The Gun Control Debate

[Scott & Lai 12]

Two of the weapons — the pump-action Remington shotgun and a Glock 9mm handgun — were purchased legally less than a week ago, on Feb. 9, authorities said. They were purchased in Champaign, where Kazmierczak was enrolled at the University of Illinois.

A pump action shotgun and a Glock.

Why are these legal?

I don't think this is what Ben Franklin and the boys had in mind.

Oh Really

"Where liberty dwells there is my country," and, furthermore, "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." Ben Franklin

"Hang on Mr. Intruder with a handgun; I have to put another shell in my single-shot shotgun so I can try to protect myself. Too bad they banned pump-action shotguns. If they hadn't, I'd have more of a chance of protecting *bang* arghhhh......."

Or even better, since it would have been what the Founding Fathers envisioned.... let's only allow black powder rifles and handguns. Then you'd have a good chance against someone with a 9mm, wouldn't you?

My thoughts, precisely

A gun just for rebeccajo. Does this make you 'feel' better?

(yes. it's real)

http://blog.riflegear.com/archive/2007/12/...s-cute-and.aspx

I like it...there's something delightfully perverse about it

[rebeccajo 14]

Two of the weapons — the pump-action Remington shotgun and a Glock 9mm handgun — were purchased legally less than a week ago, on Feb. 9, authorities said. They were purchased in Champaign, where Kazmierczak was enrolled at the University of Illinois.

A pump action shotgun and a Glock.

Why are these legal?

I don't think this is what Ben Franklin and the boys had in mind.

Oh Really

"Where liberty dwells there is my country," and, furthermore, "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." Ben Franklin

"Hang on Mr. Intruder with a handgun; I have to put another shell in my single-shot shotgun so I can try to protect myself. Too bad they banned pump-action shotguns. If they hadn't, I'd have more of a chance of protecting *bang* arghhhh......."

Or even better, since it would have been what the Founding Fathers envisioned.... let's only allow black powder rifles and handguns. Then you'd have a good chance against someone with a 9mm, wouldn't you?

Well, it's obvious now that there was no point in my trying to tone down my position, or speak with civility in the thread.

You want to mock people and get self-righteous about defending your home? Pi$$ off. Even if I had a gun and someone broke into my house, I wouldn't be aiming to kill them. Therefore I wouldn't be looking for a semi-automatic. I once learned that the best way to protect yourself from the legal aftermath of defending yourself during a domestic break-in is to shoot the intruder in the legs. He's down but you aren't up for murder charges.

Pink gun? So freakin' what? Not enough testosterone in the weapon for you?

This is what owning guns is REALLY about. It's not about your damn liberties or defending your property. It's because the smell of gunpowder gets you off. Or the thought of being the more powerful of two in a confrontation.

Any argument you have for keeping your weapons goes right out the window with me when you decide to act like deer rutting in the fields and locking your horns. Disgusting. And to hide behind the Constitution while doing it is even more nauseating to me. You are no better than bible-thumpers hiding behind the Cross all the while screaming intolerance against people of other faiths, or people deemed as 'sinners'.

Edited February 16, 2008 by rebeccajo

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

I don't know about rebeccajo but it makes me feel better! I love pink!

A gun just for rebeccajo. Does this make you 'feel' better?

(yes. it's real)

http://blog.riflegear.com/archive/2007/12/...s-cute-and.aspx

[Ban Hammer 13,136]

Well, it's obvious now that there was no point in my trying to tone down my position, or speak with civility in the thread.

You want to mock people and get self-righteous about defending your home? Pi$$ off. Even if I had a gun and someone broke into my house, I wouldn't be aiming to kill them. Therefore I wouldn't be looking for a semi-automatic. I once learned that the best way to protect yourself from the legal aftermath of defending yourself during a domestic break-in is to shoot the intruder in the legs. He's down but you aren't up for murder charges.

Pink gun? So freakin' what? Not enough testosterone in the weapon for you?

This is what owning guns is REALLY about. It's not about your damn liberties or defending your property. It's because the smell of gunpowder gets you off. Or the thought of being the more powerful of two in a confrontation.

Any argument you have for keeping your weapons goes right out the window with me when you decide to act like deer rutting in the fields and locking your horns. Disgusting. And to hide behind the Constitution while doing it is even more nauseating to me. You are no better than bible-thumpers hiding behind the Cross all the while screaming intolerance against people of other faiths, or people deemed as 'sinners'.

actually, becca, that's incorrect also (the bolded part). a revolver, a semi auto, a single shot, or an automatic firearm performs the same ballistically. don't confuse the type of action with the round.

as for shooting to wound, you can do that. i've learned to shoot center mass to neutralize the threat. an armed intruder can still fire back at you with bullet holes in his legs.....

Edited February 16, 2008 by charlesandnessa

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

:thumbs:

If you want to deal with the real dangers of guns in the wrong hands, I suggest this. Declare street gangs criminal organizations. Every single gang member should then be stopped, searched, and disarmed. Then search their homes and take all the weapons they have there. Also, end the idiotic War on Drugs, thereby eliminating the prime revenue source of gangs. You will then have removed the largest actual source of gun threats. Meanwhile, leave law-abiding citizens alone.

