CNN: "Is Gun Control The Answer?" Here We Go Again.

reply to post by conspiracy nut


What about all the legal BS that happens when someone is caught with a illegal gun? Ever hear of a plea deal? Look how upset they get in NYC over the stop & frisk! How many illegal guns they nab??? Yet the complaint is it targets minorities! More laws are pointless. We have a overabundance of laws as is. What is needed is a attitude adjustment towards criminals. Jail does nothing to stop crime. Hell most people involved in the merry go round that is our legal system play it for a hot & a cot.[oh yea and free medical coverage and a gym] So do tell how adding more laws will do anything positive?

reply to post by roadgravel


I do not know the hunting laws here at all - no need as I don't go hunting. All I know about it is that you can now use a crossbow during rifle season (for deer) because a friend's husband is a big deer hunter and is adding cross bow to his skills. I would certainly think that a .22 couldn't be used here for large game. Except feral hogs - open season all the time and anything you can kill 'em with is legal.

reply to post by SeesFar


Hmmm, you might be right. I always assumed crossbows would be used in bow season. I have never owned a crossbow, so I have not had a reason to look into it. I hunt with a longbow myself, I don't like compounds much, let alone crossbows.

reply to post by jeepthing07


well the gun range he wanted to shoot at saw right through him. holmes called the gun range and left a voice message that spooked the owner out, incoherent and stumbling, weird speech etc etc. the gun shop owner knew right away that holmes wasnt playing w a full deck. holmes own mother knew he wasnt playing w a full deck.

reply to post by hangedman13


automatic jail time, no ifs and or buts!

Originally posted by Kituwa
Image how many may have been killed if it were not for this 71 year old dude who had a gun.

www.thegatewaypundit.com...

The best part of that was how fast the young thugs were tripping over one another, literally, to get away from the "old man" with the gun.

A lot more of that and we'd have a loss less young thugs.

THAT is what a properly trained person with an appropriate weapon and a concealed carry permit can do. There's no way to know how many lives and injuries Sam saved.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
(edited for specificity) ..... way too may idiots and criminals out there shooting people. i dont wish the government to take away any of you law abiding gun supporters guns away. its the idiots and criminals that need their guns taken away. .

edit on 22-7-2012 by conspiracy nut because: (no reason given)

And there, again, you make the point against your own argument. The "idiots and criminals" will NOT give them up. You canNOT get them away from them. The criminal element will not and never has voluntarily turned in their guns. It's like the locks on the doors of your home - they are not there to keep thieves out; they only keep the honest people out.

I provided you with links to Australia's crime rate since they banned guns; I provided the crime percentage of the U.K. vs the U.S. (over 10% U.K. to under 4% for U.S.) and another poster clearly pointed out that Switzerland has one of THE lowest crime rates because everyone is REQUIRED to be armed and trained.

Go read the stats on Switzerland and see what arming citizens with military grade assault rifles does for the crime and murder rates: here

Leveling the playing field between honest citizens and criminals is what stops crime. It is historically proven, currently proven and an irrefutable fact.

reply to post by conspiracy nut


Well, let me give you another example of what happens when you restrict/ban firearms. In 1993 then President Clinton decided to ban firearms from military bases, this was one of his first acts as President. According to the regulation imposed by the Army, because of Clinton, all firearms should be locked away while military personnel are at their respective bases. Because of this ban another murderer was able to kill several military personnel for a very long time.

U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a radical Muslim murdered 13 people, and 29 were wounded in November 5, 2009 at Fort Hood. Because of gung-grabber Clinton only MPs (Military Police) can have firearms at military bases, if this ban didn't exist and as it was custom military personnel were allowed to have firearms within military bases, Hasan would ahve been stopped before he was able to murder and injure so many people.

BTW, Hasan was stopped by an off-base civilian policewoman who shot him and stopped him from killing any more military personnel at Fort Hood. Because of the need for MPs in war zones, their presence is stretched thin at military bases in the U.S.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
reply to post by hangedman13

 

automatic jail time, no ifs and or buts!

Now you've just degenerated into pure nonsense. Did you even READ hangedman's post? It states:

Originally posted by hangedman13

What about all the legal BS that happens when someone is caught with a illegal gun? Ever hear of a plea deal? Look how upset they get in NYC over the stop & frisk! How many illegal guns they nab??? Yet the complaint is it targets minorities! More laws are pointless. We have a overabundance of laws as is. What is needed is a attitude adjustment towards criminals. Jail does nothing to stop crime. Hell most people involved in the merry go round that is our legal system play it for a hot & a cot.[oh yea and free medical coverage and a gym] So do tell how adding more laws will do anything positive?

So? Did you read it before replying with your 'stuck in a loop' canned response? He's asking you HOW "automatic jail time" is going to fix anything; that more laws are pointless; that jail does nothing to stop crime. All you did was reiterate the same thing you've reiterated half a dozen times.

