I have yet to see a reasonable argument why people in the U.S. need to own an assault rifle. We don't live in the Middle East, where it seems like 9 out of every 10 people owns an AK-47 and an RPG. Typical gun-related crimes are carried out with small handguns, not M4's. Therefore, I don't see why we need to allow people to own assault weapons legally.

 

 

I have yet to see a reasonable argument why people in the U.S. need to own 800 horsepower Ferrari's. We don't live in Europe with the Autobahn where it seems like 9 out of every 10 people own a fast exotic car.

C'mon. You're not really this stupid, are you?

True, I don't see why they need all that fire power but it sure scares the thieves from trying something stupid.

True, I don't see why they need all that fire power but it sure scares the thieves from trying something stupid.

 

 

 

Brilliant! :mischief2 Perhaps there's something to this?

You folks out there are sure making it sound like it such a bad thing for a regular law abiding citizen to own a gun. You should see what its like in Switzerland... almost every store keeper owns an uzi and there is virtually no crime. I could see why.

 

 

That sounds like a police state and goes against the very tenants of freedom this country was founded on.

 

No thanks. I'll take freedom over fear.

LOL, it's a police state because a lot of store owners have guns to protect themselves? :lol

 

And newsflash, this country was founded on the blood, sweat, and tears of honorable men who carried firearms and thanks to our founding fathers, both you and I have the RIGHT to protect ourselves, our families, and our homes with firearms. Whether you choose to exercise that right isn't my problem,

 

 

 

 

I have yet to see a reasonable argument why people in the U.S. need to own an assault rifle. We don't live in the Middle East, where it seems like 9 out of every 10 people owns an AK-47 and an RPG. Typical gun-related crimes are carried out with small handguns, not M4's. Therefore, I don't see why we need to allow people to own assault weapons legally.

 

 

I have yet to see a reasonable argument why people in the U.S. need to own 800 horsepower Ferrari's. We don't live in Europe with the Autobahn where it seems like 9 out of every 10 people own a fast exotic car.

C'mon. You're not really this stupid, are you?

It was a rhetorical statement.

A rhetorical statement that provoked no thought.

True, I don't see why they need all that fire power but it sure scares the thieves from trying something stupid.

 

 

 

Brilliant! :mischief2 Perhaps there's something to this?

 

 

I own a gun myself. Its a Ruger P89 9 mil. Carries 10 rounds. Nothing big or anything to brag about. If someone wants to own an assault weapon and it was purchased legally I don't have a problem with it. Me personally I don't need all that fire power. To a sports enthusiast such as accord I don't have a problem with him owning one either. I believe him when he says its for recreation and sport. I've been to both out door shooting ranges Markham and Trail both are safe and the people that go are quite professional.

True, I don't see why they need all that fire power but it sure scares the thieves from trying something stupid.

 

 

Where did you hear the thing about every Swiss shop owner having an Uzi? I'd be willing to be there isn't even a single Uzi in the entire country of Switzerland, Uzi has become a general term that people use to describe any small automatic weapon. Switzerland is a nation that prides itself on shooting sports and has done so for hundreds of years. I'm sure the types of firearms that the Swiss own are no different than what we here in America own for self defense.

And newsflash, this country was founded on the blood, sweat, and tears of honorable men who carried firearms and thanks to our founding fathers, both you and I have the RIGHT to protect ourselves, our families, and our homes with firearms. Whether you choose to exercise that right isn't my problem,

 

 

You're so far gone. There's no hope. You're like the mentally ill gun nut that thinks EVERYONE should have guns, even those that don't want them.

 

So, why didn't you refute my earlier statements? Or could you? Just inerested.

Your lack of firearm knowledge precedes you. The weapons used by the criminals in the infamous North Hollywood Shootout are ILLEGAL!

 

 

Ill admit my knowledge of weapons is limited. Isnt your beef with the assault weapons ban the regulation on semi-automatic weaponry?

 

 

According to Commander Scott LaChasse of the Los Angeles Police Department's (LAPD) Criminal Intelligence Group and Lt. Tom Runyan, Commanding Officer of the LAPD SWAT, during the shootout at the bank, the suspects fired an estimated 1,110 rounds from three fully automatic AK-47s, a .223 fully automatic Bushmaster rifle, a .308 semiautomatic H&K and a semiautomatic 9mm Beretta handgun. One squad car sustained 57 hits. A sidewalk kiosk, used for cover by officers on the scene, was perforated with 150 bullets.

 

Also, whats the purpose of using the semi-automatics outside of the gun range? If there is none, then why not limit their sales only to gun ranges. If it's for security, then why arent you fighting for legalization of fully automatic weapons since they make even more safe?

And newsflash, this country was founded on the blood, sweat, and tears of honorable men who carried firearms and thanks to our founding fathers, both you and I have the RIGHT to protect ourselves, our families, and our homes with firearms. Whether you choose to exercise that right isn't my problem,

 

 

You're so far gone. There's no hope. You're like the mentally ill gun nut that thinks EVERYONE should have guns, even those that don't want them.

 

So, why didn't you refute my earlier statements? Or could you? Just inerested.

 

I'm so far gone? You're the mentally ill liberal living in a dream world where you think society is just one big Disneyland, you're the moron who stated that an 87 year old grandmother shouldn't defend herself or her posessions, and you used some of the most disgusting and atrocious logic to justify it... "she's going to die eventually."

 

If you don't want to own a gun, that's your choice and I could care less. Better to have one and never need it, than need one and not have it.

 

You're talking about that big post of your's? Well I don't feel like spending the next 45 minutes typing in front of a keyboard, just let me say that everything you stated in that big post of yours is very easily refutible and I will get around to it a little bit later today.

And newsflash, this country was founded on the blood, sweat, and tears of honorable men who carried firearms and thanks to our founding fathers, both you and I have the RIGHT to protect ourselves, our families, and our homes with firearms. Whether you choose to exercise that right isn't my problem,

 

 

You're so far gone. There's no hope. You're like the mentally ill gun nut that thinks EVERYONE should have guns, even those that don't want them.

