The insanity of Gun Control

[BearBryant]

The liberals at the Brady Campaign, Million Mom March, Americans for Gun Safety and the United Nations are in unanimous agreement that all guns must be outlawed and removed from the possession of citizens in the United States. Here are several of their reasons as to why this must be done.

 

1: The more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.

 

2: An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 magnum will become outraged and kill you.

 

3: A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

 

4: The Second Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which did not exist until 130 years later, having been formed in 1917.

 

5: The phrases Right of the people to peaceably assemble, right of the people to be secure in their homes, enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people, and the powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people all refer to individuals. However, The right of the people to keep and bear arms refers to the state.

 

6: Rifles and handguns arent necessary for national defense. This explains why the U.S. armed forces have tens of millions of them.

 

7: Private citizens shouldnt have handguns because they are not military weapons. Also, private citizens shouldnt have assault rifles because they are military weapons.

 

8: A handgun, with up to four controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to use, as compared to an automobile that has up to 20 controls.

 

9: Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

 

10: A majority of the population supports gun control, just as a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

 

11: Most people cant be trusted so we should have laws against guns, which all criminals will obey because they can be trusted.

 

12: The right of internet pornographers to operate cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self-defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

 

13: Police officers operate with backup in large groups, which is why they need large capacity pistol magazines, as opposed to civilians who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

 

14: We should ban Saturday Night Specials and all other inexpensive handguns because it isnt fair that poor people have access to self-defense guns too.

 

15: Private citizens do not need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them, even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

 

16: Citizens do not need to carry guns for personal protection, but police chiefs, who are desk bound administrators who work in a building filled with armed police, do need to carry a gun.

 

17: Assault weapons have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people quickly. The police need assault weapons; you do not.

 

18: Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes. This is why you see police officers with them on their duty weapons.

 

19: Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) thinks that a concealed carry permit will not help prevent personal crime. That's why she has one.

[Voted4Dubya]

Bearbryant, I thought you said there aren't assault weapons?

 

And they will never take my Glock away from me, that much I can assure you.

[Guest CNOrtega]

The person who is crying poverty now claims to own an extremely expensive handgun. Wow.

 

On topic, we need guns. Maybe not sub machine guns, but we need guns in our society.

[Voted4Dubya]

There's a difference in poverty and being poor.

 

And I saved for a long time to get a gun, its an essential item.

[Easton]

All of you can keep your guns. All I would need is 21 feet and my knife.

[BearBryant]

Never bring a knife to a gunfight!

[Easton]

If you haven't pulled your gun and I haven't pulled my knife and I'm inside 21 feet yes.

 

"It is common knowledge that a suspect, armed with an edged weapon and within twenty-one feet of a police officer presents a deadly threat. Why? Because the "average" man can run that twenty-one feet in about one-point-five seconds; the same one-point-five seconds it will take that police officer to recognize danger, draw and point his weapon, and then pull the trigger. Even if the officer manages to get the shot off, and even if it hits the suspect; even if it instantly disables the suspect, the blade is going to be so close to the officer that the suspect's momentum may continue forward with enough force for the edged weapon to end up injuring the officer anyway. "

 

http://www.borelliconsulting.com/articles/21feet.htm

[Voted4Dubya]

All I know is that the next person that breaks into my car will get some lead if I catch them.

[Easton]

Originally posted by Voted4Dubya

All I know is that the next person that breaks into my car will get some lead if I catch them.

 

I agree with you there. I have no problem with someone protecting their property. But just be aware, sometimes your gun won't be there for you.

[BearBryant]

Originally posted by Easton

If you haven't pulled your gun and I haven't pulled my knife and I'm inside 21 feet yes.

 

"It is common knowledge that a suspect, armed with an edged weapon and within twenty-one feet of a police officer presents a deadly threat. Why? Because the "average" man can run that twenty-one feet in about one-point-five seconds; the same one-point-five seconds it will take that police officer to recognize danger, draw and point his weapon, and then pull the trigger. Even if the officer manages to get the shot off, and even if it hits the suspect; even if it instantly disables the suspect, the blade is going to be so close to the officer that the suspect's momentum may continue forward with enough force for the edged weapon to end up injuring the officer anyway. "

 

http://www.borelliconsulting.com/articles/21feet.htm

 

Oh I agree with the scenario. I had heard that before during a training I had in the early 90's. Still and all, having a gun makes me feel a whole lot safer than having a knife.

[Easton]

That is the case with most people. I'm a bad shot so if I have a shotgun then I am money. But I don't so I practice alot with my knife and got some training from people in different law enforcement and military backgrounds.

