The Gun Control Debate

[rebeccajo 14]

I understand and I guess I respect much of what you are saying. I don't understand your fascination with certain types of guns or why you would want to own the newest, fastest-firing one. I don't understand the theory that if all of us were packing, we would be a safer society. To me, violence begats violence. If you expect me and others like me to respect your right to keep guns, you surely must understand there has to be some respect on your part to not hold your individual right over the rights of safety in our society. There just HAS to a limit to the number of weapons a responsible society allows in its midst. Rampant gun ownership isn't what our founding fathers had in mind. That type of 'liberty' can only create the very anarchy they were trying to grant us.

where did i or anyone else say we have the newest, fastest firing guns? and while i may have a bunch of guns, i can't fire all of them at once.

if you'd like, i'll detail for you what i consider to be the bare minimum number of guns a person may have. also, keep in mind that some of the guns i have are war trophies from my dad being in vietnam......

There just HAS to a limit to the number of weapons a responsible society allows in its midst. Rampant gun ownership isn't what our founding fathers had in mind. That type of 'liberty' can only create the very anarchy they were trying to grant us.

There is a lot of truth in this statement.

then what do you consider to be the limit?

Charles, I don't know.......you can patently tell I'm no 'gun expert'. I'm sure you could tell me why you need different types of guns for different types of applications. Whether you and I would agree on that might be different - it might not.

If there were to be a limit, I would suggest that guns people inherit (like your fathers) would not enter into the equation. I am talking about the maximum purchasing potential a consumer might be limited too. You personally may not be after the 'latest' type of gun, but I'd venture a guess many people are. Why else the constant development of new ones? And I'm not going to buy into any argument about 'product development' - the manufacture and sale of guns is just like any other commodity in America. It's done for profit.

i can tell quite a few in here ain't gun experts.

a majority of my guns were made prior to 1980. maybe 5 of them made after that. not hardly what i'd call getting the latest and greatest is it?

imo the following is what i'd call the bare minimum for someone who hunts and has a cch license.

pistols:

1 .22

1 9mm to .40 cal

1 large caliber pistol like a .44 mag

rifles

1 .22

1 30-30 or similar for brush hunting (short range)

1 30-06 or similar for mid range to long range

1 25-06 or similar for long range

shotguns

1 12 gauge

total - 8

That seems like plenty to me. Like others, I question the handguns.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

I understand and I guess I respect much of what you are saying. I don't understand your fascination with certain types of guns or why you would want to own the newest, fastest-firing one. I don't understand the theory that if all of us were packing, we would be a safer society. To me, violence begats violence. If you expect me and others like me to respect your right to keep guns, you surely must understand there has to be some respect on your part to not hold your individual right over the rights of safety in our society. There just HAS to a limit to the number of weapons a responsible society allows in its midst. Rampant gun ownership isn't what our founding fathers had in mind. That type of 'liberty' can only create the very anarchy they were trying to grant us.

where did i or anyone else say we have the newest, fastest firing guns? and while i may have a bunch of guns, i can't fire all of them at once.

if you'd like, i'll detail for you what i consider to be the bare minimum number of guns a person may have. also, keep in mind that some of the guns i have are war trophies from my dad being in vietnam......

There just HAS to a limit to the number of weapons a responsible society allows in its midst. Rampant gun ownership isn't what our founding fathers had in mind. That type of 'liberty' can only create the very anarchy they were trying to grant us.

There is a lot of truth in this statement.

then what do you consider to be the limit?

Charles, I don't know.......you can patently tell I'm no 'gun expert'. I'm sure you could tell me why you need different types of guns for different types of applications. Whether you and I would agree on that might be different - it might not.

