To all the people who want to ban guns.

I think people should have guns in their homes to protect themselves from any intruders. They don't need to take them out and about around town.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


No limits to how many or what kinds.

What they check for:

* Convicted felons
* People convicted of domestic assault or abuse
* Dishonorably discharged veterans from the military
* Illegal immigrants
* People under indictment for felony charges
* The mentally ill or insane
* People with outstanding misdemeanor or felony warrants

Of course like any other database it's only as good as the information in it which is only as good as those entering information into the database. Some drawbacks are inconsistent data and the potential for identity theft and having your "good" name soiled by somebody elses bad behavior. There are going to be people with issues that dont show up and people without issues who get denied because the database like all databases is imperfect. Having the added bonus of being government run we can expect the same level of accuracy and efficiency from the system as we can from the DMV, IRS, DEA, treasury, etc...

Ive never commited a crime in my life and my record is spotless yet I still cringe that someday some clerical error or similar name or stolen social security number is going to screw me over and once the system is convinced you are a bad guy good luck ever clearing it up. You'd be better off committing suicide and hoping the next life lands you in a better world.

This is a copy of the form everyone has to fill out when buying a firearm from an FFL: 4473 PDF

The questions in number 11 are presumably what the check is supposed to tell them. F and J are my favorites. If the database is complete they will know the answer to F. I cant imagine any way they would ever know the answer to J.

Originally posted by Randall07
I think people should have guns in their homes to protect themselves from any intruders. They don't need to take them out and about around town.

Does the threat to your safety end at your front door? A study done in the 90s showed that police shoot the wrong person about 11% of the time. The same study found that civilians only shoot an innocent person about 2% of the time. You are actually safer with civilians carrying than with cops carrying.

I do think a shooting qualification should be required for public carry. I didn't untill I took my CCH permit class. There was a lady in that class that hit the target less than 50% of the time at seven yards. I wouldn't want her firing a gun in a high stress situation, if anybody else was around.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


There are two new federal disqualifiers that you missed.

Persons under indictment or information in any court for a crime
punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one (1) year;1

b. Persons convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for
a term exceeding one (1) year. A person would not be ineligible under
this criteria if the person has been pardoned for the crime or conviction,
the crime or conviction has been expunged or set aside, or the person has
had their civil rights restored, and under the law where the conviction occurred, the person is not prohibited from receiving or possessing any firearm;

NC DOJ List of Gun Laws

For everybody that says we should have to get a license, in NC you must get a "permit" to buy a handgun or crossbow.

A county sheriff is only authorized under N.C.G.S. § 14-402 to issue a
permit to receive or purchase a handgun or crossbow when an application is
submitted by a person who is a resident of his or her particular county. The
sole exception is that the sheriff may issue a permit to a non-resident when the
purpose of the permit is for collecting. Prior to issuing a permit, the sheriff
must fully satisfy himself/herself by affidavits, oral evidence, or otherwise, that
the applicant is of good moral character and that the person, firm, or
corporation wants to possess the weapon for one of the following purposes:

a. The protection of the applicant’s home, business, person, family, or
property; or
b. Target shooting; or
c. Collection; or
d. Hunting.

Additionally, the sheriff must verify by a criminal history background
investigation that it is not a violation of state or federal law for the applicant to
purchase, transfer, receive or possess a handgun. The sheriff shall determine
the criminal history of any applicant by accessing computerized criminal
history records as maintained by the State and Federal Bureaus of
Investigation, by conducting a national criminal history records check, and by
conducting a criminal history check through the Administrative Office of the
Courts. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-404

If you have lived in another state in the last decade they will also check the records in that state. If you lived in another county in NC in the last decade they also check the local records in that county. In most counties it is also required that you have at least two notarized character references from non related county residents. (That would be the good moral character part in the state law.)

The system in NC is about the same as most states. So, it isn't as easy as many people think to buy a legal handgun.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

The system in NC is about the same as most states. So, it isn't as easy as many people think to buy a legal handgun.

edit on 20-1-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)

Thanks for adding those.

Because of the part I bolded I started this thread here to attempt to clear things up for people who dont know or assume incorrectly

Let me know if I missed something or add the NC details if you'd like..

"To all the people who want to ban guns"..... go stand on your head in the corner and spit nickels!!!!... at least that will give you something intelligent to ponder... .. excersise your rights... if you "gun banners" EVER are in a situation where you are in need of a firearm, think about us owners ( you'll probably need to think real fast)... its better to have 1 and not need it.. than to need 1 and not have it.... go spit nickels antigunners!!!

reply to post by tom502


I dont understand your point of view here...maybe its my opinion on violence or guns or whatever but i dont see the point in being allowed to own any type of gun you want...is it because your scared your government will then have full control over you? If so then why dont you do something about it?