:thumbs:

Take away the NEED for people to legally own handguns before you start trying to convince them that they aren't needed.

Seems like a basic concept to me.

(ie: shut down all sources of illegal guns first.)

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Well, it's obvious now that there was no point in my trying to tone down my position, or speak with civility in the thread.

You want to mock people and get self-righteous about defending your home? Pi$$ off. Even if I had a gun and someone broke into my house, I wouldn't be aiming to kill them. Therefore I wouldn't be looking for a semi-automatic. I once learned that the best way to protect yourself from the legal aftermath of defending yourself during a domestic break-in is to shoot the intruder in the legs. He's down but you aren't up for murder charges.

Pink gun? So freakin' what? Not enough testosterone in the weapon for you?

This is what owning guns is REALLY about. It's not about your damn liberties or defending your property. It's because the smell of gunpowder gets you off. Or the thought of being the more powerful of two in a confrontation.

Any argument you have for keeping your weapons goes right out the window with me when you decide to act like deer rutting in the fields and locking your horns. Disgusting. And to hide behind the Constitution while doing it is even more nauseating to me. You are no better than bible-thumpers hiding behind the Cross all the while screaming intolerance against people of other faiths, or people deemed as 'sinners'.

[PlatyPius 5]

Well, it's obvious now that there was no point in my trying to tone down my position, or speak with civility in the thread.

You want to mock people and get self-righteous about defending your home? Pi$ off. Even if I had a gun and someone broke into my house, I wouldn't be aiming to kill them. Therefore I wouldn't be looking for a semi-automatic. I once learned that the best way to protect yourself from the legal aftermath of defending yourself during a domestic break-in is to shoot the intruder in the legs. He's down but you aren't up for murder charges.

Pink gun? So freakin' what? Not enough testosterone in the weapon for you?

This is what owning guns is REALLY about. It's not about your damn liberties or defending your property. It's because the smell of gunpowder gets you off. Or the thought of being the more powerful of two in a confrontation.

Any argument you have for keeping your weapons goes right out the window with me when you decide to act like deer rutting in the fields and locking your horns. Disgusting. And to hide behind the Constitution while doing it is even more nauseating to me. You are no better than bible-thumpers hiding behind the Cross all the while screaming intolerance against people of other faiths, or people deemed as 'sinners'.

actually, becca, that's incorrect also (the bolded part). a revolver, a semi auto, a single shot, or an automatic firearm performs the same ballistically. don't confuse the type of action with the round.

as for shooting to wound, you can do that. i've learned to shoot center mass to neutralize the threat. an armed intruder can still fire back at you with bullet holes in his legs.....

And history has proven that you're actually better off to shoot to kill rather than to wound. A wounded attacker can (and HAS!) sued his "victim" and won.

As for the other comments.... I didn't see anyone "rutting like deer in the fields" or any such thing. If the smell of gunpowder "got me off", I'd take my guns out and shoot them more often. As it is, they haven't left their safe place since Mags arrived over a year ago. I don't need "things" to make me feel like a big, scary man. I don't have a boom stereo, a jacked up 4x4 with loud exhaust, a street-racer Honda, a big belt buckle, or any of the other over-compensations for a tiny #######. Why would I differ when it comes to guns. Guns exist to do a job. That's what they're for. They are a tool just like a miter saw. And I sure as hell don't go around showing off my miter saw and pointing at people to get my rocks off.

[Ban Hammer 13,136]

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.

it's not stalling, dearie, it's knowing that anything i say to you on the subject will fall on deaf ears. so why waste my time?

[rebeccajo 14]

Well, it's obvious now that there was no point in my trying to tone down my position, or speak with civility in the thread.

You want to mock people and get self-righteous about defending your home? Pi$ off. Even if I had a gun and someone broke into my house, I wouldn't be aiming to kill them. Therefore I wouldn't be looking for a semi-automatic. I once learned that the best way to protect yourself from the legal aftermath of defending yourself during a domestic break-in is to shoot the intruder in the legs. He's down but you aren't up for murder charges.

Pink gun? So freakin' what? Not enough testosterone in the weapon for you?

This is what owning guns is REALLY about. It's not about your damn liberties or defending your property. It's because the smell of gunpowder gets you off. Or the thought of being the more powerful of two in a confrontation.

Any argument you have for keeping your weapons goes right out the window with me when you decide to act like deer rutting in the fields and locking your horns. Disgusting. And to hide behind the Constitution while doing it is even more nauseating to me. You are no better than bible-thumpers hiding behind the Cross all the while screaming intolerance against people of other faiths, or people deemed as 'sinners'.

actually, becca, that's incorrect also (the bolded part). a revolver, a semi auto, a single shot, or an automatic firearm performs the same ballistically. don't confuse the type of action with the round.

as for shooting to wound, you can do that. i've learned to shoot center mass to neutralize the threat. an armed intruder can still fire back at you with bullet holes in his legs.....