 

So, why didn't you refute my earlier statements? Or could you? Just inerested.

 

I'm so far gone? You're the mentally ill liberal living in a dream world where you think society is just one big Disneyland, you're the moron who stated that an 87 year old grandmother shouldn't defend herself or her posessions, and you used some of the most disgusting and atrocious logic to justify it... "she's going to die eventually."

 

If you don't want to own a gun, that's your choice and I could care less. Better to have one and never need it, than need one and not have it.

 

You're talking about that big post of your's? Well I don't feel like spending the next 45 minutes typing in front of a keyboard, just let me say that everything you stated in that big post of yours is very easily refutible and I will get around to it a little bit later today.

 

So, you don't have 45 minutes to refute and yet you have 45 minutes to refute it? Cool.

 

Have fun "blasting apart" my opinion. Funny how you had to resort to "mentally ill liberal." You make me laugh.

True, I don't see why they need all that fire power but it sure scares the thieves from trying something stupid.

 

 

Where did you hear the thing about every Swiss shop owner having an Uzi? I'd be willing to be there isn't even a single Uzi in the entire country of Switzerland, Uzi has become a general term that people use to describe any small automatic weapon. Switzerland is a nation that prides itself on shooting sports and has done so for hundreds of years. I'm sure the types of firearms that the Swiss own are no different than what we here in America own for self defense.

 

It was from a book called Guns,Crime, and Freedom By Wayne LaPierre and foreword by Tom Clancy original publishing in 1994. Great book. I played Ice Hockey with a couple of swiss players who are mechanical engineers from Norwegian Cruise Lines (thats another story) They have also told me that its most shop owners not all that carry small automatic weapons.

Your lack of firearm knowledge precedes you. The weapons used by the criminals in the infamous North Hollywood Shootout are ILLEGAL!

 

 

Ill admit my knowledge of weapons is limited. Isnt your beef with the assault weapons ban the regulation on semi-automatic weaponry?

 

 

According to Commander Scott LaChasse of the Los Angeles Police Department's (LAPD) Criminal Intelligence Group and Lt. Tom Runyan, Commanding Officer of the LAPD SWAT, during the shootout at the bank, the suspects fired an estimated 1,110 rounds from three fully automatic AK-47s, a .223 fully automatic Bushmaster rifle, a .308 semiautomatic H&K and a semiautomatic 9mm Beretta handgun. One squad car sustained 57 hits. A sidewalk kiosk, used for cover by officers on the scene, was perforated with 150 bullets.

 

Also, whats the purpose of using the semi-automatics outside of the gun range? If there is none, then why not limit their sales only to gun ranges. If it's for security, then why arent you fighting for legalization of fully automatic weapons since they make even more safe?

 

The assault weapons ban served no purpose and if you knew the specifc provisions of it, you'd think it was ridiculous. Under the AWB, you could still easily go out and buy your AR-15 with the same amount of firepower as any other AR-15 in pre-ban configuation. Do you know the differences between a pre-ban and post-ban AR-15? The differences are a complete joke, for example a post-ban AR-15 cannot have bayonet lugs which allow you to attach a bayonet :lol . You're also not allowed to have a flash suppressor, which is actually counterproductive and it acts as a muzzlebreak and negatively effects accuracy and the fragmentation rate. The AWB was ineffective against crime and if it was still in effect, I wouldn't care that much... so I wouldn't be able to attach a bayonet to my AR-15, big f'ing deal :lol .

 

Not even the standard issue M16A4 assault rifles that are issued to every single Marine and Soldier going over to Iraq and Afghanistan are fully automatic. Why? Because it is virtually impossible to accurately shoot one in full auto and it's virtually impossible to practice key marksmanship fundamentals in full auto, not to mention with the limited capacity of the magazines, you would expend nearly all of your ammo in a matter of seconds and then be SOL. 2 or 3 well placed shots are far more effective than 30 rounds aimlessly flying down range in a matter of seconds.

 

F_M, if you're ever in South Florida, I would be more than happy to meet you at Markham Park and let you shoot a few hundred rounds through my AR-15.

When Im talking about semi auto assault rifles, Im talking about the semi-automatic ones that people were up in arms over when made legal. They were used by the north hollywood goons.

 

Plus Im still not sure what purpose they serve outside of the gun range that wouldnt make u want to make the illegal automatic ones legal too.

 

None of what you stated fits into my line of thinking, unlike those whacked out things you just proposed, a criminal breaking into your home at 3am is not an unrealistic scenario, rather it is something that is very common and happens on a daily basis all around the country.

 

But not in your neighborhood, especially if you have a security system.. It's marginally more likely than criminals with rocket launchers.

True, I don't see why they need all that fire power but it sure scares the thieves from trying something stupid.

 

 

Where did you hear the thing about every Swiss shop owner having an Uzi? I'd be willing to be there isn't even a single Uzi in the entire country of Switzerland, Uzi has become a general term that people use to describe any small automatic weapon. Switzerland is a nation that prides itself on shooting sports and has done so for hundreds of years. I'm sure the types of firearms that the Swiss own are no different than what we here in America own for self defense.

 

It was from a book called Guns,Crime, and Freedom By Wayne LaPierre and foreword by Tom Clancy original publishing in 1994. Great book. I played Ice Hockey with a couple of swiss players who are mechanical engineers from Norwegian Cruise Lines (thats another story) They have also told me that its most shop owners not all that carry small automatic weapons.

 

I stand corrected.

 

I was just doing some research though, and it looks like Switzerland requires mandatory service in the military for all men between the ages of 20 and 30 similar to Israel, they must serve on active duty for 1 year and when they're off active duty, they're still always part of the reserves and on standby similar to the inactive reserves here in the U.S., but the difference is they keep their weapons and are always "on call."

 

"Famously, members of the armed forces keep their rifles, ammunition, and uniforms in their homes for immediate mobilisation. Swiss military doctrines are arranged in peculiar ways to make this organisation effective. Switzerland claims to be able to mobilise the entire population for warfare within 12 hours. In contrast, it can take several weeks to several months for a militarily-active country such as the United States to mobilise its military force. However, in January 2006, the defence authorities declared that it would take 8 years to rebuild the army to be ready for a full war against a large enemy." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Army

 

So after learning how things are done in Switzerland, it's no wonder they have one of the lowest crime rates in te world.