I personally cant see the point in "Mr and Mrs Jones" from down the street owning an AK47 or a UMP45...all that means is they have a far greater chance of killing far more people in a far shorter timeframe in a far larger area, its a recipe for total disaster.

Now i can understand your right to protection from the society you have created, but whats wrong with banning all guns except for the small hand held single fire guns that if used will cause far less damage?

reply to post by jrmcleod


Because it is not the government's business, nor your business what I own. Lots of people own small army's in terms of how many weapons they have.
They like to shoot them plain and simple.

I shoot mine quite often. 50% is for practice, 50% is for fun, 10% is to make sure I'm a good shot and will drop an intruder quick.

Everyone that is anti-gun has every right to live in fantasy land Utopia they think they want.

The human race is not that way. There will ALWAYS be criminals... any law made against gun WILL only hurt the people who are NOT criminals.

I will stay living in reality... carrying my gun on my person. You and no one else would know that on the street though.

And when you need a fellow human being that happens to be carrying to help you when that criminal comes knocking on your door... you'll change your thinking about guns.

That goes to every single person in the united states and all other countries.

Originally posted by jrmcleod
reply to post by tom502

 

Now i can understand your right to protection from the society you have created, but whats wrong with banning all guns except for the small hand held single fire guns that if used will cause far less damage?

edit on 20/1/11 by jrmcleod because: (no reason given)

because the criminals in question may have assorted small arms and possible explosives. if they advance in technology, then what is the use in maiming one of them when you can use anywhere from seven to fourteen rounds to lay down suppressive fire, and escape or stop a home invasion. now imagine mr. and mrs. smitty are sleeping in their room when they hear their windows shatter, automatic gunfire (mac 10 most likely) and footsteps running up the stairs. would you use either a derringer, or a 45. with a 14 round clip? just in case you don't know the 45. is designed for it's for stopping power, and round capacity depending on which model. i like milsurp guns myself. if guns are not to your liking then maybe you can use a bowie knife or ka bar to dispatch with an armed criminal. i like bringing a gun to a gun fight though especially if its in my own house

Originally posted by bigshow
reply to post by jrmcleod

 

Because it is not the government's business, nor your business what I own. Lots of people own small army's in terms of how many weapons they have.
They like to shoot them plain and simple.

I shoot mine quite often. 50% is for practice, 50% is for fun, 10% is to make sure I'm a good shot and will drop an intruder quick.

Everyone that is anti-gun has every right to live in fantasy land Utopia they think they want.

The human race is not that way. There will ALWAYS be criminals... any law made against gun WILL only hurt the people who are NOT criminals.

I will stay living in reality... carrying my gun on my person. You and no one else would know that on the street though.

And when you need a fellow human being that happens to be carrying to help you when that criminal comes knocking on your door... you'll change your thinking about guns.

That goes to every single person in the united states and all other countries.

No your right it aint my business what guns you own but it would become my business if one day you became seriously depressed and developed a mental disorder and started going crazy killing everyone.

And to say that you will drop an intruder quick is a rediculous and extremely narrow minded point of view to have on your fellow person. Yeah fair enough he/she may break into your house but that DOES NOT merit death.

And you say that i would be grateful if someone next to me had a gun and pulled it on someone who was either attacking me or whatever and they saved me that i would change my mind on guns...NO I WOULD NOT. No body deserves to die at the hands of a person who carries a gun...if it is my time to go, i'd rather go than have another human killed by another person.

Is it any wonder you live in such a criminally insane country?????

p.s. i mean no disrespect through my comments, i simply cannot grasp the mentality of needing a weapon that will kill someone because of most likely tedious reason

Originally posted by Binder
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. " -C.S. Lewis

Binder, thank you very much for this remarkable quote ... tis quite appropriate indeed.

Also, you wouldn't know this but ... i had to look at the 'author' more than once cause when i first read it, i knew i'd heard it before but not so sure where ... the author, CS Lewis ... tells me exactly where i heard it ... my grandpa ... CG Lewis ... how's that for coincidence?

reply to post by jrmcleod


With your points... no law in the world would prevent ANYONE who decides to go "POSTAL" whether they have access to guns or not so your point is moot.

So you would rather have that "criminal" attacking you... possibly raping your wife or significant other, torturing your daughter or son and then killing all of you?