[KirtFalcon]

Originally posted by Easton

If you haven't pulled your gun and I haven't pulled my knife and I'm inside 21 feet yes.

 

"It is common knowledge that a suspect, armed with an edged weapon and within twenty-one feet of a police officer presents a deadly threat. Why? Because the "average" man can run that twenty-one feet in about one-point-five seconds; the same one-point-five seconds it will take that police officer to recognize danger, draw and point his weapon, and then pull the trigger. Even if the officer manages to get the shot off, and even if it hits the suspect; even if it instantly disables the suspect, the blade is going to be so close to the officer that the suspect's momentum may continue forward with enough force for the edged weapon to end up injuring the officer anyway. "

This scenerio assumes the person carrying the gun is going to wait until the person with the knife attacks. Once I see the knife and feel threatened, I guarantee you I won't wait until he attacks before I pull my gun. A knife is a good backup choice, but I wouldn't want it as my primary defense weapon. I'll take my chances with my 357 SIG, years of practice and keen eye for detecting danger. :whistle:

[Easton]

Actually my feet are my primary defense weapon. I see danger and I'm beatin feet. My knife like most people's guns is my last resort, before that I will rely on well place hell strikes, knees, elbows, and kicks to knee joints. Then if forced I will pull my knife and go to work. Never have been a big fan of carry guns. But if given the funds to do so I would either be packing the Springfield Armory XD 3 inch subcompact in .40 S&W or the Colt 1911 Defender.

 

Edit : of course everything hinges on what the other person is doing. And how esclated the situation has become.

[Observer]

I really like my Taurus PT140

[RETIREDFAN1]

I like my AK-47.

[Locutus]

I have been taught that a man with a knife is more dangerous than a man with a gun. Why? Because the man with the knife has a different mentality. He knows he must get real close to do his business, and he doesn't mind, a man with a gun wants to keep his distance. A gun gives a false sense of security, where as a person with a knife knows he is going to be in the dead zone. Either way, give me 21 feet, and a second or so, and I'll punch your ticket. Well it goes that way in theory.

 

I still say that if more criminals had to wonder if the victim was packing, there would be less victims. Of course there just might be more dead victims. I'll take my chances.

[Observer]

Look at the violent crime rates in states with carry permits vs non carry states.

 

Look at countries that have registered and removed firearms... their crime rates have not gone down....

 

The concept is to DETER a crime....

[Locutus]

Give me a gun, give me a criminal, I can deter him from ever committing a crime again. Seems simple to me.

[BearBryant]

Originally posted by Observer

Look at the violent crime rates in states with carry permits vs non carry states.

 

Look at countries that have registered and removed firearms... their crime rates have not gone down....

 

The concept is to DETER a crime....

 

Don't tell that to the Democrats. You know how they hate facts.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Don't forget that UN conference this July in New York. We need to get a lot of people out there to protest the attempt to take away our God given right to self defense. I'm probably going to try to make it there and protest outside while the dictators and terrorists which make up the UN attempt to drag us down to their level.

[tbone44]

Originally posted by Voted4Dubya

All I know is that the next person that breaks into my car will get some lead if I catch them.

 

haha...seriously?...your car is worth someone's life?

[Guest Sideliner]

Don't steal my stuff, you might get shot...lol

[Voted4Dubya]

Originally posted by tbone44

Originally posted by Voted4Dubya

All I know is that the next person that breaks into my car will get some lead if I catch them.

 

haha...seriously?...your car is worth someone's life?

I wouldnt necessarily shoot to kill them...but yeah, if someone was breaking into my car, my house, etc, i would shoot them. And especially if I had a family.

I'd rather shoot them and not still my stuff rather than let them get away and probably not get caught or get any jail time if they do.

But yeah, my car, its my personal property. The criminal breaking into should think about that before he/she tries to steal something out of it or it.

[tbone44]

i understand what you're saying...but you didn't really answer my question directly...you did in a roundabout way...

 

but my question is...is your car or the "stuff" inside worth someone's life?...yes or no?...and why?...

 

just so i'm clear...i'm not trying to "challenge" you or anything...not trying to insult you or get a big argument going...not trying to start controversy...just curiousity i guess

[Locutus]

The care and stuff is not worth someone's life. The principle that you are taking something from someone else is, and there is a consequence for such behavior. Why is someones right to life more valuable than my right to work, have property, and have it safe from others.

 

However, I see your question in reverse. It is not whether my car and stuff are worth it, the question the thief should ask is, is my life worth the car, cd, etc....