It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

reasons for firearms

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I carry a gun, whenever I feel it is needed. At other times, I do not.

The point to this is that a gun is merely a tool, no different than a shovel, or a pick, or a hammer. All these things can kill others; the big difference is that the gun is more efficient at the task.


Agree Redneck,

The gun is a tool ..just like my saws, hammers..other hand tools. No better or worse than the person behind it. I have alway felt that the automobile is the most efficeint killing tool we have im this country. Numbers collected and collated should clear this up.


I too own a number of these tools carefully selected and most for specific purposes..just like the hand tools in my garage.

Great post Redneck,
Pretty much my sentiments.

Thanks,
Orangetom




posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by MManchester


Hey & does anyone know....- In a really bad situation, is it better to shoot to kill or shoot to wound? I hear if you wound them, they can fine your ass big time, even if they had breaking & entering with the intention to kill (maybe not that intense of a situation, but along those lines).



I have always been taught to Fire to stop the action, and if you are aiming at an armed opponent and they fire upon you.. shoot for center mass

if you miss you have a better chance of hitting an appendage than aiming for head/leg/firing arm

if you hit i doubt the person will continue firing (but they might so watch it)

and if it goes to court.. i was always told to tell the police.. that you were shooting to stop the action, and hitting a moving persons legs is hard...

fand REMEMBER during ANY confrontation STAY VOCAL... if other people are aware of the incident... that will lessen the chance of you gettin sued



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MManchester


Hey & does anyone know....- In a really bad situation, is it better to shoot to kill or shoot to wound? I hear if you wound them, they can fine your ass big time, even if they had breaking & entering with the intention to kill (maybe not that intense of a situation, but along those lines).



I have always been taught to Fire to stop the action, and if you are aiming at an armed opponent and they fire upon you.. shoot for center mass

if you miss you have a better chance of hitting an appendage than aiming for head/leg/firing arm

if you hit i doubt the person will continue firing (but they might so watch it)

and if it goes to court.. i was always told to tell the police.. that you were shooting to stop the action, and hitting a moving persons legs is hard...

fand REMEMBER during ANY confrontation STAY VOCAL... if other people are aware of the incident... that will lessen the chance of you gettin sued



posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 12:55 AM
link   
My nextdoor neighbors are as liberal as they come, they hate firearms, So when they thought one of our other neighbors up the street was being robbed, they called me, they knew I had guns. A lot of people hate firearms until they need one



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   
There are countless reports like

this one

They just don't get alot of mainstream coverage.



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Whether you wish to keep or carry is not really the issue. You have the RIGHT to, not the requirement to.
I would argue that the second ammendment has been so erroded as to be a moot point. You do not have the right to keep and bear arms without "infringement". Certainly, in many places around the country you can in no fashion bear arms of any kind.
I think it is obvious why the second ammendment was included, and anyone who studies the war of independence should be able to see why it was #2.
To keep or restore freedom from tyranny and a corrupt government. NOT for hunting, NOT for personal protection, but for ensurance that never again will a government be allowed to impose themselves upon the people against their will.
Just my dos centavos.



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   
gotrox......what about arming bears? would that not be more dangerous than bearing arms???? do legs count?


sorry couldnt resist

m xx



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   
I own firearms and I wont live without them. I have noticed how, if for some reason the subject comes up and I say I own firearms theres always sombody whos eyes will almost turn red and start telling me I shouldnt have them and that im gonna shoot myself and it gos on and on and on, Some people look at me as if im evil, or im a nutjob, telling me I dont know what im geting into, Leave me alone! I dont tell you how to live. One of the reasons I own firearms is to protect you if the time ever calls for it, So be happy I do have guns



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Easy one for me...





posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I don't carry, and where I live (France), as in most European countries, carrying a concealed firearm (or not concealed for that matter) is illegal. Hunting is very popular here though, and in the rural area where I live there are many people who own one or more hunting weapons. However, these are explicitly for hunting, you need to be a registered member of the regional hunting federation, to follow a course in the proper use of firearms and the art of hunting (recognizing animals to be sure you don't kill the wrong creature), etc.. Military style weapons are strictly prohibited for hunting, as are pistols.

I can imagine the use of a firearm in a survival situation - not in encountering some criminal activity in normal life, but in say the aftermath of a very major natural disaster which leaves the population without public services and without law/police for a very long time. A weapon would then serve two purposes: hunting for food and protection of one's home in case desperate people would want to pillage it - assuming you were among the few to be somewhat better prepared with a good stock of food, water, some way to keep the place heated, etc.. For hunting small game a high-power pump air rifle might be more practical, for defence against plundering gangs one would need what is explicitly prohibited: fast-firing military style firearms with a lot of stopping power. If not that, then a fairly powerful hunting carbine in trained hands.

