pecker off a grasshopper at 25'.

I feel your pain but it is her right. You can rest assured though that an individual that is not trained or comfortable using a weapon is highly unlikely to actually pull it out and use it. In order to effectively use a weapon it needs to be practiced to a point that you barely need to think about it other than where your target is and what your situation/surroundings are. That is why there is not a major problem with legal carriers shooting the wrong target. Usually, if you pull your weapon out in the heat of the moment it is because you are trained and comfortable with the weapon.

 

[editec]

I was flipping through my Sirius stations today and happened upon "The Ed Show". Ed was screaming, yes, "screaming" at a very mild mannered man who had called in to his show. Ed called him "insane" because he supported the recent supreme court decision regarding gun control.

On an aside I wondered how someone as enlightened as Ed would go into hysterics and make personal attacks against his caller. I thought the tolerant left didn't regress to such antics.

Anyway, I'd like someone from the "enlightened" side of the political aisle to explain something to me.

I'm a middle-class, middle-aged white guy with a wife, kids, home, mortgage and dog. We live in the suburbs of Orlando, Florida. How will my giving my gun change the near-constant shootings that occur in the inner cities? I know a cop and he told me what is insane is to rely on the police to protect myself and my family. I believed him. If I give up my gun, can Ed, Obama, Pelosi or some other person assure me that my home won't be the target of a gun-wielding home invader?

I'm willing to be persuaded. Please, enlighten me. Thank you.

Gun control needs a clearer definition.

Should citizens have the absolute right to arm themselves?

ABSOLUTE RIGHT is the problem, I think.

Does that include a citizens right to have a nuclear weapons?

I think probably not.

And I also think most people (even guns queers) would agree with that sort of controls

I think people ought to have the right to weapons of self and home defence.

So were do we draw the line on what kids of weapons people can legally have?

I'd like to hear from those of you who are totally against gun control to tell me if there is ANY limit that you think we should have on weapons ownership.

Should citizens have bombs to protect ourselves and our families?

Flamethrowers?

Machine guns?

Seriously.

I want to know where you guys think we ought to draw the line, if ya'll think any line needs be drawn at all.

 

[FA_Q2]

I was flipping through my Sirius stations today and happened upon "The Ed Show". Ed was screaming, yes, "screaming" at a very mild mannered man who had called in to his show. Ed called him "insane" because he supported the recent supreme court decision regarding gun control.

On an aside I wondered how someone as enlightened as Ed would go into hysterics and make personal attacks against his caller. I thought the tolerant left didn't regress to such antics.

Anyway, I'd like someone from the "enlightened" side of the political aisle to explain something to me.

I'm a middle-class, middle-aged white guy with a wife, kids, home, mortgage and dog. We live in the suburbs of Orlando, Florida. How will my giving my gun change the near-constant shootings that occur in the inner cities? I know a cop and he told me what is insane is to rely on the police to protect myself and my family. I believed him. If I give up my gun, can Ed, Obama, Pelosi or some other person assure me that my home won't be the target of a gun-wielding home invader?

I'm willing to be persuaded. Please, enlighten me. Thank you.

Gun control needs a clearer definition.

Should citizens have the absolute right to arm themselves?

ABSOLUTE RIGHT is the problem, I think.

Does that include a citizens right to have a nuclear weapons?

I think probably not.

And I also think most people (even guns queers) would agree with that sort of controls

I think people ought to have the right to weapons of self and home defence.

So were do we draw the line on what kids of weapons people can legally have?

I'd like to hear from those of you who are totally against gun control to tell me if there is ANY limit that you think we should have on weapons ownership.

Should citizens have bombs to protect ourselves and our families?

Flamethrowers?

Machine guns?

Seriously.

I want to know where you guys think we ought to draw the line, if ya'll think any line needs be drawn at all.

I am actually at a conundrum here. I believe in limits, some things simply are over the top but I also believe in the constitution. The main reason for the second amendment was a protection from the GOVERNMENT. In that regard, almost all weaponry should be legal. We do, however, live in a changed world that includes things like terrorism and there are plenty of people that are walking among us and crazy. The damage that can be done with a rocket launcher is grossly extensive and people should not own them. The founders had no concept of what weaponry would become and were not able to plan for that. Perhaps an amendment should be entered into the constitution that defines that right. Gun laws should be MUCH further relaxed from what they are today though. Gun ban like those that ban assault weapons mainly target weapons that 'look' dangerous instead of weapons that actually need to be banned. The problem is politician's are writing the laws and not gun experts. All and all, I see no reason to limit handguns and would prefer relaxed regulation over what many places have today.