If there were to be a limit, I would suggest that guns people inherit (like your fathers) would not enter into the equation. I am talking about the maximum purchasing potential a consumer might be limited too. You personally may not be after the 'latest' type of gun, but I'd venture a guess many people are. Why else the constant development of new ones? And I'm not going to buy into any argument about 'product development' - the manufacture and sale of guns is just like any other commodity in America. It's done for profit.

i can tell quite a few in here ain't gun experts.

a majority of my guns were made prior to 1980. maybe 5 of them made after that. not hardly what i'd call getting the latest and greatest is it?

imo the following is what i'd call the bare minimum for someone who hunts and has a cch license.

pistols:

1 .22

1 9mm to .40 cal

1 large caliber pistol like a .44 mag

rifles

1 .22

1 30-30 or similar for brush hunting (short range)

1 30-06 or similar for mid range to long range

1 25-06 or similar for long range

shotguns

1 12 gauge

total - 8

So someone has to be a "gun expert" to have a valid argument? That's just plain dumb.

So you need a .44 mag to hunt? What good is a 9 mm for hunting? So you can unload a clip at a deer's feet?

[Ban Hammer 13,143]

Please, someone give me a good reason to own a handgun.

If you say self defense, that's a crappy argument because you need it to protect you from the thousands of guns on the street.

If you say target shooting, go buy a frisbee and pick up disk golf. A hobby does not justify owning a deadly weapon.

quite simply, lawful concealed carry of a shotgun or rifle is illegal. next?

and golf clubs can be deadly too

Did I just pick up on a misnomer?

Hey Charles, I have to run. My sister wants a partner today for retail therapy. Just want to say I'm not picking on you personally. If you read me right, I think you can see I'm trying to see both sides. How about you do the same?

Peace.

what i'm pointing out is you can't carry anything but a pistol for concealed carry......so much for banning pistols, unless the desired result is to get rid of cch. but then again, that would make campus shootings much easier knowing everyone is disarmed......

I understand and I guess I respect much of what you are saying. I don't understand your fascination with certain types of guns or why you would want to own the newest, fastest-firing one. I don't understand the theory that if all of us were packing, we would be a safer society. To me, violence begats violence. If you expect me and others like me to respect your right to keep guns, you surely must understand there has to be some respect on your part to not hold your individual right over the rights of safety in our society. There just HAS to a limit to the number of weapons a responsible society allows in its midst. Rampant gun ownership isn't what our founding fathers had in mind. That type of 'liberty' can only create the very anarchy they were trying to grant us.

where did i or anyone else say we have the newest, fastest firing guns? and while i may have a bunch of guns, i can't fire all of them at once.

if you'd like, i'll detail for you what i consider to be the bare minimum number of guns a person may have. also, keep in mind that some of the guns i have are war trophies from my dad being in vietnam......

There just HAS to a limit to the number of weapons a responsible society allows in its midst. Rampant gun ownership isn't what our founding fathers had in mind. That type of 'liberty' can only create the very anarchy they were trying to grant us.

There is a lot of truth in this statement.

then what do you consider to be the limit?

Charles, I don't know.......you can patently tell I'm no 'gun expert'. I'm sure you could tell me why you need different types of guns for different types of applications. Whether you and I would agree on that might be different - it might not.

If there were to be a limit, I would suggest that guns people inherit (like your fathers) would not enter into the equation. I am talking about the maximum purchasing potential a consumer might be limited too. You personally may not be after the 'latest' type of gun, but I'd venture a guess many people are. Why else the constant development of new ones? And I'm not going to buy into any argument about 'product development' - the manufacture and sale of guns is just like any other commodity in America. It's done for profit.

i can tell quite a few in here ain't gun experts.

a majority of my guns were made prior to 1980. maybe 5 of them made after that. not hardly what i'd call getting the latest and greatest is it?

imo the following is what i'd call the bare minimum for someone who hunts and has a cch license.

pistols:

1 .22

1 9mm to .40 cal

1 large caliber pistol like a .44 mag

rifles

1 .22

1 30-30 or similar for brush hunting (short range)

1 30-06 or similar for mid range to long range

1 25-06 or similar for long range

shotguns

1 12 gauge

total - 8

So someone has to be a "gun expert" to have a valid argument? That's just plain dumb.