Hey thats fine I'll mind my own business and not help my fellow human since you don't want to protect your family.

That's your choice and I don't have a problem with it. Just don't come crying to anyone what that situation happens and you have no way to defend yourself or your family.

And sorry but someone entering MY house on MY property and threatening MY family with harm is more than enough justification for deadly force. When criminals start getting the message that people will NOT tolerate that they will think twice before they break the law and try to ruin a family.

Until that time.. criminals will be treated that way, if they do all of those things listed... they no longer are human, they no longer have any rights and are to meet their maker much sooner than they thought.

reply to post by jrmcleod

And to say that you will drop an intruder quick is a rediculous and extremely narrow minded point of view to have on your fellow person. Yeah fair enough he/she may break into your house but that DOES NOT merit death.

I'm sorry but if you walk past the two cars in my driveway, two sets of motion detecting lights, the locked gate on my porch, and then ty to enter my house, I assume you are coming to play bridge. You have come to rob and steal. If you are willing to bypass all deterents and force your way inside, I assume you will try to remove the deterents inside the house. You know my wife, my kid, and me. I'm not going to let a person forcefully injure my family or worse yet potentially rape and murder my family. I will stop that predator.

Also, most of the time simply presenting the gun causes the attacker to stop and run. When the person is actually shot with a handgun they are more likely to live than die. People shot with handguns live about 80% of the time. Defending yourself with lethal force does not mean there will be a lethal result.

And you say that i would be grateful if someone next to me had a gun and pulled it on someone who was either attacking me or whatever and they saved me that i would change my mind on guns...NO I WOULD NOT. No body deserves to die at the hands of a person who carries a gun...if it is my time to go, i'd rather go than have another human killed by another person.

So a criminal predator with no moral compass deserves to live more than you do? That may be your opinion but I value the lives of my family and myself more than that. No gang banger, meth head, or thug gets to determine my life expectancy or my life worth. They have zero right to take my life. I have every right to stay alive. I will defend my right to stay alive.

There is an old saying, Your freedom ends where your neighbors nose begins. If you are trying to bloody my nose I am going to assert my right to retain my freedom.

Now before you freak out I'm not saying I will shoot a person over a simple assault.

Originally posted by bigshow
reply to post by jrmcleod

 

With your points... no law in the world would prevent ANYONE who decides to go "POSTAL" whether they have access to guns or not so your point is moot.

So you would rather have that "criminal" attacking you... possibly raping your wife or significant other, torturing your daughter or son and then killing all of you?

Hey thats fine I'll mind my own business and not help my fellow human since you don't want to protect your family.

That's your choice and I don't have a problem with it. Just don't come crying to anyone what that situation happens and you have no way to defend yourself or your family.

And sorry but someone entering MY house on MY property and threatening MY family with harm is more than enough justification for deadly force. When criminals start getting the message that people will NOT tolerate that they will think twice before they break the law and try to ruin a family.

Until that time.. criminals will be treated that way, if they do all of those things listed... they no longer are human, they no longer have any rights and are to meet their maker much sooner than they thought.

But you are speculating, you are suggesting that just because you are being attacked that your wife will be raped and kids hurt etc...you cannot tell if this will be the case, so how can you justify using deadly force? I understand th epoint of view that its your family and you will protect them at whatever cause, i too would do that for my partner and child, probably more than most but i would not kill someone. I would injure them with the gun or whatever but not intentionally kill them. There are alternatives to death.

Granted its your property and i respect that but the chances are that the 'robber' will also be armed, so you bursting out to 'get' them will prbabl scare them and make them fire on you first. So long as the general poulation have an assortment of sophisticated weoponary at their dispossal, so will criminals, criminals were normal people before they turned to crime.

Someone has to back down otherwise this world will never be a place of safety for our children...if we truely want our children to be safe then we'd all give up the weaopons, whether that makes you feel insecure or not...someone has to take the first step.

reply to post by MikeNice81


This is my point, the fact that 80% of criminals live after being shot with small hand held pisols emphasises my point of view that the other more serious weopons are not required to injure someone and stop them in their tracks. Surely your rather hurt someone enough so that they stoppped their attck and you and your family were safe, at the same time keeping them alive?

Maybe i'm just plain wrong in my thought process but if i had that option thats what i'd do. I wouldnt aim for the head or the chest, i'd aim for the legs or arms etc, so that they could live but be incapacitated.

Every life is as important as the next whether you are seen to be 'crazy' or not. I am not in a place of authoruty to take someone elses life, no matter what they do to me. I will try to incapacitate them but i will not intentionally kill them.