I do not hunt, however - hunting large game is only allowed in organized group hunts and I generally do not feel comfortable with the kind of groups I see doing that (and I see no fun in chasing animals to exhaustion with groups of agressive dogs), and I have no compelling reason to go about shooting rabbits. The foxes and large birds of prey are welcome to them.

In the past I was a member of a rifle club, shooting .22 rifle kneeled discipline using club rifles, not my own, and before that I served in the artillery corps and had a 7.62 mm FAL rifle as a personal weapon, so I can handle guns and have no fear of them (assuming I am at the proper end!).

The problem is, if everybody is free to cary firearms, a plundering crowd would certainly be armed as well as a homeowner. As it is now, I live at a fair distance from the nearest large city where plundering gangs would originate, and with the exception of a dinosaur-killer asteroid impact or a planet-shattering quake I do not envision law and order totally collapsing here. People here know each other too well, traditionally help each other in times of need, and would not plunder each other. This is not some African dictatorship, nor New Orleans. Disaster relief should not, and does not need to be synonymous with overwhelming military firepower in a civilized country. Hands should be holding spades, bandages and food packages, not triggers.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Donkeyman
 


Again another individual that doesn't understand criminals don't care about illegal gun laws. It doesn't have to be a survival situation after a major disastor. A criminal will kill you with his gun while you contemplate why he has an illegal weapon.


Not happening here brother. In fact I'm 100% in favor of open carry. Of course you will have problems with idiots now and then, but your criminal element will move on and recognize that there are easier targets elsewhere.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 09:09 AM
link   
The reason I have a firearm, personally is for home and self defence, as well as a safety precaution for work.

A .45 GLOCK 30 is my choice, and I have a CPL concealed pistol license, for just in case.

Another reason for a firearm, in a survival situation is obvious, hunting. A rifle would be prefered, in a common caliber so ti is cost effective.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I owned many pistols when I lived in AZ. and carried every day. My then girlfriend also carried. Now that I'm back in NY...No more pistol's but many rifles and shotgun's. They are also all loaded, no kids to worry about and the few visiter's allowed in my house know not to pick-up any weapons...Reason's why: Protection, Hunting and general target shooting. New girlfriend is learning to shoot, and will probably get a pistol permit, late night train from the city, apt house owner, and at 5 foot nothing and maybe 100lbs, she feels that even with super fighting skills(she can and has kicked azz on men heheh) a gun gives her another last resort option.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   
"Arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe and preserve order in the world as well as property" - Thomas Paine

The decision to "carry" or "not carry" is of course up to the individual. The biggest threat to our ability to make that choice is the unbrided stupidity of the misinformed. I have read may of the responses on this blog and do agree with most. But the rationale that safety does not lie with the individual really upsets me.

Several threads on ATS (not just this one) point out the the mere possession of one has and can avert a further escalation of violence. The site of a firearm in a confrontation is usually enough to deescalate a bad situation.(ie..potential mugger...thief and the like) If not...(Wyoming saying) there is no second place in a gun fight. Should we have the ability to protect ourselves,families, and property? Of course.

Should everybody own a firearm...of course not, but the droconian style of laws, in most states, restrict our right to choose. We as a people need to pay close attention to what our law-makers are doing. If we don't, we will wake up pennyless in the land that our forefathers fought and died for.

But, I do believe the carry or not carry question goes deeper than just a guy walking down the street with a gun strapped to his hip.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." - Noah Webster

From this quote i gather that Noah was talking about the People V. Goverment, which is where the Second ammendement is vital in insuring the peace. Not from citizens but from a goverment that would do it's citizens harm. The patriot act...as well as executive orders.... have taken our Constitution and thrown it in the trash. The ruling politico at the present time have created a system of government devoid of the check and balance system that was created by the founders to minimize if not try and stop the types of illegal "maneuvering" that we see happening
today.

As for the Second Ammendment - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the secury of a free State, the right of the people tp keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - U.S. Constitution

Who is the Militia? The militia of each state includes "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who are or have made a declaration of intent to become citizens."-Title 10, section 31 of the U.S. Code.

Militia does not equal military. WE ARE THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF OUR LAND. So let's please start acting like it.

"I ask you sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." - George Washington

Ok I have rambled on enough....



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Hypothetically of course
The reason I own firearms is to protect myself and my family from those that would try to do them harm. killing someone would be my final alternative after all else has failed, because I am a spiritual person and I value Human Life very Highly (More than most) That being said I am also well versed in the ways of combat (USMC) and I have not forgotten how to "locate close with and destroy the enemy by fire or menuver" SO If someone broke into my house at night I would gather everyone upstairs into the bedroom and call 911 like a good citizen while advising said intuder to vacate the area. I would also advise him that I have a gun and have no problems using it. After said warning if mr intruder then decided to come upstairs he would get double tapped cleanly with two hydro shoks to the chest and face. In this life you have choices. his choice was to violate the law and tresspass on my property...which can be forgiven , someone high on drugs or the mentally ill may not be in the right frame of mind and know what they were doing. Causing my Family Harm on the otherhand would be a Fatal Mistake



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
My own two "pence": Personaly I several views on the subject, my main overiding principle is probably along the lines of: people should not have guns in everyday situations, however if a situation X occurs having guns would be extreemly useful.