 

When Im talking about semi auto assault rifles, Im talking about the semi-automatic ones that people were up in arms over when made legal. They were used by the north hollywood goons.

 

Plus Im still not sure what purpose they serve outside of the gun range that wouldnt make u want to make the illegal automatic ones legal too.

 

The weapons used by the North Hollywood goons were fully automatic, not semi automatic. Fully automatic weapons were NEVER made legal, they are not legal right now, they were not legal when the shootout happened 10 years ago, and they were never legal.

 

The people who were up in arms over the assault weapons ban expiring simply don't understand firearms and how ineffective and rather ludicrous the ban was. The ban did nothing to curb crime and the provisions and requirements in it were laughable at best.

Ill admit my knowledge of weapons is limited.

Here's an interesting article worth checking out. It is obviously written from an anti gun control perspective but contains a ton of factual information including these:

• Burglars are more than three and a half times more likely to enter an occupied home in a gun control country than in the USA. [Compare the 45% average rate of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands with the 12.7% of the USA.]
  
• In the November 15, 1993 issue of Newsweek Magazine, George Will reported that police are more than 5 times more likely than a civilian to shoot an innocent person by mistake.
  
• a University of Chicago study revealed that states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%.
  
• A 1979 Carter Justice Department study found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. That number dropped to only 3% when the woman was armed.
  

I don't feel the need to own a weapon, but I'm also in an extremely low crime area. I also have mixed feelings about items such as automatic weapons. On the one hand, I can't see a practical use for them. On the other hand, there's the whole "give an inch - take a mile" fear that I have of the government. If you let them decide which weapons you can and can not carry, how much further will they go.

 

Shoot, some day they might even decide to legislate which dogs you will be allowed to buy. I mean, can you imagine if they made rottweilers or pit bulls or german shepherds illegal?Of course, they would NEVER do something like that... :whistle

The weapons used by the North Hollywood goons were fully automatic, not semi automatic.

 

Do people call fully automatic weapons semi-automatic sometimes?

 

According to Commander Scott LaChasse of the Los Angeles Police Department's (LAPD) Criminal Intelligence Group and Lt. Tom Runyan, Commanding Officer of the LAPD SWAT, during the shootout at the bank, the suspects fired an estimated 1,110 rounds from three fully automatic AK-47s, a .223 fully automatic Bushmaster rifle, a .308 semiautomatic H&K and a semiautomatic 9mm Beretta handgun. One squad car sustained 57 hits. A sidewalk kiosk, used for cover by officers on the scene, was perforated with 150 bullets.

 

Yankeefan, there are a lot of counter statistics but they are from pro-gun control sites. Stats can be made into what people want them to be. Take for example the last one:

 

A 1979 Carter Justice Department study found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. That number dropped to only 3% when the woman was armed.

 

Its a deceptive stat because I imagine the mass majority of women dont carry guns and a small sample size of women who do carry guns leads to no accuracy. Plus women who do carry guns are probably composed mainly of rural women and rapes rarely happen there.

So you're satisfied with the status quo on gun laws? I haven't actually heard what you think about them because you and Accord have been too busy being on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

 

 

My honest opinion on guns is that I don't care at all about hunting rifles. Other than that, I don't want anyone having hand guns or anything that can fire multiple rounds at a high rate. That's how I feel morally. I only want cops legally having hand cannons, at least, from a moral standpoint (so if criminals have them illegally then the cops know who to shoot).

 

That being said, I have no problem with people owning guns, legally, for the most part. I haven't argued very well for my point, because for the most part I've been kidding around and just plain lazy. However, I'll disagree with Accord on the fact that guns are analogous to an insurance policy or that "a right not exercised is a right lost" (which is textbook b.s. NRA garbage, in my opinion).

 

For a few reasons, the main reason being that if someone breaks into your house a gun is only potentially an insurance policy for saving your life. There are instances I can think of where people have a) shot their family members accidently, where b) the gun owner in question confronts the criminal and either the criminal gets the drop on them or they miss and end up paying for it. I can think of instance c) where a kid sneaks the gun out of a safe-locked place (kids aren't dumb, especially teens, so I'm not sure I feel a responsibly locked, "safe" gun isn't capable of not being taken by a kid who really wants it).

 

The problem type A) has to be one of the worst because you can, accidently shoot and kill someone you love. But I'll treat it as something that doesn't happen that often. It's a tragedy nonetheless and I wonder how those who have accidently killed/shot their loved ones feel about guns after this incident, but let's make it a non-factor early.

 

Type B) seems to me to be the biggest problem on a case to case basis. If your gun is responsibly locked up who's to say you'll get to it before a criminal who's planned ahead can get to you? This, I think, sufficiently counters any kind of "gun as insurance policy" analogy you can think of. An insurance policy, let's say in the case of a fire, is to count 100% of the time that there is a fire (barring extenuating circumstances, ie there's evidence you burned your own house down to cash in on the insurance). A gun is not nor ever will be 100% effective. I want to say, in my opinion, AT THE MOST a gun is only 50% effective (you either get to it and possibly shoot the guy, or you don't). In situation type B) there are instances where you can miss, instances where the criminal gets a drop on you, instances where you turn a non-violent robber into a more violent one. A gun is only effective in that you can only fire it in the dark with some certain percentage of accuracy. Even if you somehow get the drop on a criminal and shoot him, it's not 100% certain he dies or is incapacitated. You might hit some non-vitals and he might be big enough, strong enough that he turns on you and you've got a real problem on your hands. My point is, if someone wants to break into your house to kill you I'd rather it be the case that if I hear them coming that I run and live to get killed another day, than to try and kill them myself and possibly still end up dead. Now, I'm not saying escape is going to be 100% effective either, but in my line of thinking it's just as effective if not moreso than a gun for the above mentioned problems.