I have a child and apartner who i love more than myself and anyone else but i could not bring myself to kill anyone, atleast hypothetically speaking i dont think i could, maybe i'm wrong but i havent been in the situation to experience it so i cant really post sensible comments on it.

This thread inspired me to borrow a gun to my daughter when she goes in school
Thanks

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

No limits to how many or what kinds.

What they check for:

* Convicted felons
* People convicted of domestic assault or abuse
* Dishonorably discharged veterans from the military
* Illegal immigrants
* People under indictment for felony charges
* The mentally ill or insane
* People with outstanding misdemeanor or felony warrants

Those are federal or state disqualifications? I pretty much agree with all except the domestic abuse and outstanding misdemeanor warants. Someone has a bad day, slaps their spouse, the cops come over and do a write up...bingo no gun!

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Of course like any other database it's only as good as the information in it which is only as good as those entering information into the database. Some drawbacks are inconsistent data and the potential for identity theft and having your "good" name soiled by somebody elses bad behavior. There are going to be people with issues that dont show up and people without issues who get denied because the database like all databases is imperfect. Having the added bonus of being government run we can expect the same level of accuracy and efficiency from the system as we can from the DMV, IRS, DEA, treasury, etc...

Or just because your anti-government and someone decides you don't deserve a gun so they fudge the database to make you appear a criminal. Not to mention the honest mistakes which still cause problems....

Anything the government does is either not enough or overkill! Pretty much like the smoking ban in public places because the exhaust system on the ceiling isn't good enough for the hardcore anti-smoking community. Its not like they gonna live to 150 if they don't smoke and its not like some people are not predisposed to certain illnesses and will die from them anyway..go figure our hypocrisy!

Originally posted by jrmcleod
Now i can understand your right to protection from the society you have created, but whats wrong with banning all guns except for the small hand held single fire guns that if used will cause far less damage?

edit on 20/1/11 by jrmcleod because: (no reason given)

While machine guns are not illegal for the public, they are so expensive to buy its impractical to own one unless your quite wealthy. The cheapest for sale start around 5k and go all the way up to 30k for large caliber. I suppose the reason they allow the 1934 act transfers is so that people who have those USED GUNS can sell them rather than turn them in to the government.

I was initially confused as well but doing research goes a long way!

reply to post by jrmcleod


Let me start by saying I would much rather never need to injure or kill another person. However, if it comes down to my wife's life, my child's life, my life, or a predator's life, the predator doesn't get priority over me and the family. I would shoot for the body part I had the highest chance of hitting and continue until the threat stops. Hopefully that doesn't mean having to take life.

I would not aim for the head unless the predator was wearing a protective vest or posed such an imediate threat that it was the only option. I have been trained that you shoot to stop. If the threat stops you stop. It also means that you aim for the upper chest (the area above the short ribs) but below the neck whenever possible. Aiming for legs and arms usually leads to a miss and increases the chance of injuring innocents.

There is no moral high ground in letting a predator take my life. If anything it makes me personaly responsible for any one else he kills afterwards.

I am against taking another life. I even oppose the death penalty for a number of reasons. However, when a person poses an imediate threat of death, crippling injury, or rape to another person that goes out of the window. I don't believe in harming any person that is not a threat to you in any way at all. However, I do not believe in being a victim to violence.

Just different ways of loking at the world. I believe you have every right to your world view and pray that it never is tested.

On to high powered guns. High powered lon guns are most commonly used for hunting and wild predator control. If you are trying to take down a deer humanely a .303 or .308 is the way to go. If you are trying to keep a bear from killing your live stock something even stronger is preferable.

Also with a spattering of reports that home invaders are starting to use body armor a long gun may be necessary for home protection in some cases.

Like I said elsewhere, the SCOTUS said the police do not owe protection to any one person but the community as a whole. So, if I am responsible for my protection I believe I should have access to the exact same weapons they use. That means 5.56 carbine rifles, .338 Lapua rifles, and MP5s capable of three round bursts. If they find it necessary for their protection, it should be available for my protection.

Originally posted by Rocky Black

Look at any country where it is illegal to own or posses a pistol or shot gun. Find one and look up gun related murders. Hey why are they high gee I wonder how can that be.

Thats right taking away guns is the agenda of the socialists.To make us into sheeple so we cannot defend ourselves.

Oh you dont like that.

Here drink this coolaid it will make you feel all better.

Pass on the kool-aid. How about some statistics to back this up? You know why you did not include them?
They don't exist. Sheeple...too funny.