Be proud....

schwarcw

I was watching a special on crime several years ago. They interviewed armed robbery convicts in prison. They asked them what their biggest fear was: the overwhelming percentage feared a shotgun in the hand's of a homeowner who didn't know how to use it. More criminals get killed by novice's with guns that trained professionals.

I prefer the Winchester Super X2 semi-auto. If I have to pull the trigger, I don't want to miss!

steveinaz

DarqueKnight wrote:

I think further analysis is needed. Particularly with regard to the bank analogy. Bad guys rob banks (and other places with armed security staff) all the time, with the understanding that they definitely will encounter an armed response. The possibility of encountering an armed victim will deter some criminals and will only serve to make other criminals better prepared to deal with the eventiality of an armed response. In other words, if the reward justifies the risk, the criminal will just prepare to be faster, smarter, and better armed than the individial(s) protecting the object of his illicit desire.

I realize it's a broad statement, but let me share with you where it comes from. In my town of Sierra Vista, Arizona, you can walk into a grocery store and see no less than 3 or 4 men (sometimes women) packing a gun. Arizona is an open-carry state; as long as the weapon is in plain view, and your legal to carry a firearm (21, no felonies) you can carry unconcealed. I would seriously reconsider robbing a place where I may have bullets come at me from the good guys at a few different angles. Add to that the general attitude; the bad guys know alot of Arizonans have guns in their homes, most will opt to burglarize when there is no one home---and that's fine by me, I just don't want my wife/family endangered. I don't give a rats **** about the "stuff" that's what insurance is for.

wodom1

I remember when Louisiana enacted the "Kill the Car Jacker" law. There had been a huge rash of car jackings in New Orleans, but that quickly dwindled when the law was passed.

I grew up around guns and learned to shoot when I was 8 or so. I remember shooting my Dad's .357 for the first time when I was about 10 -- he had to hold my elbows in so that the recoil wouldn't come back into my face. I learned gun responsibility early on and would feel much safer with a weapon in my home. Unfortunately, hand-guns aren't legal in Chicago. I'll be picking up a nice shotgun at some point in the near future to stow under the bed.

ND13

bobman1235 wrote:

I've heard it said on many occasions that this is actually a very big reason we won World War II. We were a nation of gun owners.

Yep, a lot of the soldiers already were marksmen before they even joined or got drafted. Japan had enough balls, at that time, to try an invasion of our west coast, but knew better than to do that.

Knowing that the majority of our military was overseas fighting, left us wide open for an invasion during WWII, but it didn't occur because the nation was still protected by it's citizens.

BIZILL

ND13 wrote:

All I want to add, and I agree with the thread's author, is........................

I most certainly believe, without a shadow of doubt, that one of the main reasons that the US mainland has never invaded(I don't consider the British, which were already here, as an invader......... modern times) is due to the fact that it's citizens are armed or at least allowed to be armed. It would be a MAJOR miscalculation in judgement to take the right to bear arms away from law abiding citizens and would only invite more terrorism(domestic and foreign bred) and/or maybe even an attack on our shores. You don't think that our enemies haven't wanted to invade us and then had a change of heart when they remembered...........Hey wait a second.....they all have guns, we'll have to fight them all, not just their Armed Forces............ah, nevermind, let's just go blow up one of their Embasseys instead.


POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS KILLING OUR GREAT NATION!!!!!!!! Slowly but surely

i'd love to snipe some terrorist fools from 700 yrds out from atop my rooftop. if they come closer, i've got my pistol to take care of them.

*note to enemies* only come after me with bigger and badder guns, or more cohorts with their own weapons.

DarqueKnight

steveinaz wrote:

......can you ever invision America being taken over by anyone?

No, never, not as long as there are 300 million people here and not as long as the country measures 3000 miles east-west and 1500 miles north-south. Even if the entire US population were only armed with stone knives and rough-hewn clubs, the prospect of invading and subduing a population and country of this size puts it squarely in the realm of fantasy. (Although, our "good neighbors" to the south seem to be patiently doing it piecemeal in a city-by-city and state-by-state fashion. )

steveinaz

wodom1 wrote:

Unfortunately, hand-guns aren't legal in Chicago. I'll be picking up a nice shotgun at some point in the near future to stow under the bed.

