All guns owned by public should be banned

[||§§||Pinata]

Think about it. What purpose do guns serve other then as an outlet for anger and violence? How many people do you think are killed by guns each year? Too many, and it needs to stop.

I've broken this up into sections hoping you'll read it

1. Sure hunting and all that is really cool and what-not, but is it really necessary? Do you really have to go out and kill animals for food? No. Perhaps some people do, but with all the money you save on ammunition and what-not you probably buy it. And if you can't buy it then use a bow and arrow. As for the sport, maybe rifles and what-not could be owned, but VERY STRICTLY (I'm talking like a personal evaluation and full background check. I'm not talking about extinguishing guns from existence

2. The only reason people want to keep their guns is for having fun shooting things and self defense. As for having fun shooting things, grow up. Competitive shooting I believe is alright, but just blowing the shit out of targets and other things is not necessary.

3. As for "But how will I defend myself!", if your assailant doesn't have a gun, you think he would actively assault you? And even if he did, how successful do you think he'd be. Compare the number of people who have successfully defended themselves with a gun to the number of people that have been injured or killed by a gun deliberately. You'll be sorely surprised.

4. The only people who should be allowed to have guns is law enforcement.

5. Peoples unwillingness to give up their guns is a combination of blind defense for ones constitutional rights and ignorance. Saying you should be allowed to have a gun because the founding fathers said so is not a viable argument in my opinion, as guns were a larger part of life back then and were actually used productively (and I use that term VERY loosely).

6. Take a look at countries who have already banned publicly owned guns. the crime rate is almost non-existent. And you certainly don't see anything about school shooting or street gangs killing each other.

7. Sure people will keep their guns. But only a minority. And if they won't give them up, when they use them we'll take them away.

Update: For those of you who use the defense "people will smuggle guns!" You're overestimating criminals. Sure some will, but will those criminals who are organized enough to smuggle guns into the country REALLY use them to shoot up a school? The crime rate and abuse of guns would drop EXTREMELY if this were to happen.

The negatives of publicly owned guns CLEARLY outweighs the positives. Prove me wrong. If humanity wants to make a major stride towards a safe society, guns should be banned.

And yes, this thread is focusing on America, if you haven't already noticed.

P.S.- For those of you who will use the defense of "But 7 people successfully defended themselves with guns last year!" And "But what abut the guy who really uses guns to survive!" I offer you the proverbed Machiavellian quote- Do the ends justify the means? Do a couple of people who really rely on guns who will be hurt by the gun ban really outweigh all the innocent people who are killed by guns all the time? Think about it.

Please please PLEASE read the thread before making an argument. Chances are I've already addressed what you're trying to refute. Then gain, feel free to look like an idiot at your own expense.

Final point: Nobody can sit here and honestly say that if we ban guns it won't contribute to a safer society. End of story.

[||§§||Foehammer]

5. Peoples unwillingness to give up their guns is a combination of blind defense for ones constitutional rights and ignorance. Saying you should be allowed to have a gun because the founding fathers said so is not a viable argument in my opinion, as guns were a larger part of life back then and were actually used productively (and I use that term VERY loosely).

Your just another liberal who thinks pwming guns hurt people. Stop watching CNN please. As soon as I turn 21 I plan on getting all of my gun licenses, buying a lot of guns, and enjoying myself with them. I love guns, I love my rights :/

[||§§||Buzzard]

they will get my gun from my dead cold hand ,plus i'll be out of ammo

[||§§||Kit]

1. I don't know where the hell you live, but around here some people actually DO hunt for food. Case in point, my father-in-law hunts every fall for deer (sometimes using a bow and arrow, sometimes a rifle) and from what he gets we have venison all winter long.

2. I could be doing worse things than going to a shooting range and popping off 50 rounds. Believe me, much worse. Am I hurting anyone? No, because my aim in pretty damn good...

3. I don't have a gun to defend myself. I have a husband who will beat the ever-loving shit outta someone who tries to break in. "Oh but what happens when he's not there?" Um, I have a phone, there are police officers around, and I can defend myself just fine).

4. That's a load of BS.

5. Yes, people in the "Wild Wild West" used their guns productively. Ever hear of a game they used to play with a poker chip???

6. As an educated woman whose minor in college was sociology...I took a class in the sociology of crime. Guns don't make people violent. They are inherently violent. You don't need a gun to do crime. There are plenty of other options. Did you know that there is more crime in the summer months? True. Why? Because people are irritable because it's hot, and thus more quickly to anger. No lie.

7. That's delusional.

[||§§||Dr.H]

Lol same old anti-gun stuff. Basically lots of info stated without and facts to back up the numbers.
It is a lot easier to buy illegal guns than you think it is and trust me it takes a lot of time and effort to get a gun license and no one who wants to commit a crime is going to go through all the hassle to get a license that marks them as the owner of the gun.

I hate when people think they are so right that they can end their comments with "End of Story" and think that no one can dispute them. Let me toss some real info your way.