 

[editec]

I was flipping through my Sirius stations today and happened upon "The Ed Show". Ed was screaming, yes, "screaming" at a very mild mannered man who had called in to his show. Ed called him "insane" because he supported the recent supreme court decision regarding gun control.

On an aside I wondered how someone as enlightened as Ed would go into hysterics and make personal attacks against his caller. I thought the tolerant left didn't regress to such antics.

Anyway, I'd like someone from the "enlightened" side of the political aisle to explain something to me.

I'm a middle-class, middle-aged white guy with a wife, kids, home, mortgage and dog. We live in the suburbs of Orlando, Florida. How will my giving my gun change the near-constant shootings that occur in the inner cities? I know a cop and he told me what is insane is to rely on the police to protect myself and my family. I believed him. If I give up my gun, can Ed, Obama, Pelosi or some other person assure me that my home won't be the target of a gun-wielding home invader?

I'm willing to be persuaded. Please, enlighten me. Thank you.

Gun control needs a clearer definition.

Should citizens have the absolute right to arm themselves?

ABSOLUTE RIGHT is the problem, I think.

Does that include a citizens right to have a nuclear weapons?

I think probably not.

And I also think most people (even guns queers) would agree with that sort of controls

I think people ought to have the right to weapons of self and home defence.

So were do we draw the line on what kids of weapons people can legally have?

I'd like to hear from those of you who are totally against gun control to tell me if there is ANY limit that you think we should have on weapons ownership.

Should citizens have bombs to protect ourselves and our families?

Flamethrowers?

Machine guns?

Seriously.

I want to know where you guys think we ought to draw the line, if ya'll think any line needs be drawn at all.

I am actually at a conundrum here.

I applaude your honesty.

Naturally anyone who is sane is in this conundrum.

I believe in limits, some things simply are over the top but I also believe in the constitution.

Which doesn't address these issues because it was written before such issues existed.

EXACTLY my point. Thank you.

The main reason for the second amendment was a protection from the GOVERNMENT.

Maybe. Or Indian attack? Or as it actually says, so that the STATES could create militias?

In that regard, almost all weaponry should be legal.

Yup!

And I think we all see how that cannot make sense in THIS world.

We do, however, live in a changed world that includes things like terrorism and there are plenty of people that are walking among us and crazy. The damage that can be done with a rocket launcher is grossly extensive and people should not own them. The founders had no concept of what weaponry would become and were not able to plan for that.

EGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG' ZAckly!

Perhaps an amendment should be entered into the constitution that defines that right.

Yes! The law needs to MAKE SENSE.

It is written so aqmbiguously, and written to address a time that NO LONGER EXISTS.

Gun laws should be MUCH further relaxed from what they are today though. Gun ban like those that ban assault weapons mainly target weapons that 'look' dangerous instead of weapons that actually need to be banned.

Thank you for answering my question. You drew a line and told us what ARMS you think citizens ought to be able to have and what arms you think they ought NOT have have.

NOT an ABSOLUTE right, but a RIGHT with limits.

The problem is politician's are writing the laws and not gun experts. All and all, I see no reason to limit handguns and would prefer relaxed regulation over what many places have today.

That's pretty much my position on the matter, too.

SELF DEFENCE weapons, but not ARMS OF WAR.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I was flipping through my Sirius stations today and happened upon "The Ed Show". Ed was screaming, yes, "screaming" at a very mild mannered man who had called in to his show. Ed called him "insane" because he supported the recent supreme court decision regarding gun control.

On an aside I wondered how someone as enlightened as Ed would go into hysterics and make personal attacks against his caller. I thought the tolerant left didn't regress to such antics.

Anyway, I'd like someone from the "enlightened" side of the political aisle to explain something to me.

I'm a middle-class, middle-aged white guy with a wife, kids, home, mortgage and dog. We live in the suburbs of Orlando, Florida. How will my giving my gun change the near-constant shootings that occur in the inner cities? I know a cop and he told me what is insane is to rely on the police to protect myself and my family. I believed him. If I give up my gun, can Ed, Obama, Pelosi or some other person assure me that my home won't be the target of a gun-wielding home invader?

I'm willing to be persuaded. Please, enlighten me. Thank you.

Gun control needs a clearer definition.

Should citizens have the absolute right to arm themselves?