12 gauge shotgun is a better choice anyway. But that's another thread...:D

DarqueKnight

steveinaz wrote:

I would seriously reconsider robbing a place where I may have bullets come at me from the good guys at a few different angles.

I know you would. The problem here is that you are thinking like a rational individual. Of course you would not risk life and limb in a robbery attempt because you prefer to work for a living.

However, get inside the irrational mind of a criminal and imagine the only way for you to make money is by robbery. If you are facing certain death by starvation or potential death by a bullet, which would you choose?

W WALDECKER

Gun Control in DC puts many of the law abiding folks in harms way. i live in Md which is a Blue state and my local State Senator of 20 + years, Phil Jimeno is retiring and he is a moderate Democrat ex Marine who likes guns and has voted to block anti gun legislation in the past and has supported the local gun ranges and i am afraid of what the future may hold in my district and Md in general. criminals will take the path of least resistance and a unarmed public is at a disadvantage when the **** hits the fan. the right to keep and bear arms is part of what makes America the Greatest nation on the planet and i oppose any attempt to infringe on that right. thanks...WCW III

steveinaz

However, get inside the irrational mind of a criminal and imagine the only way for you to make money is by robbery. If you are facing certain death by starvation or potential death by a bullet, which would you choose?

...or, thought of in another way "you know, I think I'll just get a job like everybody else..."

That is the desired affect.

steveinaz

W WALDECKER wrote:

Gun Control in DC puts many of the law abiding folks in harms way. i live in Md which is a Blue state and my local State Senator of 20 + years, Phil Jimeno is retiring and he is a moderate Democrat ex Marine who likes guns and has voted to block anti gun legislation in the past and has supported the local gun ranges and i am afraid of what the future may hold in my district and Md in general. criminals will take the path of least resistance and a unarmed public is at a disadvantage when the **** hits the fan. the right to keep and bear arms is part of what makes America the Greatest nation on the planet and i oppose any attempt to infringe on that right. thanks...WCW III

I think I just got a woody.

ND13

A woody for Waldo:D

DarqueKnight

ND13 wrote:

Japan had enough balls, at that time, to try an invasion of our west coast, but knew better than to do that.

The Japanese emperor, even with all of his god-like delusions, was never, ever, not even in the far reaches of his imagination, stupid enough to think that tiny little Japan could successfully "invade" the US. What he and his generals and admirals were hopeful of was capturing the Hawaiian Islands and using them as a staging ground for attacks on the shipyards and other war material manufacturing factories along the west coast.

BIZILL

my vote is for steve next state election. there would be billboards with steve smoking a cig and toting guns on both hips whilst tilting his brim.

steveinaz

You'll never see me sporting a cowboy hat, you can take the boy out of the city, but....

I keep telling Bev that if all this crap don't stop, I'm gonna have to run for President. I tell her how I don't want to do that because the system would sound like crap in the whitehouse, she laughs and opens another beer...

cfrizz

I'm sorry Steve, but you're not making the slightest bit of sense! Neither one of these incidents have anything whatsoever to do with anti-gun laws. Especially the British activist who wouldn't be carrying a gun anyway since, I believe it would be illegal for him to bring a gun over here with him from England!

Your wife & you have a plan for Home Invasion! That's great you have every right to blow someones head off if they have broken into your house!

But do you carry it around with you? If you had been standing behind this activist while he was being robbed, would you have pulled out your gun & blasted the robbers? Taking the chance of hitting the activist?

Again this has nothing to do with anti-gun laws & everything to do with crime exists everywhere!

steveinaz wrote:

..anti-gun crowd, you've successfully unarmed the law-abiding citizen in our nations capital, and it shows....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060712/ap_on_re_us/washington_crime

See, anti gun legislation does work, not a single victim had access to a firearm...only the bad guys.

BIZILL

cfrizz wrote:

But do you carry it around with you? If you had been standing behind this activist while he was being robbed, would you have pulled out your gun & blasted the robbers? Taking the chance of hitting the activist?

too many variables to be able to answer that ?.

cfrizz

And there are also too many damn variables to put the rash of crime in DC on anti-gun laws!

BIZILL wrote:

too many variables to be able to answer that ?.