The reason for the first argument is simple; Guns are designed to kill people, man did not develop gunpowder to the extent he did to create fireworks, it was viewed as a potental weapon and developed as such. The problem then with people having guns in everyday situations is that it then gives everyone the power to kill (Why do you think guns are known as "the great equilisers"). This then opposes the argument a number of people have put foward that "bearing arms" is a personal decision. If you have the ability to affect me (easily), to the extent that my death may result then I am against you bearing arms as your personal decision can bring death to me.

Now you may argue and say "Oh but you could kill someone with a knife or sword" and while this is true the ease to which death can arrive from a gun puts them on a completely different level. (I would point out here that for legitimate uses such as hunting, target shooting there should be exceptions).



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Sure in the name of Samuel Colt, the great equalizer, now its who ever has the aim and the intestinal fortitude to survive. God help anyone who breaks into my home, and lord pass the ammo!



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by EyesWideShut
 


Well put, EyesWideShut. You've articulated my feelings on the subject perfectly. I keep a gun or two around the house myself. I don't have children, so no worries there.

An intruder in one's home in the night deserves no more than one warning, in my opinion-- depending on the situation, of course. He already has the advantage in that you've just been awakened and are trying to determine if somebody is indeed in your home.

Just last week on the street where I live, a homeowner with young children winged an intruder in his home just before dawn. Most criminals who break into your home during the night are not taking that risk for your television. Generally burglars who want your property break into homes during working hours because they don't want confrontation with homeowners. Someone breaking into your home during the night should be considered someone willing to take a high risk for whatever they're after, and not someone to be taken lightly.

This Spring I intend to take the required course to obtain a permit to carry. I don't plan to carry all the time, but definitely when I hike in the Sierras, or spend a day at a remote desert lake. And maybe when I'm downtown at night.

Edit to add: Consider how things may have been different if just one person in the Illinois school auditorium today had been carrying. Seventeen people may have been saved from injury or death.




[edit on 2/14/08 by kattraxx]



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   
My second point relating to guns in X situations is as follows:

On the whole I am for guns in situation X's. If a complete collapse of civilization occurs and particularly Justice breaks down then you are entitled to defend yourself with lethal force if necessary. However this does not mean that you need to have a gun handy when a Situation X is not in effect.

Put it this way, I live in the UK where there are strict laws on Gun control, and yet if a situation X occurs I know at least 5 places within a 10 mile radius where I could pick up a firearm. Of those at least 3 are places where I could grab an assault rifle and 2 where I could find machine guns.

I have done training on assault rifles, machine guns, bolt actions, semi-automatics. Meaning I am proficient with a fairly wide range of weapons and could fairly easily pick up a new weapon and become proficient with it in a short space of time. As such I can live secure in the knowledge that I am unlikely to get shot on the street and at the same time if a situation X kicked off I could rapidly arm myself and be as prepared as anyone else.

To conclude I think there is definitely a cultural divide on the firearm issue, growing up without easy access makes you think in different ways and prepare differently to life and potential situation X’s. But I think perhaps this difference is not a bad thing; if a global situation X happens, having the two different systems may increase our chances of survival. And I hope that if it turns out the Americans have the right system they would come to the aid of the UK as I would undoubtedly come to the aid of the US if we turned out to be right.


[edit on 14-2-2008 by kaos1911]



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   
I own, but do not carry. I generally do not feel the need to carry and presently do not have a concealed carry permit.

I own for several different reasons. First and foremost is simply because I can, choice, to me, is paramount. Coming in a close second is the idea that if one does not excercise their rights, eventually, those rights will be taken from the individual.

I own because in some situations a gun is the proper tool for the job. I dont use a screwdriver to hammer in a nail.

Finially I own because I appreciate the beauty of a firearm.

I don't posses the words to adequately describe it. Its the precision in the slide of my pistol, the way the magazine snapclicks into place, the way the safety resists movement to a point then ... snick, ready to fire. Its almost sublime.

With my rifles its very similar. The feel of the bolt releasing, coming back, the sound of the next round moving up into place, pushing the bolt forward until it seats, then firmly down, locking it into place. The stock fitting snugly into my shoulder, my cheek resting against the cool walnut, the feel of the checking on the foregrip, the cold caress of the trigger against my finger, a piece of wood and steel now an extension of myself.

For me, shooting isnt point,click,boom. Its a potentially deadly ballet of wood, steel, flesh, and thought culminating in explosive accuracy.

After rereading this ... I sound decidely weird.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join