 

Problem type c) is also VERY problematic. You can be a responsible gun owner and have a gun under lock and key, and yet there are instances where your kid is at the age where he has a certain level of curiosity about guns and, let's face it, kids ain't dumb (I use kid in the general sense, let's assume kid=teenager in this instance). If a kid is willing enough to sneak a gun out of their parents safe place, they can do so. I wouldn't want to be responsible for my kid shooting themselves in the foot (literally), committing suicide or, in my opinion the worst possible of this scenario, killing someone else.

 

However, guns are legal and from that perspective I don't begrudge anyone for owning a gun. What a I have a problem is someone the likes of Accord morally condemning me for NOT having a gun. I justify it in the sense that I live in a safe neighborhood and in my house I have 3 ground floor entrances and exits and 3 second floor window exits. In the case that I become aware of a robber in my house I have 6 escape routes with which to escape, go to my neighbor's house and call the police. I do not have my own family living under that roof so I don't feel the need to protect anyone. In the case that I do become a family man, I plan on living in similar circumstances and making my children aware of escape routes (and having a baseball bat, the only security I feel is necessary).

 

Morally, I don't believe in owning a gun. Legally, fine. And on a personal note I don't want, nor do I need, a gun. And to counter the old NRA slogan "a right not exercised is a right lost," is simple: We have all kinds of rights we don't use and it's not that by not using that right we're somehow getting rid of it's use. Far from it, Accord. That's analogous to Admin not believing in free speech because this board doesn't allow me to use the words c**t - sh*t - f*** and n****r . That's a slippery slope argument. People who don't buy alchohol after the age of 21 don't give up that right to do it by the time they're 65.

 

Owning a gun, in my opinion, is fine if you're other people or the police. I don't personally need one for the above reasons stated. And I think it's hard to counter the fact that guns only make you some percentage safer. I seek to go the other route and be a pacifist on the matter.

 

I refuse to be so scared of the world in which we live that I need a gun. We have already made killing to easy by making it so that when one pushes a button, a bullet flies out of a barrell and can kill someone. I don't seek to support that kind of institution regardless of what our forefathers put it in the constitution for. I find it offensive that we live in a society where news scares people to the degree that they feel they have to protect themselves in this manner. I give local news a quick cursory glance because I don't buy most of what they're selling: fear. I like being informed, but I refuse to believe that the world is as bad as the news paints it.

 

"WAR! FAMINE! DEATH! AIDS! WAR! FAMINE! DEATH! AIDS!" This is the mantra of most news agencies. And yet, I look outside of my window and hear crickets chirping. Obviously this stuff happens, but we live in America where for the most part we're protected by local agencies.

 

And, as stated before, Batman don't need a gun.

 

You don't care about hunting rifles? Well you should, because most of them are far more destructive than any AR-15 assault rifle.

 

You don't want anyone having guns that care fire multiple rounds at a high rate of fire? Well I hate to break it to you, but almost every handgun on the market can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, nothing more, nothing less.

 

The rest of your statement about guns being accidentally used against other family members, or kids getting into his dad's gun collection, etc.

 

This all comes down to responsible gun ownership. A responsible gun owner with proper training will never encounter any of these things. The #1 tool any home owner grabs in the middle of the night right after he grabs his gun, is his flashlight. You NEVER open fire without identifying the target. A responsible gun owner with proper training will never open fire on a dark shadow in the corner without identifying who it is.

 

As far as kids getting into their dad's guns or something along those lines, a responsible gun owner will never allow this to happen. A good gun safe is not capable of being broken into by most criminals, much less a child or teenager.

 

In regards to TYPE B which you claim to be one of the biggest problems, not being able to access your gun before a criminal can. This was a big problem 20 years ago, but these days it is not a problem anymore with such incredible advances in technology for keeping your gun completely safe while still maintaining quick access to it should you need it in an emergency. There are gun safes which you can buy which use your hand print to open them, you put your hand on the safe and it pops right open in less than a second, then there are safes with digital keypads which can be opened in a matter of seconds as well, unlike the old fashioned combination locks which takes minutes to open. If you have one of the handprint safes, you and only you are capable of opening it, no if's, and's, or but's about it.

 

Someone who keeps a gun in the drawer of his desk or something along those lines is irresponsible, especially if there are kids in the house. This is how most of these accidents you're talking about happen.

 

Then you bring up the point about a gun not being accurate in the dark. Not true at all, most modern handguns on the market already come pre-installed with night sights and those that don't are a very popular factory option.

 

You then brought up the point that it's not certain an intruder dies or is incapacitated, and you say you might hit non-vitals and he may be big enough that he turns on you. This is where good training comes into play. When you use a firearm, you're not just aimlessly shooting at someone, your goal is not even to kill them, your goal is to stop them in their tracks by any means necessary. When you go to the range and practice, you practice high percentage shots only, NEVER head shots or shots to any of the limbs, those are low percentage. 3 quick well placed shots center mass will stop anyone, even the biggest and toughest criminal. If they don't drop, then you don't stop firing, it's really that simple. Most 9mm handguns have a magazine capacity of between 15 and 17 rounds, with enough practice you can accurately fire all of those rounds in a matter of seconds by double tapping, nobody will be able to survive that. I highly doubt there are super criminals out there who can take several shots and then get up and still come after you, this isn't hollywood... one or two well placed shots is more than sufficient in almost every case.

 

Instead of using a firearm against them, you would just run away? What happens if you have 3 kids in the house all in seperate rooms, you do not have enough time to go wake each and every one of them up and get out of the house unnoticed? And then what happens if you try and run and the criminal chases you? You'll be defenseless. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you have to use it, you can have one and still try and run away and escape, but at least you still have it if things don't go as planned and you're forced to use it or die.

 

The laws are very strict in regards to kids using their parents guns in a crime or doing something stupid. A parent will go to prison for 10 years (at least in Florida) if their kid gets access to their gun and then uses it in a crime. The only way to guarantee your kid is unable to access your firearm(s) is if they're in an actual gun safe. Trigger locks and other things will help deter access, but nothing will guarantee that they will be denied access like a quality gun safe.