And history has proven that you're actually better off to shoot to kill rather than to wound. A wounded attacker can (and HAS!) sued his "victim" and won.

As for the other comments.... I didn't see anyone "rutting like deer in the fields" or any such thing. If the smell of gunpowder "got me off", I'd take my guns out and shoot them more often. As it is, they haven't left their safe place since Mags arrived over a year ago. I don't need "things" to make me feel like a big, scary man. I don't have a boom stereo, a jacked up 4x4 with loud exhaust, a street-racer Honda, a big belt buckle, or any of the other over-compensations for a tiny #######. Why would I differ when it comes to guns. Guns exist to do a job. That's what they're for. They are a tool just like a miter saw. And I sure as hell don't go around showing off my miter saw and pointing at people to get my rocks off.

L, I quoted your post but some of my comments were directed to what was written in the thread by others also in the thread since I left it this morning.

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.

it's not stalling, dearie, it's knowing that anything i say to you on the subject will fall on deaf ears. so why waste my time?

Some of us tried. All we got was #######.

[PlatyPius 5]

L, I quoted your post but some of my comments were directed to what was written in the thread by others also in the thread since I left it this morning.

Ok. Was wondering why you told me to pi$$ off....

[rebeccajo 14]

L, I quoted your post but some of my comments were directed to what was written in the thread by others also in the thread since I left it this morning.

Ok. Was wondering why you told me to pi$$ off....

Sorry. I was wound up. Above you said something like 'these people annoy me'.

I guess I'm collectively disappointed.

[Ban Hammer 13,136]

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.

it's not stalling, dearie, it's knowing that anything i say to you on the subject will fall on deaf ears. so why waste my time?

Some of us tried. All we got was #######.

she has zero interest in the answer and i know that. it's just a tactic to keep me occupied or get me to say something she can further question. just a waste of time overall.

[britty 1]

I just don't see why some feel I don't have the right to protect myself, my family and my home? By banning firearms, you are simply allowing the criminal element to gain the upper hand. They will ALWAYS be able to obtain a firearm to do harm with, regardless of what the law is. Just look at the UK, its gun crime is astonishing and they are banned there.

[garya505 2]

You want to mock people and get self-righteous about defending your home? Pi$$ off. Even if I had a gun and someone broke into my house, I wouldn't be aiming to kill them. Therefore I wouldn't be looking for a semi-automatic. I once learned that the best way to protect yourself from the legal aftermath of defending yourself during a domestic break-in is to shoot the intruder in the legs. He's down but you aren't up for murder charges.

I don't know where you got your information but usually trying to shoot someone in the legs would be a bad idea. In most states (except Texas and maybe a couple of others), if the perp is not threatening you or someone else with serious bodily harm or death, you are not justified to use deadly force. If they ARE threatening you or someone else with serious bodily harm or death, in most states you are justified to use deadly force, in which case you had better be aiming for the center of mass to take them out of action.

You dont need a semi-automatic to kill someone. In trained hands a revolver is just as effective.

This kind of stuff is what we typically get from people who don't know guns and don't know the law. Or maybe they've been watching too much TV or movies. All my firearms training was from certified law officers, which is generally a better place to get your information.

[garya505 2]

I want to know where are all the responsible gun owners to take out a crazed psycho when something happens? Seems that is always the argument, that they will be ready to protect themselves and others, yet it's only the odd "granny shoots intruder" story tht you hear about. So where are all of the gun owners ready to protect us all...

Hee, most of these crazed killers attack at places where guns are banned. And if a responsible gun owner were there, he probably would not be carrying a firearm. If he is carrying a firearm he would not be a law abiding responsible gun owner.

Big misconception. It is not the responsibility of "responsible" gun owners to protect "Us All". A responsible gun owner does not own a gun to protect the masses. Mostly, a responsible gun owner is one who accepts the responsibility of protecting himself/herself and his/her family when they are near.

If you (plural) are looking for protection from someone else, you could someday be very disappointed. It is very rare for a police officer to be at the scene of a crime much less a responsible gun owner. The only persons that are sure to be at the scene of a crime are the criminal and the victim. Criminals are lazy, If they think their intended victim will put up a fight, usually there won't be a crime committed.

One of the best things I have done in my life is to teach my daughters how to use firearms. The youngest was 8 when she was taught. I go to the firing range twice a month and most of the time my youngest is with me. The older ones are with me less often since they are adults.

I will tell you that my daughters are not sheep. I am very confident in their ability to protect themselves. They have learned that they are personally responsible for their protection. And they don't necessarily rely on a firearm for personal protection. They understand that not putting yourself in a position to be a victim is number one. And firearms are a last resort. They are basically armed with the intent to protect themselves.

In a nutshell. I did not become a responsible gun owner to protect you (plural). I became a responsible gun owner to protect myself and my family. If someday it happens that I protect you from a crime, feel blessed, because that was not, is not, nor will be my intent. If it is your personal preference to be a sheep, that is fine. Don't expect me to be the sheepdog when the wolves come howling. I am not a sheepdog, I am an ant preparing for winter.

This is one of the best posts I've ever read on this subject.