Violent crime hit an all-time high in 1991. Since then, “gun control” laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive at the federal, state, and local levels; the numbers of privately-owned guns, gun owners, and Right-to-Carry states have risen to all-time highs; and violent crime has dropped 38%. Among the four categories of violent crime, murder has dropped 42%, rape 27%, robbery 45%, and aggravated assault 34%.

More Guns. The number of privately-owned guns is at an all-time high. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) has estimated there were about 215 million guns in 1999;1 the National Academy of Sciences put the 1999 figure at 258 million.2 The number of new guns each year averages about 4.5 million.3 According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 68.6 million approved (new and used) NICS firearm transactions from 1994-2005.4 The FBI reports that there were 61.6 million approved NICS transactions from Nov. 30, 1998 through the end of 2005, and that the annual number of transactions increased 2.4% between 2003-2004 and 3.1% between 2004-2005.5

More Gun Owners. The number of gun owners is also at an all-time high. The U.S. population is at an all-time high (299 million), and rises about 1% annually,6 and numerous surveys over the last 40+ years have found that almost half of all households have at least one gun owner.7 Some surveys since the late 1990s have indicated a smaller level of gun ownership,8 probably because of some respondents’ concerns about “gun control,” perhaps a residual effect of the anti-gun policies of the Clinton Administration.

More Right-to-Carry. The number of RTC states is at an all-time high, up from 15 in 1991 to 40 today.9 In 2006, states with RTC laws, compared to the rest of the country, had lower violent crime rates on average: total violent crime lower by 26%, murder by 31%, robbery by 50%, and aggravated assault by 15%.10

Less “Gun Control.” Violent crime has declined while many “gun control” laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive. Twenty-five states have eliminated prohibitory or restrictive carry laws, in favor of Right-to-Carry laws. The federal Brady Act’s waiting period on handgun sales expired in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported National Instant Check, and some states concurrently or thereafter eliminated waiting periods or purchase permit requirements. The federal “assault weapon” ban expired in 2004. All states have hunter protection laws, 46 have range protection laws, 47 prohibit local jurisdictions from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law, 44 protect the right to arms in their constitutions, and Congress and 33 states have prohibited frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry.11

Less Crime. The FBI reports that the nation’s total violent crime rate declined every year between 1991-2004, to a 30-year low in 2004, and that it has risen slightly in the last two years.12 By comparison, the most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics crime victim survey found that “at the national level crime rates remain stabilized at the lowest level experienced since 1973,” when the first such survey was conducted.13
The FBI’s data show that since 1991, when the violent crime rate hit an all-time high, and 2006, total violent crime has decreased 38%, murder 42%, rape 27%, robbery 45%, and aggravated assault 34%. During 2004-2006, total violent crime was lower than anytime since 1974. For the last eight years, the murder rate (fluctuating between 5.5 and 5.7 per 100,000 annually) has been lower than anytime since 1965. Studies by and/or for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that “gun control” reduces crime.14

Oh and as to your
6. Take a look at countries who have already banned publicly owned guns. the crime rate is almost non-existent. And you certainly don't see anything about school shooting or street gangs killing each other. Where did you get that fact? In fact in Britain since 1997 after the gun ban, gun crimes have almost doubled.

According to the Sunday Times of London, crimes in which guns were used numbered 4,671 in 2005-06. Before you compare those numbers to U.S. crime rates remember that the U.S. is A LOT bigger, over twice the size of Western Europe alone.

[||§§||Kit]

LOL. While we're at it do you want to discuss any other riveting subjects, like the death penalty for instance?

[||§§||Hand_O_Death]

LOL. While we're at it do you want to discuss any other riveting subjects, like the death penalty for instance?

Abortion
Religion
Homosexuality

and other gaming related subjects

[||§§||Kit]

I choose door #3 please.

[||§§||Dr.H]

Lol that's probably why a lot of sites and forums ban people from starting political or religious topics..

[||§§||zezura]

*Post deleted for being immature and threatening by moderator*

[||§§||Hand_O_Death]

Warning!!
Zezura
The one and only time I am going to warn you about this, If I ever see another post like that you will be banned from everything we have. Cut the crap and grow up.

[||§§||Kit]

Warning!!
Zezura
The one and only time I am going to warn you about this, If I ever see another post like that you will be banned from everything we have. Cut the crap and grow up.

Thank you Hand. I actually reported that post. YES IT WAS ME THAT REPORTED IT. So offensive.

[||§§||Eraser]

who needs guns when you can hijack a plane with a boxcutter and crash it into a building?

point: Guns don't kill people , people kill people. If someone is determined to hurt another person they will find a way.

also, if you make something illegal, that doesn't stop people from having it.

have a nice day.

[||§§||Hand_O_Death]

Actually it is the massive blood loss and severe trama cause by the bullets that kills people :P

[||§§||zezura]

Warning!!
Zezura
The one and only time I am going to warn you about this, If I ever see another post like that you will be banned from everything we have. Cut the crap and grow up.

ok, sry

[||§§||Pinata]

Well, That's a view I have on guns. A lot of people agree with it, and a lot disagree. I am a hunter (live in Idaho, nothing to do here) but This is something I can agree on. I just wanted to see what other people think.