 

You said that you feel a baseball bat is more than sufficient. I disagree. A baseball bat requires you to get up close and personal with the criminal, and when you're in close proximity ANYTHING can happen. Having a firearm allows you to stay back and remain behind cover while still engaging the intruder.

 

I am NOT morally condemning you for not owning a gun, if that's how I came off in my posts to you then I apologize. Unlike Switzerland, you have the choice NOT to own a firearm, I may not agree with your decision but i'll respect it.

 

All of the points you brought up are valid ones, however the firearms industry is well aware of all your concerns and problems with gun ownership and has already addressed these issues some of which were problems in the past, but no longer so.

 

My gun safe is 6 feet tall and 625 pounds, i'll be glad to post some pictures for you :thumbup

 

Do people call fully automatic weapons semi-automatic sometimes?

No, people never call fully-automatic weapons semi-automatic, and if they do they're very mistaken.

 

 

 

Yankeefan, there are a lot of counter statistics but they are from pro-gun control sites. Stats can be made into what people want them to be. Take for example the last one:

 

A 1979 Carter Justice Department study found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. That number dropped to only 3% when the woman was armed.

 

Its a deceptive stat because I imagine the mass majority of women dont carry guns and a small sample size of women who do carry guns leads to no accuracy. Plus women who do carry guns are probably composed mainly of rural women and rapes rarely happen there.

 

I can't believe you made the statements you did in that last paragraph, that's a very broad generalization and rather stereotypical to say the least. Every person, regardless of gender, must take a concealed weapons license class where everyone must qualify with their weapon. How do you know how many women carry concealed weapons? It is illegal for anyone to open carry in most states, therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to know who is and is not carrying a concealed firearm. How do you know that only "rural woman" carry guns? That's such a load of crap.

No, people never call fully-automatic weapons semi-automatic, and if they do they're very mistaken

.

 

So once again, the LA shooters did have semiautomatic guns. According to Commander Scott LaChasse of the Los Angeles Police Department's (LAPD) Criminal Intelligence Group and Lt. Tom Runyan, Commanding Officer of the LAPD SWAT, during the shootout at the bank, the suspects fired an estimated 1,110 rounds from three fully automatic AK-47s, three fully automatic AK-47s, a .223 fully automatic Bushmaster rifle, a .308 semiautomatic H&K and a semiautomatic 9mm Beretta handgun.

 

that's a very broad generalization and rather stereotypical to say the least.

 

 

 

Here is the backup to what I figured was obvious:

 

A greater disparity exists when polling ownership of firearms; 46 percent of men reported personally owning a handgun, rifle, shotgun or other type of firearm. Only 22 percent of women own any type of gun, the Gallup Poll demonstrates. A similar survey, conducted by the New York Times/CBS, revealed that men are more likely to support the National Rifle Association.

 

 

 

 

In the CBS News poll, 32 percent of adults said they own a handgun, rifle, shotgun or some other kind of firearm. An additional 16 percent said someone else in their household owned some type of firearm. Men are much more likely to own a gun than women. Almost half , 48 percent of men own a gun. An additional 7 percent of men live in a household where someone else owns a gun. On the other hand, only 18 percent of women said they owned a gun, with an additional 24 percent who live in a household with a gun.

 

 

 

Households with guns are more likely to be in rural areas and small towns than cities or suburban areas. Almost three-fifths of people who live in rural areas and small towns have some sort of firearm in their household. On the other hand, in more populated areas -- cities and their suburbs -- less than half of the residents have a gun in their household.

 

 

 

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/nation...poll-watch.html

You don't care about hunting rifles? Well you should, because most of them are far more destructive than any AR-15 assault rifle.{/QUOTE]

 

So, you admit guns are dangerous? Hmmmmm... I guess I should be afraid of them destructive guns.

 

You don't want anyone having guns that care fire multiple rounds at a high rate of fire? Well I hate to break it to you, but almost every handgun on the market can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, nothing more, nothing less.

 

No sh*t. You know I meant an automatic or semi-auto weapon. See, the problem with your line of arguing here so far is that you're treating this as if I'm f***ing stupid.

 

The rest of your statement about guns being accidentally used against other family members, or kids getting into his dad's gun collection, etc.

 

This all comes down to responsible gun ownership. A responsible gun owner with proper training will never encounter any of these things. The #1 tool any home owner grabs in the middle of the night right after he grabs his gun, is his flashlight. You NEVER open fire without identifying the target. A responsible gun owner with proper training will never open fire on a dark shadow in the corner without identifying who it is.

 

Okay, I'll buy this. So, in order for me to shoot a criminal I have to determine he or she is a criminal. This further leads to them either getting the drop on me, or me making sure this isn't grandma Bettie on a late night cookie binge, lost in the dark. It's situational at this point. You mean now, on top of only having one hand with which to shoot, I know how have to wield a flashlight as well? So, I only have one hand with which to shoot the criminal? There goes that whole "gun control means using both hands" bumper sticker. I mean, really, it's a lot to ask for someone to accurately use one hand when most gun ranges teach you a method that requires two (I've talked to an officer about this, he says there are ways to "more accurately" shoot with a flashlight, but it's still not as accurate as using both hands). So NOW, now, the percentage I hit the criminal goes down even more? Man, once again, I call into question, you said a gun is an insurance policy and yet I don't feel insured enough here! I'm sorry, but when I pay for insurance I expect it to cover me 100% of the time for the circumstances I've paid for it to. This means EVERY time I find myself in a situation that requires insurance, health, fire, earthquake, tornado, WHATEVER, I'm covered. By your own admission I know how to wield a flashlight AND heft a gun in a poorly lit environment not to mention the fact that in a big house like mine there are multiple doors barring passege from one part of the house into another. This doesn't seem feasible to me.

 

As far as kids getting into their dad's guns or something along those lines, a responsible gun owner will never allow this to happen. A good gun safe is not capable of being broken into by most criminals, much less a child or teenager.