BIZILL

arizona's crime rate would probably jump up a bit if they outlawed rights. to what extent? who knows. hopefully it will never come to a point where we can figure that out. i luv's me some guns.

madmax

It seems to me that if we had some sort of civil war then general gun ownership would be a plus for the country. For example, if some huge group were to start running the streets or maybe a call to sleeper cells (if there is such a thing) to activate was made. I'm all for gun ownership as I believe guns are just utensils, not inherently good or bad on their own.
madmax

unc2701

madmax wrote:

I'm all for gun ownership as I believe guns are just utensils, not inherently good or bad on their own.
madmax

I'm with you there. And I'm with Steve in that gun control laws do nothing. I've also had a gun in my face twice. Once in the US, once in guatemala. I lost $7 and a watch and what I learned from that was it wouldn't have mattered if I had a gun.

To me the gun debate is all about civil liberties and the the constitution. Gun ownership is a right guaranteed to us in our contract with the government. What I hate is this stupid idea that guns protect people or that criminals would act differently if there were less gun laws. I'll back off my statement that you don't know ****, steve. You probably know more about guns than I ever will, but I know a hell of a lot more about criminals. The bottom line is that gun control laws really don't change anything in the criminal/victim dynamic.

As for my friend, he got busted with a LOT of weed. Again, the civil liberties thing.

dkg999

Never forget that the 2nd Admendmant protects our rights to be able to freely discuss the issue in this thread. The framers of our constitution had also been on the wrong end of the guns and felt the hopelessness of a population without checks and balances on the power of their government. The ability to protect our families, should we choose this type of weapon, is a bonus we should not take lightly.

F1nut

Steve, there's a few things you may not understand about most murders in DC. Most of the murders are commited by blacks against blacks and most of it has to with drugs. Anti-gun laws aren't going to change any of that. In the case of the article you quoted, those tourists weren't going to be carry guns to begin with and the British guy was murdered with a KNIFE!

DC's gun ban wasn't going to change any of those incidents either and I fail to see the correlation between the incidents in DC and your post about anti-gun laws.

For the record, I'm against gun control.

I-SIG

If gun laws don't help either way, then why waste the $$$ enforcing them on any level whatsoever? I'm sure the good teachers would appreicate a pay raise or the poor would appreciate better food, shelter, etc. Oh wait, they'll just take away all the cigarettes instead!

Gun "encouragement" laws do work however. Check out Kennesaw, GA.

Finally, would you rather give up your 1st Amendment rights or your 4th Amendment rights? Or how about "C" ,all of the above, if the 2nd is gone. And yes it can happen here. Remember the mid-to-late 1700's?

Wes

steveinaz

cfrizz wrote:

But do you carry it around with you? If you had been standing behind this activist while he was being robbed, would you have pulled out your gun & blasted the robbers? Taking the chance of hitting the activist?

Cathy thats where formal training comes in. I can't answer a hypothetical question like that. Given the right circumstances I would defend the defenseless.

If someone were about to kill you, would you be glad I was standing 10 feet away?

That's what i thought...

dorokusai

I like to carry my gun in my mouth.

steveinaz

madmax wrote:

I'm all for gun ownership as I believe guns are just utensils, not inherently good or bad on their own.
madmax

Thank you Max, the voice of reason.

steveinaz

F1nut wrote:

Steve, there's a few things you may not understand about most murders in DC. Most of the murders are commited by blacks against blacks and most of it has to with drugs. Anti-gun laws aren't going to change any of that. In the case of the article you quoted, those tourists weren't going to be carry guns to begin with and the British guy was murdered with a KNIFE!

DC's gun ban wasn't going to change any of those incidents either and I fail to see the correlation between the incidents in DC and your post about anti-gun laws.

For the record, I'm against gun control.

I just find it interesting that the very same cities/provinces that have strict gun laws almost always also have high crime rates.

I'm saying that criminals are no dummies, they know exactly where the defenseless are, and the statistics bare this out.

BIZILL

steveinaz wrote:

That's what i thought...

again, hypothetical. but i'm sure anyone would want for an armed good samaritan to be handy at a time like that. "that's what i thought."..yummy.:D

steveinaz

I'm just curious, what would you do in a home invasion scenario? Again, hope...pray...beg? Which one? None of the 3 is gonna save your ****, but you would die knowing "you did the gentle thing."

****. You're kidding me right? Do you think the "PC" police are gonna give you a gold star?