WHAT is YOUR solution? HOW do you propose it could be done? WHO determines who's crazy and who's not? HOW would you get guns away from criminals? HOW would you determine who is going to go mental and when?

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Now you go and throw some Clinton facts at him. I think we broke him. Facts seem to be too much for him to process. He's caught in the Matrix thing that he denies, looping the same (seeming) talking point.

Not a fact to back himself up with; not a source to prove those of us opposed to his "lock 'em up!" are incorrect; nothing but that danged loop.

Bet a dollar he's not read a single link provided.

Yep; i think we broke him. Hopefully we won't have too much explaining to do.

[



Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to be trying to prove a point for which you lack the education to make solid and, if you'll excuse the poor phrasing (no pun intended), you're shooting blanks.

Not wrong at all,

Open Carry Deters Crime

Open carry is legal in 28 states without restriction. In another 13 states, a license is required. As ABC entitled a recent report, "Open carry is on the rise."

New York is CCW only. It is a felony to expose your handgun, even accidentally. When visiting my brother in Pennsylvania, it's always an impressive site to see citizens open-carry. I thought I'd interject an alternative topic concerning gun control. Some gun proponents advocate no gun control whatsoever, however, I do believe in logical and sensible gun control legislation, not the non-sensical "feel good" legislation politicians are used to peddling.

...reasons for open carry include providing a visible deterrent to crime and providing more comfort and quicker access than concealed carry. A 1985 Department of Justice survey of incarcerated felons reported that 57 percent of the felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

Researcher Gary Kleck found that 92 percent of criminal attacks are deterred when a gun is merely shown (or, rarely, a warning shot fired). By inference, this means that open carry would have the effect of deterring crime in the same way that a thief might choose another restaurant when he sees police eating at his intended target. Also, larger handguns with more potent ammunition are easier to carry openly.

Awareness of an armed citizenry has been shown to lower crime. In 1982, Atlanta suburb Kennesaw required all households to have a gun. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89 percent in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4 percent drop in Georgia as a whole.Ten years later the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72 percent lower than when the ordinance was passed.

I think there are valid points to open-carry arguments and a lot of it makes sense. I think our Four Fathers would be more in-line with laws like these than what we currently have on our books in most states.

Open Carry Deters Crime

Originally posted by SeesFar

Originally posted by Kituwa
Image how many may have been killed if it were not for this 71 year old dude who had a gun.

www.thegatewaypundit.com...

The best part of that was how fast the young thugs were tripping over one another, literally, to get away from the "old man" with the gun.

A lot more of that and we'd have a loss less young thugs.

THAT is what a properly trained person with an appropriate weapon and a concealed carry permit can do. There's no way to know how many lives and injuries Sam saved.

More Sams in the world would mean a lot less thugs. At least the thugs wouldnt be as brazing as they are these days because of they would fear the Sams out there. Go Sam!

Originally posted by Cosmic911

Open Carry Deters Crime

Open carry is legal in 28 states without restriction. In another 13 states, a license is required. As ABC entitled a recent report, "Open carry is on the rise."

New York is CCW only. It is a felony to expose your handgun, even accidentally. When visiting my brother in Pennsylvania, it's always an impressive site to see citizens open-carry. I thought I'd interject an alternative topic concerning gun control. Some gun proponents advocate no gun control whatsoever, however, I do believe in logical and sensible gun control legislation, not the non-sensical "feel good" legislation politicians are used to peddling.

...reasons for open carry include providing a visible deterrent to crime and providing more comfort and quicker access than concealed carry. A 1985 Department of Justice survey of incarcerated felons reported that 57 percent of the felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

Researcher Gary Kleck found that 92 percent of criminal attacks are deterred when a gun is merely shown (or, rarely, a warning shot fired). By inference, this means that open carry would have the effect of deterring crime in the same way that a thief might choose another restaurant when he sees police eating at his intended target. Also, larger handguns with more potent ammunition are easier to carry openly.

Awareness of an armed citizenry has been shown to lower crime. In 1982, Atlanta suburb Kennesaw required all households to have a gun. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89 percent in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4 percent drop in Georgia as a whole.Ten years later the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72 percent lower than when the ordinance was passed.

I think there are valid points to open-carry arguments and a lot of it makes sense. I think our Four Fathers would be more in-line with laws like these than what we currently have on our books in most states.

Open Carry Deters Crime

Very nicely written, thank you...

I imagine a different scenario at the theater had the assailant first sat down next to two
armed civilians, or even one armed civilian...I could be wrong, but I imagine the assailant
receiving his phone, leaving out the back exit and deciding to find an easier target.

Or could have returned and aimed first at the civilians he knew to have weapons.....

But we will never know, because open-carry scares the easily frightened masses, and establishments
choose profit over safety....