 

And yet, hundreds, maybe even thousands of times a year (let's face it, I hear it happen at least more than a 100 times a year on my local news, so I have to assume thousands for the country as a whole) kids are successfully stealing their parents gun, thus, by your own admission, those parents are irresponsible gun owners. This means THOUSANDS are, as follows by your own definition of irresponsibility, irresponsible gun owners. I find this problematic as hell.

 

In regards to TYPE B which you claim to be one of the biggest problems, not being able to access your gun before a criminal can. This was a big problem 20 years ago, but these days it is not a problem anymore with such incredible advances in technology for keeping your gun completely safe while still maintaining quick access to it should you need it in an emergency. There are gun safes which you can buy which use your hand print to open them, you put your hand on the safe and it pops right open in less than a second, then there are safes with digital keypads which can be opened in a matter of seconds as well, unlike the old fashioned combination locks which takes minutes to open. If you have one of the handprint safes, you and only you are capable of opening it, no if's, and's, or but's about it.

 

Call me crazy, I need a little more on these. Are they cheap? Are they feasible to buy? I mean, if you live in a low-income area and thus are subject to more crime, with potential for being robbed, are you going to be able to AFFORD one of these magic safes?

 

Someone who keeps a gun in the drawer of his desk or something along those lines is irresponsible, especially if there are kids in the house. This is how most of these accidents you're talking about happen.

 

Then you bring up the point about a gun not being accurate in the dark. Not true at all, most modern handguns on the market already come pre-installed with night sights and those that don't are a very popular factory option.

 

So, guns that don't come with nightsights are popular? Hmmmmm, doesn't sound safe for night shooting. I was of the idea that most cheap-ass home protection guns, let's say your standard .45, doesn't have this kind of crap.

 

You then brought up the point that it's not certain an intruder dies or is incapacitated, and you say you might hit non-vitals and he may be big enough that he turns on you. This is where good training comes into play. When you use a firearm, you're not just aimlessly shooting at someone, your goal is not even to kill them, your goal is to stop them in their tracks by any means necessary. When you go to the range and practice, you practice high percentage shots only, NEVER head shots or shots to any of the limbs, those are low percentage. 3 quick well placed shots center mass will stop anyone, even the biggest and toughest criminal. If they don't drop, then you don't stop firing, it's really that simple. Most 9mm handguns have a magazine capacity of between 15 and 17 rounds, with enough practice you can accurately fire all of those rounds in a matter of seconds by double tapping, nobody will be able to survive that. I highly doubt there are super criminals out there who can take several shots and then get up and still come after you, this isn't hollywood... one or two well placed shots is more than sufficient in almost every case.

 

Oh, so now you have to kill the criminal? Well, one of the reasons I object to guns is it's too easy to kill. I'm not interested in being a killer, I'm interested in incapacitation. Me, from a personal standpoint, I don't want to be responsible for ending someone's life. Irregardless, I find it easier to escape and from a moral standpoint easier to sleep at night knowing I haven't ended someone else, potentially someone who isn't a career criminal and just got messed up and took a few wrong turns in life. I mean, it's not like we're saying all criminals are evil.

 

Also, I think it's a lot to ask that someone be of clear head like they are at a shooting range. I mean, you get woken up at 3 AM by someone breaking into your house, you're not going to be of perfect constitution to shoot your gun just like at the range here. As for the unloading of 15-17 rounds into a body, that just seems like a bit much to me. I've also heard news reports of people who were high who have taken a lot of rounds into their body and not gone down. I mean, if your aim is even remotely off and they end up getting your gun from you, you're in bigger trouble than when the guy was just robbing you. And you have not refuted that there's merely POTENTIAL for this. I mean this is a real high stress situation, here.

 

Instead of using a firearm against them, you would just run away? What happens if you have 3 kids in the house all in seperate rooms, you do not have enough time to go wake each and every one of them up and get out of the house unnoticed? And then what happens if you try and run and the criminal chases you? You'll be defenseless. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you have to use it, you can have one and still try and run away and escape, but at least you still have it if things don't go as planned and you're forced to use it or die.

 

I don't have a perfect answer in this case, because I'm not a parent. I would assume the easy answer is to put the kids room close to your room so you can easily access their room and show them how to escape while your wife is hotfooting it out of your room. Plus, I can think of extentuating circumstances where you HAVE a gun and the criminal has already gotten to your kids. You going to go in there guns blazing, John Wayne? Potentially end the life of your own blood in a kind of situation like this? Sorry, I'd still rather call the police and deal with criminal until the experts get there to prolong the life of my kid.

 

The laws are very strict in regards to kids using their parents guns in a crime or doing something stupid. A parent will go to prison for 10 years (at least in Florida) if their kid gets access to their gun and then uses it in a crime. The only way to guarantee your kid is unable to access your firearm(s) is if they're in an actual gun safe. Trigger locks and other things will help deter access, but nothing will guarantee that they will be denied access like a quality gun safe.

 

I know of my cousin getting his hand on the gunsafe key and going to the trouble of replacing it with a like key to get it copied. This was just so he could borrow the gun to "fool around with." A kid who wants a gun, no kind of safe but those safes that require fingerprints are safe enough (see what I did there with 'safe'?).

 

You said that you feel a baseball bat is more than sufficient. I disagree. A baseball bat requires you to get up close and personal with the criminal, and when you're in close proximity ANYTHING can happen. Having a firearm allows you to stay back and remain behind cover while still engaging the intruder.

 

I merely offered a baseball bat as an alternative. Let's be honest, the first sign of trouble, I'm leaving. Calling the cops. That's the safest course of action in my opinion. That being said, the only time I would think a baseball bat is "sufficient" is if the guy is coming after you and you have no other option but to resort to violence. And as you stated, in close proximity anything can happen. Even with a gun, if the criminal is in close proximity he can knock the gun out of my hands or knock my aim off. Worse yet, close proximity he can grab my gun FROM me.

 

I am NOT morally condemning you for not owning a gun, if that's how I came off in my posts to you then I apologize. Unlike Switzerland, you have the choice NOT to own a firearm, I may not agree with your decision but i'll respect it.