ABSOLUTE RIGHT is the problem, I think.

Does that include a citizens right to have a nuclear weapons?

I think probably not.

And I also think most people (even guns queers) would agree with that sort of controls

I think people ought to have the right to weapons of self and home defence.

So were do we draw the line on what kids of weapons people can legally have?

I'd like to hear from those of you who are totally against gun control to tell me if there is ANY limit that you think we should have on weapons ownership.

Should citizens have bombs to protect ourselves and our families?

Flamethrowers?

Machine guns?

Seriously.

I want to know where you guys think we ought to draw the line, if ya'll think any line needs be drawn at all.

None of those are currently legal , well Machineguns are with an appropriate Federal License ( except in 17 States).

You are constantly bringing this red herring up. The 2nd Amendment protects the right of Americans to own and possess small arms , rifles, shotguns and pistols. Those arms must be of some use to or have been used by the military. Try reading the 39 decision.

 

[Article 15]

I was flipping through my Sirius stations today and happened upon "The Ed Show". Ed was screaming, yes, "screaming" at a very mild mannered man who had called in to his show. Ed called him "insane" because he supported the recent supreme court decision regarding gun control.

On an aside I wondered how someone as enlightened as Ed would go into hysterics and make personal attacks against his caller. I thought the tolerant left didn't regress to such antics.

Anyway, I'd like someone from the "enlightened" side of the political aisle to explain something to me.

I'm a middle-class, middle-aged white guy with a wife, kids, home, mortgage and dog. We live in the suburbs of Orlando, Florida. How will my giving my gun change the near-constant shootings that occur in the inner cities? I know a cop and he told me what is insane is to rely on the police to protect myself and my family. I believed him. If I give up my gun, can Ed, Obama, Pelosi or some other person assure me that my home won't be the target of a gun-wielding home invader?

I'm willing to be persuaded. Please, enlighten me. Thank you.

People who are straight up anti-gun, I mean people who think guns should be banned, are idiots.

The Constitution is pretty effing clear in that we have the RIGHT to bear arms.

However, some gun laws like background checks and cooldown periods I think are perfectly reasonable.

 

[Yukon.]

I was flipping through my Sirius stations today and happened upon "The Ed Show". Ed was screaming, yes, "screaming" at a very mild mannered man who had called in to his show. Ed called him "insane" because he supported the recent supreme court decision regarding gun control.

On an aside I wondered how someone as enlightened as Ed would go into hysterics and make personal attacks against his caller. I thought the tolerant left didn't regress to such antics.

Anyway, I'd like someone from the "enlightened" side of the political aisle to explain something to me.

I'm a middle-class, middle-aged white guy with a wife, kids, home, mortgage and dog. We live in the suburbs of Orlando, Florida. How will my giving my gun change the near-constant shootings that occur in the inner cities? I know a cop and he told me what is insane is to rely on the police to protect myself and my family. I believed him. If I give up my gun, can Ed, Obama, Pelosi or some other person assure me that my home won't be the target of a gun-wielding home invader?

I'm willing to be persuaded. Please, enlighten me. Thank you.

Only an uneducated idiot would even ask the question.

 

[K9Buck]

I was flipping through my Sirius stations today and happened upon "The Ed Show". Ed was screaming, yes, "screaming" at a very mild mannered man who had called in to his show. Ed called him "insane" because he supported the recent supreme court decision regarding gun control.

On an aside I wondered how someone as enlightened as Ed would go into hysterics and make personal attacks against his caller. I thought the tolerant left didn't regress to such antics.

Anyway, I'd like someone from the "enlightened" side of the political aisle to explain something to me.

I'm a middle-class, middle-aged white guy with a wife, kids, home, mortgage and dog. We live in the suburbs of Orlando, Florida. How will my giving my gun change the near-constant shootings that occur in the inner cities? I know a cop and he told me what is insane is to rely on the police to protect myself and my family. I believed him. If I give up my gun, can Ed, Obama, Pelosi or some other person assure me that my home won't be the target of a gun-wielding home invader?

I'm willing to be persuaded. Please, enlighten me. Thank you.

Only an uneducated idiot would even ask the question.

Is it fair to describe you as another "enlightened, tolerant" progressive that viciously attacks those with whom they disagree? We're having a polite discussion about the merits of gun ownership and you make this sort of statement? My friend, this reflects far more upon you than upon me.