So you need a .44 mag to hunt? What good is a 9 mm for hunting? So you can unload a clip at a deer's feet?

refer to the bolded words and stop being asinine.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't need to be an expert on guns to appreciate how effective they are at killing people. As a tool for killing goes, we don't have many better ones that can quickly and effectively knock out a bunch of people from a reasonably safe distance without being an expert in their use.

Edited February 16, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

I don't need to be an expert on guns to appreciate how effective they are at killing people. As a tool for killing goes, we don't have many better ones that can quickly and effectively knock out a bunch of people from a reasonably safe distance without being an expert in their use.

Well, if you're one of the few who owns a bunker buster.......

refer to the bolded words and stop being asinine.

Having a CCH is a side note and in no way justifies carrying a handgun.........unless you have some aspiration of being a bringer of death.

[Peikko 1,575]

Tell me Charles, as I am no expert, when you carry your concealed weapon, where legally are you allowed to carry it and how quickly can you get it into operation once you assess their is a dangerous situation occurring? Also, legally, at what point is someone who has a concealed weapon allowed to shoot at the potential danger?

[SMOKE 1,426]

I understand and I guess I respect much of what you are saying. I don't understand your fascination with certain types of guns or why you would want to own the newest, fastest-firing one. I don't understand the theory that if all of us were packing, we would be a safer society. To me, violence begats violence. If you expect me and others like me to respect your right to keep guns, you surely must understand there has to be some respect on your part to not hold your individual right over the rights of safety in our society. There just HAS to a limit to the number of weapons a responsible society allows in its midst. Rampant gun ownership isn't what our founding fathers had in mind. That type of 'liberty' can only create the very anarchy they were trying to grant us.

where did i or anyone else say we have the newest, fastest firing guns? and while i may have a bunch of guns, i can't fire all of them at once.

if you'd like, i'll detail for you what i consider to be the bare minimum number of guns a person may have. also, keep in mind that some of the guns i have are war trophies from my dad being in vietnam......

There just HAS to a limit to the number of weapons a responsible society allows in its midst. Rampant gun ownership isn't what our founding fathers had in mind. That type of 'liberty' can only create the very anarchy they were trying to grant us.

There is a lot of truth in this statement.

then what do you consider to be the limit?

Charles, I don't know.......you can patently tell I'm no 'gun expert'. I'm sure you could tell me why you need different types of guns for different types of applications. Whether you and I would agree on that might be different - it might not.

If there were to be a limit, I would suggest that guns people inherit (like your fathers) would not enter into the equation. I am talking about the maximum purchasing potential a consumer might be limited too. You personally may not be after the 'latest' type of gun, but I'd venture a guess many people are. Why else the constant development of new ones? And I'm not going to buy into any argument about 'product development' - the manufacture and sale of guns is just like any other commodity in America. It's done for profit.

i can tell quite a few in here ain't gun experts.

a majority of my guns were made prior to 1980. maybe 5 of them made after that. not hardly what i'd call getting the latest and greatest is it?

imo the following is what i'd call the bare minimum for someone who hunts and has a cch license.

pistols:

1 .22

1 9mm to .40 cal

1 large caliber pistol like a .44 mag

rifles

1 .22

1 30-30 or similar for brush hunting (short range)

1 30-06 or similar for mid range to long range

1 25-06 or similar for long range

shotguns

1 12 gauge

total - 8

So someone has to be a "gun expert" to have a valid argument? That's just plain dumb.

So you need a .44 mag to hunt? What good is a 9 mm for hunting? So you can unload a clip at a deer's feet?

no you don't need to be an expert to have an opinion. but, a little knowledge sure helps.

as far as handguns...i'll do ya 1 better. i own a 454 Casull (bear hunting pistol)& a 30 carbine pistol (shoots rifle rounds) among others.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

no you don't need to be an expert to have an opinion. but, a little knowledge sure helps.

as far as handguns...i'll do ya 1 better. i own a 454 Casull (bear hunting pistol)& a 30 carbine pistol (shoots rifle rounds) among others.

Tell me, please, the legitimate uses of your guns that justify having them.