 

I guess I can respect that. Because you seemed to be arguing earlier than anyone who didn't own a gun earlier was a "mentally ill liberal." I still think I personally have morally sufficient reasoning for not owning a gun (escape, to me, is more feasible).

jesus christ that's the messiest post i've ever seen :lol

So' date=' you admit guns are dangerous? Hmmmmm... I guess I should be afraid of them destructive guns.[/quote']

A firearm is a tool and is only as dangerous as the person holding it.

No sh*t. You know I meant an automatic or semi-auto weapon. See' date=' the problem with your line of arguing here so far is that you're treating this as if I'm f***ing stupid.[/quote']

That's because you are f***ing stupid, at least when it comes to firearm terminology. You don't understand what a semi-automatic weapon is. Outside of revolvers, virtually every single handgun on the market is a semi-automatic.

 

Okay, I'll buy this. So, in order for me to shoot a criminal I have to determine he or she is a criminal. This further leads to them either getting the drop on me, or me making sure this isn't grandma Bettie on a late night cookie binge, lost in the dark. It's situational at this point. You mean now, on top of only having one hand with which to shoot, I know how have to wield a flashlight as well? So, I only have one hand with which to shoot the criminal? There goes that whole "gun control means using both hands" bumper sticker. I mean, really, it's a lot to ask for someone to accurately use one hand when most gun ranges teach you a method that requires two (I've talked to an officer about this, he says there are ways to "more accurately" shoot with a flashlight, but it's still not as accurate as using both hands). So NOW, now, the percentage I hit the criminal goes down even more? Man, once again, I call into question, you said a gun is an insurance policy and yet I don't feel insured enough here! I'm sorry, but when I pay for insurance I expect it to cover me 100% of the time for the circumstances I've paid for it to. This means EVERY time I find myself in a situation that requires insurance, health, fire, earthquake, tornado, WHATEVER, I'm covered. By your own admission I know how to wield a flashlight AND heft a gun in a poorly lit environment not to mention the fact that in a big house like mine there are multiple doors barring passege from one part of the house into another. This doesn't seem feasible to me.

LOL, don't lecture me on shooting techniques and fundamentals. You have NO IDEA what you're talking about and you're just making a jackass out of yourself.

 

It's called point shooting, which is a defensive shooting style. Every single NRA basic pistol course teaches shooting one handed, off handed, the weaver stance, modified weaver, point shooting, collapsed point shooting, shooting behind cover, and numerous other things. No, it's not a lot to ask to shoot with one hand, infact it's very easy and very simple. The isosceles stance is just a basic shooting position that all beginners learn, nothing more and most of the time it's not practical for real world scenarios. Almost all self defense shootings happen at 7 yards or less and when you're in confined spaces that close, it is very easy to accurately aim your weapon with one hand and achieve a small 2 inch grouping very quickly. If you're as incompetent as you portray yourself, you need not worry, most handguns on the market come with a rail system to easily mount a small tactical flashlight on it.

 

It's called PRACTICE. If you go to the range on a regular basis and PRACTICE, enroll in classes offered by your local NRA instructor and range, and actively compete in shooting sports such as IDPA, your "insurance policy" will protect you 100% of the time and you will have the necessary level of confidence to be able to perform flawlessly under pressure and the extreme stress of a life and death situation.

 

It doesn't seem feasible to you? That's because you have no idea what you're talking about, yet think you're an expert on the subject.

 

And yet, hundreds, maybe even thousands of times a year (let's face it, I hear it happen at least more than a 100 times a year on my local news, so I have to assume thousands for the country as a whole) kids are successfully stealing their parents gun, thus, by your own admission, those parents are irresponsible gun owners. This means THOUSANDS are, as follows by your own definition of irresponsibility, irresponsible gun owners. I find this problematic as hell.

This is not true at all. Thousands of times a year, are you KIDDING?

 

I just did a quick Google search and the number of accidental deaths among Children each year was ~500-600 in the late 80's to early 90's and dropped significantly to 142 in 1997 and has hovered around 150-250 ever since. More kids die each year in bike accidents, drownings, etc. than by guns. Please, don't go spewing such incredibly false bulls*** like THOUSANDS of kids die each year because of gun accidents.

 

Call me crazy, I need a little more on these. Are they cheap? Are they feasible to buy? I mean, if you live in a low-income area and thus are subject to more crime, with potential for being robbed, are you going to be able to AFFORD one of these magic safes?

Yes, these safes range from around $50 to $250 depending on the various models and features available, which is very reasonable.

 

 

So, guns that don't come with nightsights are popular? Hmmmmm, doesn't sound safe for night shooting. I was of the idea that most cheap-ass home protection guns, let's say your standard .45, doesn't have this kind of crap.

 

Anyone who wants nightsights can get them and they can be installed on any gun. Nearly everyone who buys a gun that plans on using it for self defense or concealed carry will buy nightsights for it, if it doesn't already come with it. Nightsights can be installed on any gun and they cost between $20 and upwards of $80 for the tritium's.

 

Oh, so now you have to kill the criminal? Well, one of the reasons I object to guns is it's too easy to kill. I'm not interested in being a killer, I'm interested in incapacitation. Me, from a personal standpoint, I don't want to be responsible for ending someone's life. Irregardless, I find it easier to escape and from a moral standpoint easier to sleep at night knowing I haven't ended someone else, potentially someone who isn't a career criminal and just got messed up and took a few wrong turns in life. I mean, it's not like we're saying all criminals are evil.

 

Also, I think it's a lot to ask that someone be of clear head like they are at a shooting range. I mean, you get woken up at 3 AM by someone breaking into your house, you're not going to be of perfect constitution to shoot your gun just like at the range here. As for the unloading of 15-17 rounds into a body, that just seems like a bit much to me. I've also heard news reports of people who were high who have taken a lot of rounds into their body and not gone down. I mean, if your aim is even remotely off and they end up getting your gun from you, you're in bigger trouble than when the guy was just robbing you. And you have not refuted that there's merely POTENTIAL for this. I mean this is a real high stress situation, here.

