Kerry owns a Chineses Assault Rifle

You do know the NYT and other papers have written retractions to this claim?

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
APW says:

"Well, we wouldnt just be taking your gun away. We would be taking everyone's gun away."

How? Are you going to tell the gangbangers and other thugs that, "since it's now against the law, you must turn in your handguns"?

APW, these folks break laws for a living! That is their job -- to break laws! How are you going to convince them that, after breaking laws all their life, they will start obeying laws now?

APW, one plus one equals five. That, and your plan, simply does not compute!

[edit on 28-9-2004 by Off_The_Street]

[edit on 28-9-2004 by Off_The_Street]

First of all, remember I'm only advocating banning/regulating handguns. I'm ok with "assault rifles", shotguns and rifles. These are all legit for defending ones home and family. My problem is with handguns. I dont think the average citizen need to keep a firearm with them at all times. It makes the potential for accidents and gun related crime higher.
But you are right, the guns wont go away overnight. However, the guns that are left will eventually be turned in, confiscated, broken or lost. Then we will start seeing a benefit. Remember, guns that are used in crime didnt start as "illegal" guns. They were almost always legal guns, stolen from law abiding citizens. You are much more likely to have a gun stolen from you by a criminal than you are of actually using it in self defence. My point is, the negatives of handgun ownership outweigh the positives. A handgun in your home is more likely to accidentally kill someone than to be used in self defence.
If you want to protect your home, get a shotgun. No pistol can match it.

I agree with you about the shotgun for home defence. That's what I have for a house gun.
I can't very easily carry that with me when I go to work in the high crime area I work in.
I understand where you are coming from but in the real world banning all handguns will not work.
Additionally, I think you are wrong about the ratio of handguns used in crime/accidental death vs. defensive puposes. I, personally, have stopped two crimes by having a gun with me and didn't even have to fire a shot. I have never been killed by a criminal with a gun or myself being negligent .

I don't give a hoot if Kerry owns a AK or not. I just don't that two faced scoundrel in the White House so he can gut the Second Amendment. If you want to know about the use of firearms to suppress crime read the studies of Gary Kleck. I, too, have defused dangerous situations simply by producing a gun or making it known that I had one handy.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I don't give a hoot if Kerry owns a AK or not. I just don't that two faced scoundrel in the White House so he can gut the Second Amendment. If you want to know about the use of firearms to suppress crime read the studies of Gary Kleck. I, too, have defused dangerous situations simply by producing a gun or making it known that I had one handy.

In Florida, if you have a concealed weapon, its illegal to draw or make it known that you have a firearm unless you or someone else is in mortal danger. I'm not familiar with the law in New Mexico, but I imagine its similar to Florida's.
Personally, I think its irresponsible to brandish your weapon to "diffuse" a stituation.
The only time you should brandish a weapon is if a situation is past the point of being able to "diffuse" it, you cant escape, and your in grave danger. For example, if a criminal is robbing me and has a gun, I wouldnt pull out my gun and point it at him, hoping that it would make him change his mind about robbing or murdering me. No, I would draw my gun and shoot him center mass until he ceased to be a threat to me.
"Diffusing" a situation by pulling a gun, or simply letting your attacker know you have it is macho bull#, and a risky game to play. If the person who is threatening you has a weapon, you certainly dont want to just brandish it, you want to eliminate the threat(i.e.- kill them) before they can get the chance to do the same to you. If the person who is threatening you doesnt have a weapon, and you show them your gun just to make them back off, you are breaking the law.

Originally posted by apw100
I'm not familiar with the law in New Mexico, but I imagine its similar to Florida's.

You imagine incorrectly and in so far as you have no idea of the situations of which I speak your opinion is useless.

Originally posted by apw100

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I don't give a hoot if Kerry owns a AK or not. I just don't that two faced scoundrel in the White House so he can gut the Second Amendment. If you want to know about the use of firearms to suppress crime read the studies of Gary Kleck. I, too, have defused dangerous situations simply by producing a gun or making it known that I had one handy.

In Florida, if you have a concealed weapon, its illegal to draw or make it known that you have a firearm unless you or someone else is in mortal danger. I'm not familiar with the law in New Mexico, but I imagine its similar to Florida's.
Personally, I think its irresponsible to brandish your weapon to "diffuse" a stituation.
The only time you should brandish a weapon is if a situation is past the point of being able to "diffuse" it, you cant escape, and your in grave danger. For example, if a criminal is robbing me and has a gun, I wouldnt pull out my gun and point it at him, hoping that it would make him change his mind about robbing or murdering me. No, I would draw my gun and shoot him center mass until he ceased to be a threat to me.
"Diffusing" a situation by pulling a gun, or simply letting your attacker know you have it is macho bull#, and a risky game to play. If the person who is threatening you has a weapon, you certainly dont want to just brandish it, you want to eliminate the threat(i.e.- kill them) before they can get the chance to do the same to you. If the person who is threatening you doesnt have a weapon, and you show them your gun just to make them back off, you are breaking the law.

I see what you are saying and agree with you that you shouldn't pull a gun for # like a fist fight. However, I have personally given potential attackers a "hint" I might have a gun (reaching under my jacket towards my hip) - that usually makes them start walking towards me.

For instance, about 2 months ago I was on Broad Street in Philly, 3 thuggish looking guys kind of gave me a double take as I walked by them on the other side of the street. All three of them got up and started walking across the street towards me. A reach towards my right hip and *presto* they stop two thirds of the way across the street do an about face and go back to the steps they were sitting on.

IMHO, this is better then letting these guys get close to you and actually pulling your piece - you diffuse the situation before it becomes a situation.

BTW - did you know if you have a Florida carry permit you can carry it through any state as long as you are "on your way" to a state that uses the same permit (such as my home state PA)?

American Mad Man, for the most part, I agree with you. You did nothing illegal by reaching for your weapon. However, if you had actually flashed it, that would be breaking the law(as you know).
My problem is that there are too many cowboys who will pull a gun just to get the advantage in a situation. Say someone said, "I'm going to kick your ass!". Alot of macho types would pull their gun just to scare the other person and look tough.
Perhaps I was a little harsh in my reply to the other guy, but I cant think of many situations where pulling your gun and not firing is appropriate. Sure, people do it, but that doesnt make it smart or acceptable.
To me and the law, there is no middle ground. Either he's a deadly threat or not. If a criminal is threatening me with a deadly weapon, I'm going to draw my gun and keep shooting until he's no longer a threat. No talking, no posturing. I'm not going to try to reason with him and take the chance that he might kill me first.
Likewise, if the criminal doesnt have a deadly weapon, but is threatening to beat me up or something, then I wont(cannot legally) draw my pistol. As much as I would hate to be beaten up, according to the law, beating someone up isnt an offence that one deserves the death penalty for. The only time a weapon should be drawn of shown is if you are going to use it.
P.S.- Yeah, that is pretty cool about the Florida license!

[edit on 29-9-2004 by apw100]

Likewise, if the criminal doesnt have a deadly weapon, but is threatening to beat me up or something, then I wont(cannot legally) draw my pistol. As much as I would hate to be beaten up, according to the law, beating someone up isnt an offence that one deserves the death penalty for. The only time a weapon should be drawn of shown is if you are going to use it.

Hmm, that's interesting. I guess it really depends on the state law on the subject. Here it reads "serious bodily harm or death"--not a direct quote...looking.
Regardless, If I'm outnumbered and there is clear intent of said group causing serious (maybe grave) bodily harm or death to myself or someone else, I will reach and draw depending on the situation after the verbal warnings. Shoot only if it's the last and onlyoption.



[edit on 5-10-2004 by Fry2]