In any event, I may or not be an "uneducated idiot" but I still get to vote! And until the anti-gun proponets can convince me otherwise my VOTE is for those that protect my right to own a gun for the defense of myself and my family.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I was flipping through my Sirius stations today and happened upon "The Ed Show". Ed was screaming, yes, "screaming" at a very mild mannered man who had called in to his show. Ed called him "insane" because he supported the recent supreme court decision regarding gun control.

On an aside I wondered how someone as enlightened as Ed would go into hysterics and make personal attacks against his caller. I thought the tolerant left didn't regress to such antics.

Anyway, I'd like someone from the "enlightened" side of the political aisle to explain something to me.

I'm a middle-class, middle-aged white guy with a wife, kids, home, mortgage and dog. We live in the suburbs of Orlando, Florida. How will my giving my gun change the near-constant shootings that occur in the inner cities? I know a cop and he told me what is insane is to rely on the police to protect myself and my family. I believed him. If I give up my gun, can Ed, Obama, Pelosi or some other person assure me that my home won't be the target of a gun-wielding home invader?

I'm willing to be persuaded. Please, enlighten me. Thank you.

Only an uneducated idiot would even ask the question.

Is it fair to describe you as another "enlightened, tolerant" progressive that viciously attacks those with whom they disagree? We're having a polite discussion about the merits of gun ownership and you make this sort of statement? My friend, this reflects far more upon you than upon me.

In any event, I may or not be an "uneducated idiot" but I still get to vote! And until the anti-gun proponets can convince me otherwise my VOTE is for those that protect my right to own a gun for the defense of myself and my family.

Yukon is a Canadian. His input means absolutely nothing.

 

[CMike]

I am solidly for strict gun control.

I am working on it with my trigger pull and better grip.

 

[Yukon.]

RetardedGySgt,

Yes indeed I am Canadian and I thank God for that daily. My input on this subject means as much as does yours my son for I am a citizen not only of Canada but of the world. Perhaps if people such as yourself listened to the opinion of other more educated and intelligent people, people like I who have University degrees in Divinity, History, and Science, half witted, inbreds such as yourself would be much better off.

 

[CMike]

 

[CMike]

I was flipping through my Sirius stations today and happened upon "The Ed Show". Ed was screaming, yes, "screaming" at a very mild mannered man who had

Anyway, I'd like someone from the "enlightened" side of the political aisle to explain something to me.

I'm a middle-class, middle-aged

People who are straight up anti-gun, I mean people who think guns should be banned, are idiots.

The Constitution is pretty effing clear in that we have the RIGHT to bear arms.

However, some gun laws like background checks and cooldown periods I think are perfectly reasonable.

I don't .

Some people may need to buy a gun immediately because of an urgent threat.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's been my observation over the years that those who most vigorously oppose gun ownership by law-abiding citizens know nothing about guns, are afraid of guns, or are not inclined to defend themselves under any circumstances -- or all three.

The bottom line in this argument is it is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have one.

Concealed Carry

Blue - no permit required for concealed carry
Red - shall issue
Dk Green - may issue - license often granted
Yellow - may issue - license often not granted
Black - no issue

Open carry

Yellow - Open carry
Orange - Open carry friendly
Green - Licensed open carry
Red - Non permissive open carry
Gray - Rural open carry

So far as I know, New Mexico has always had an unrestricted unconcealed carry law. You can wear a 44 in a holster on your hip in plain view anywhere you want to with a very few exceptions: schools, bars, courthouses and such. To the best of my knowledge, crimes committed using such an unconcealed weapon: zero.

New Mexico has also joined other states in allowing concealed carry though training and a license is required. To the best of my knowledge, since it went into effect, the number of crimes committed with such weapons or in neighborhing Texas: zero.

Crime overall does not necessarily go down in concealed carry states but it usually does. Crime overall does not necessarily go up in the more heavily armed states. In most cases it doesn't at a rate proportionate to an increase in firearms.

Most gun crimes are committed by people who intended to use a gun in a crime, or are crimes of impulse or passion where the perpetrator had to go home and find the dusty rifle in the closet or which drawer the revolver has been stashed in. And the more honest and responsible citizens are armed and trained in the use of their weapons, the less likely some nut or nuts are likely to get off more than a few shots at unsupecting citizens before somebody takes them out.

After Columbine, a friend who is a highschool shop teacher told me he had a loaded revolver stashed in a hidden compartment in the wall near his desk. If somebody threatened his students, he figured it would cost him his job, but he would be ready. I would want my kids in his class.