Originally posted by TKDRL
I could take out just as many unarmed people if not more with my .22......
Caliber is not really an issue.

If anyone shot me with a .22 and I found about it, I'm gonna be pretty pissed off.

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by TKDRL
I could take out just as many unarmed people if not more with my .22......
Caliber is not really an issue.

If anyone shot me with a .22 and I found about it, I'm gonna be pretty pissed off.

Trust me when I say even getting shot with a .22 you will be well aware of the fact. It may not stop you or even slow you down unless it's perfect shot placement but you will feel it.

I took a bunch of shrapnel (cinder block type not metal) in the calf while clearing a building and none of the pieces were very big - smaller than bb's most of them. Basically, think - the small stones in cement that remain after the mortar vaporizes. Anyway, it certainly hurts and even during an adrenaline moment it was pretty obvious. Serious burning feeling.

I still get weird pus filled pockets of infection there as pieces they didn't find work their way to the surface and that was some 4-5 years ago.

I do agree though that it's pretty much useless for medium or large game (i.e. Humans).

That said, the Israeli's had a lot of success with their assassination programs using a .22; however, in these hits the shot placement is best if behind the ear.

I have a nice KelTech 22 magnum that has a 30 round magazine. Great fun to shoot at the range.

My daughter loves it I will give it to her when she can get her CCW since she doesn't like shooting the bigger calibers. She anticipates the recoil and therefore isn't very accurate; rather have her accurate with it than something bigger.

I told her just aim and keep pulling the trigger till it's empty.

I am sure that 30 rounds of .22 magnum will someone’s day prematurely. It will at least make them (when they get out of ICU) regret very much choice to turn to a life of crime for a good long time.

reply to post by Golf66


Hush-puppy.

Wasn't that the name of the pistol SEALs used in Vietnam to silence sentry dogs? It was a .22.

.22 is a fun round to shoot, but I'm no way in hell gonna try to take down a person (or a freakin' bear) with one of them.

I am not about gun control, but I have always wondered why we need to purchase military grade weapons? What would one need a fully automatic military assault rifle for? I have never understood that. I could see limiting guns to just hunter type guns, like rifles and pistols. I do not understand why someone would need an assault rifle for? I have never seen anyone go out hunting with an AK-47 before, so why does someone need an AK-47? That doesn't make any sense.

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
I am not about gun control, but I have always wondered why we need to purchase military grade weapons? What would one need a fully automatic military assault rifle for? I have never understood that. I could see limiting guns to just hunter type guns, like rifles and pistols. I do not understand why someone would need an assault rifle for? I have never seen anyone go out hunting with an AK-47 before, so why does someone need an AK-47? That doesn't make any sense.

I suppose it’s for the same reasons we "need" to purchase million dollar homes or cars that go 300 mile an hour when the speed limit is 65. It's not about need, it’s about freedom of choice to spend one's money on whatever hobby one should choose. Oh, and I spent several thousand dollars on my collection of vintage D&D stuff, I don't need it - I never play the game anymore. I just like the stuff - reminds me of my youth.

I have many military grade weapons. I have them primarily because I like to collect guns. I haven't delved into the necessities of getting a full auto stamp for a few personal reasons. One being the stricter tracking and such; however the most pervasive reason is simply the cost. Not of the stamp but of the ammo I know I could burn with it.

I spent 24 years in the military - Special Forces mostly and I just like shooting guns. I have never nor will I take them out and start shooting innocent people. I don't want to lose my right to keep my hobby because a few flakes and basket cases who get guns by appearing to be fine at the time – latter go postal. The problem is not their availability.

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
I am not about gun control, but I have always wondered why we need to purchase military grade weapons? What would one need a fully automatic military assault rifle for? I have never understood that. I could see limiting guns to just hunter type guns, like rifles and pistols. I do not understand why someone would need an assault rifle for? I have never seen anyone go out hunting with an AK-47 before, so why does someone need an AK-47? That doesn't make any sense.

I suppose it’s for the same reasons we "need" to purchase million dollar homes or cars that go 300 mile an hour when the speed limit is 65. It's not about need, it’s about freedom of choice to spend one's money on whatever hobby one should choose. Oh, and I spent several thousand dollars on my collection of vintage D&D stuff, I don't need it - I never play the game anymore. I just like the stuff - reminds me of my youth.

I have many military grade weapons. I have them primarily because I like to collect guns. I haven't delved into the necessities of getting a full auto stamp for a few personal reasons. One being the stricter tracking and such; however the most pervasive reason is simply the cost. Not of the stamp but of the ammo I know I could burn with it.

I spent 24 years in the military - Special Forces mostly and I just like shooting guns. I have never nor will I take them out and start shooting innocent people. I don't want to lose my right to keep my hobby because a few flakes and basket cases who get guns by appearing to be fine at the time – latter go postal. The problem is not their availability.