[Ban Hammer 13,143]

I don't need to be an expert on guns to appreciate how effective they are at killing people. As a tool for killing goes, we don't have many better ones that can quickly and effectively knock out a bunch of people from a reasonably safe distance without being an expert in their use.

Well, if you're one of the few who owns a bunker buster.......

refer to the bolded words and stop being asinine.

Having a CCH is a side note and in no way justifies carrying a handgun.........unless you have some aspiration of being a bringer of death.

it was included in my op, if you chose to ignore it that's your problem. and yes, one needs a handgun to carry cch. now spare me the idiotic remarks about bringer of death and such.

Tell me Charles, as I am no expert, when you carry your concealed weapon, where legally are you allowed to carry it and how quickly can you get it into operation once you assess their is a dangerous situation occurring? Also, legally, at what point is someone who has a concealed weapon allowed to shoot at the potential danger?

why don't you attend a cch class then if you are so interested?

[SMOKE 1,426]

Tell me Charles, as I am no expert, when you carry your concealed weapon, where legally are you allowed to carry it and how quickly can you get it into operation once you assess their is a dangerous situation occurring? Also, legally, at what point is someone who has a concealed weapon allowed to shoot at the potential danger?

there are different levels of classifications for ccls. most you can carry anywhere there is not a no gun sign. if you have a class3 or ffl (federal firearms licence) you can carry anywhere. ffl holders can carry anywhere a police officer can....its extremely difficult to get a ffl. $$$ & backround checks that go on forever. usually only gun dealers have ffls.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

I don't need to be an expert on guns to appreciate how effective they are at killing people. As a tool for killing goes, we don't have many better ones that can quickly and effectively knock out a bunch of people from a reasonably safe distance without being an expert in their use.

Well, if you're one of the few who owns a bunker buster.......

refer to the bolded words and stop being asinine.

Having a CCH is a side note and in no way justifies carrying a handgun.........unless you have some aspiration of being a bringer of death.

it was included in my op, if you chose to ignore it that's your problem. and yes, one needs a handgun to carry cch. now spare me the idiotic remarks about bringer of death and such.

Okay, then maybe they function more to help counteract minimal girth than bringing death.

Like I said in the other article, guns may not "kill" but bullets do. Without a gun, bullets aren't very accurate.

[Peikko 1,575]

Because Charles, I have absolutely zero interest in carrying a gun. Call me a nice easy target as you wish. Would you care to provide an answer or would you prefer to stall some more?

When I said 'where' I meant where as in on the person. I am also very interested in the parts about the speed of deployment and legal use. Thank you so much.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Because Charles, I have absolutely zero interest in carrying a gun. Call me a nice easy target as you wish. Would you care to provide an answer or would you prefer to stall some more?

When I said 'where' I meant where as in on the person. I am also very interested in the parts about the speed of deployment and legal use. Thank you so much.

What way is there to debate other than to divert?

[SMOKE 1,426]

no you don't need to be an expert to have an opinion. but, a little knowledge sure helps.

as far as handguns...i'll do ya 1 better. i own a 454 Casull (bear hunting pistol)& a 30 carbine pistol (shoots rifle rounds) among others.

Tell me, please, the legitimate uses of your guns that justify having them.

i bought the 454 & the 30 carbine mostly for fun...theres something about a 2 1/2 foot barrel flash, a tingly wrist & gun powder hitting me in the face that i enjoy.+ its always fun to go to the gun range & hear people say "####### is that? can i shoot it?"

justify to me or to you? to me its simple..coz i can

[natty bumppo 289]

Because Charles, I have absolutely zero interest in carrying a gun. Call me a nice easy target as you wish. Would you care to provide an answer or would you prefer to stall some more?

When I said 'where' I meant where as in on the person. I am also very interested in the parts about the speed of deployment and legal use. Thank you so much.

What way is there to debate other than to divert?

Actually it wasn't a diversion ... it was a suggestion to go become educated ... learn about firearm handling and laws (in the home state)