Your goal is to quickly end the threat by any means necessary, and in most cases that means using lethal force. Never said you have to kill the criminal, if you fire 3 quick shots center mass and he drops to the ground, then you stop firing and secure the situation while never letting your guard down.

 

That's right, you're not going to have a clear head and be thinking clearly in the middle of the night with someone inside your home. This is where the training and practice you've had becomes absolutely crucial and you have to rely on your training. The NRA home defense classes are purposely made to be very stressful.

 

If someone is hopped up on drugs, you don't know what they're capable of or what type of punishment they'll be able to sustain and you're right, there are lot's of cases where it takes a lot to bring them down. That's why you train specifically to hit the vitals and shut down their central nervous system, shooting them in a place like the shoulder or the arm would do absolutely nothing. You don't shoot to kill, you shoot to drop them as quickly as possible. It doesn't matter how big, how strong, how tough, or what types of drugs someone is on, if you shut down their central nervous system they're dropping to the ground no matter what.

 

If your aim is remotely off, that's why you have 15 to 17 rounds at your disposal. If you've had proper training and you practice regularly, you WILL drop that person. I believe I stated this above, but if not, nearly all self defense shootings occur at distances less than 7 yards and only 3 shots are fired. It is very rare for someone to ever fire more than that, especially if you're using JHP's.

 

I don't have a perfect answer in this case, because I'm not a parent. I would assume the easy answer is to put the kids room close to your room so you can easily access their room and show them how to escape while your wife is hotfooting it out of your room. Plus, I can think of extentuating circumstances where you HAVE a gun and the criminal has already gotten to your kids. You going to go in there guns blazing, John Wayne? Potentially end the life of your own blood in a kind of situation like this? Sorry, I'd still rather call the police and deal with criminal until the experts get there to prolong the life of my kid.

What happens if your kid doesn't want to wake up? What happens if your kid doesn't want to get out of bed and pulls the covers over his head and ignores you? You don't know how your kids will react. There are simply too many things that can go wrong and I just honestly can't see a plan like yours being perfectly executed in the middle of the night when not only you as an adult won't be thinking clearly, but nor will your little kids.

 

And what happens when the police take upwards of 6-7+ minutes to arrive? Then what? The criminal will be gone and 2 weeks later you'll receive a phone call from a priest informing you that your child was found dead on the bottom of a lake. Sorry, i'm not going to take those chances and i'm not going to rely on "hoping" the police get here faster. What happens if a police officer gets into an accident on the way to your house? Then what? You need to be prepared to defend yourself and your family should such an extreme situation occur. The national average response time is 6 minutes, do you realize what can happen in 6 minutes? And once the police arrive, they're not going to just go busting into the house guns blazing because they need to ensure their own safety as well.

 

I know of my cousin getting his hand on the gunsafe key and going to the trouble of replacing it with a like key to get it copied. This was just so he could borrow the gun to "fool around with." A kid who wants a gun, no kind of safe but those safes that require fingerprints are safe enough (see what I did there with 'safe'?).

Very few gunsafes on the market can be opened with a key, why? Because anyone can pick a lock. Nearly every high quality gunsafe relies on a combination lock, electronic combination keypad, etc. and it's YOUR responsibility to make sure that combination is not able to be obtained by anyone. The combination to my safe is not written down anywhere, I have it memorized.

 

I merely offered a baseball bat as an alternative. Let's be honest, the first sign of trouble, I'm leaving. Calling the cops. That's the safest course of action in my opinion. That being said, the only time I would think a baseball bat is "sufficient" is if the guy is coming after you and you have no other option but to resort to violence. And as you stated, in close proximity anything can happen. Even with a gun, if the criminal is in close proximity he can knock the gun out of my hands or knock my aim off. Worse yet, close proximity he can grab my gun FROM me.

With a gun, you have the ability to eliminate the threat from a distance WITHOUT getting up close and personal with the criminal. However, no situation is every perfect and therefore ever NRA home defense class shows you techniques on how to engage a criminal at very close distances without ever giving the criminal the ability to swipe at your weapon.

 

I guess I can respect that. Because you seemed to be arguing earlier than anyone who didn't own a gun earlier was a "mentally ill liberal." I still think I personally have morally sufficient reasoning for not owning a gun (escape, to me, is more feasible).

Escape is not feasible 100% of the time. You can own a gun and still try and escape rather than be faced with using it, however at least you still have it should you not be able to escape.

 

-----------

Why the hell isn't quoting working???

It doesn't matter where I live, what type of security system we have (if any), what the crime rates in my specific neighborhood are. The chances of something actually happening may be very small, but the chances will NEVER be zero.

 

 

True. But to that point, owning a gun doesn't make the chances zero either.

Accord, you make a strong argument for responsible gun owners, but many people that own guns are not as well trained or as responsible as you.

 

I'm not against guns per se, the fact that people could have guns in their house makes my house, without a gun, safer because an intruder never knows.

 

Perhaps there needs to be some sort of mandatory 'responsible gun owner' training. I don't know if there is, but something more effective is necessary.

 

And about there being very low crime rate in Switzerland, its not just because they own guns. The Swiss are renown for being very responsible citizens. You can't even throw a gum wrapper on the ground and people will look at you wrong. You can't say the same for Americans. Low crime rate in Switzerland is a cultural thing for the most part. The Uzi's in shops are probably just to keep the thieving Italians out, because no real Swiss would ever rob a store.

You folks out there are sure making it sound like it such a bad thing for a regular law abiding citizen to own a gun. You should see what its like in Switzerland... almost every store keeper owns an uzi and there is virtually no crime. I could see why.

 

 

Every man in Switzerland also serves in their national guard. Thus they're well trained in the responsibility of owning a gun.

 

It's also one of the richest nations in the world & doesn't suffer from a lot of the poor and urban problems we have, so there isn't as much of a criminal element in the first place that's out using guns to commit crimes.

 

Would every person in the U.S. owning a gun deter some criminals? Probably. So would barbed wire fences around my house and my grandmother manning a machine gun turret next to my chimney. But rather than live in the wild west, I'd like to see things move in the opposite direction.

 

But again I'm not out to make gun ownership illegal.