[||§§||Kit]

You so did not want to "see what other people think." You just told us what YOU think and then told us "End of Story" which means that what you said is what you thought was the ultimate truth. If you can't back up your words then don't p*ssy out and say you really wanted to know what we thought when you don't. End of Story.

[||§§||Pinata]

Oh..

[||§§||Adreesta]

point: Guns don't kill people , people kill people.

This.

[Sean]

You have the right to say what ever you please, your welcome. Me and MANY others like me have put our lives on the line to protect your right to trash talk us. I have never seen a gun jump up all by its self and hurt a sole. I disaprove of smoking, so I don't smoke. (get the idea?)

[Sean]

AND another thing! To Hand-o-death, thank you. I was the manager of the largest gunshop in NC for a while and I met all sorts of people so the orignal coment does not suprise me. And yes, it IS the sudden trama and loss of blood that does it.
I carry a hand gun (Glock 32) and it is like car insurance: Hope I never need it, but if I need it I will be DAMN glad to have it!

[||§§|| Sven The Slayer]

"Should all guns owned by the public be banned?" probably would been a better way to start the topic off if you were interested in other peoples opinion. Then you could state your side of the debate as opinion.

I love the "free speech" arguments I've seen on forums before. This is not the case. The final word always comes down the the owner of the forums. Even if the servers and owners are based out of the USA they still control what can and cannot be said.

Anyway... My opinion is... Dr H said it best, the crimes actual committed with guns rarely use legally owned fire arms. You will of course get situations with "crimes of passion" where somebody flips their lid and does something. Or just ordinary people at the end of their rope. If guns are not available they will always find some other means. I've watched a number of police and surveillance videos in my day and you see some of the substitutions for guns. Other then the array of bats and clubs and knives I've seen a blow torch once. If you want to cut down on crime you have to do A) remove all the objects that can hurt people (pointy sticks, guns, clubs) or B) stop the criminals

[||§§||Dr.H]

I love the "free speech" arguments I've seen on forums before. This is not the case. The final word always comes down the the owner of the forums. Even if the servers and owners are based out of the USA they still control what can and cannot be said.


Sven is right in that free speech doesn't legally apply for forums because they are privately owned. The amount of freedom each forum gives is completely up to the owner. That said when we all try to follow the rules set up here, we give as much leeway to the members as we can as long as their not breaking rules or causing conflict.

[||§§||po1s3n]

owning guns isn't the problem its educating people on how to use them and not be fuckheads and go shooting around the street on new years or when they wanna have a nice thrill, i'm all for self proteection but wouldent a tazer be more " shocking " :D but yeah guns are fine provided they are used intelligently and for logical purposes, not trying to shoot down that squirrel running along the power lines.

[||§§||RENÔTŠΩ]

lol but thats the best :sFi_sniper: i did that last weekend the little bastard was running with his guts hangin out then he got up in a tree and like a couple sec later the intestine, stomach fell and he came right after

[||§§||GhostDog]

Just out of curiousity: Why do you feel the need to carry a gun?


(Starting with this post I moved the following posts from this thread http://suicidesoldiersclan.com/showthread.php?t=886 to this one due to the subject matter.) - Dr.H

[||§§||Reign]

Let me answer this. ITS EVERY AMERICANS RIGHT. Besides you have one and some fool gets crazy they need a little help.

Case in point. Anaheim, Angle Stadium Off duty officer with his family and two small kids leaving the game meet with two punks. He in return told them to leave and they did not, officer or not had his weapon and used it to protect his family from harm.

Every good person should have a right to protect them self and arm them self. There are a lot of bad people out there that might need a little help thinking twice about taking or hurting some one. Hell they might have a GUN and know how to use it.


Sorry just my 2 cents.

[||§§|| Sven The Slayer]

Reign pretty much said it, you never know when the next psycho will strike so why not be prepared? Just because you have it doesn't mean you are always going to be using it it or brandishing it (that would be illegal). It's there for you if the situation arises where you would, it's there for you. Just think of the boyscout moto, "be prepared". Also with the LTCF nobody will ever know it's there, unless they are told. In PA it's also legal to open carry (not into Philadelphia) but that's restrictive so the LTCF just gives you more freedom.

I also have my carry permit and will carry my sig as soon as a get a suitable holster for it.

[||§§||Dr.H]

I can understand Ghosts question, he's not questioning the right to own but the need to carry.
Carrying a sidearm is a personal choice and it depends on a lot of things about the persons life.

Some people feel very comfortable and more secure knowing they are able to protect themselves and family at any time the need arises.
Of course many things matter like what type of cloths you wear, what type of job you have, how often you need to go onto Government property etc etc.

In CT your pistol permit is a concealed carry permit but I have never conceal carried myself. I'm sure if I felt insecure about an area I had to got to I may but I personally don't have any carrying experience so I feel to unsure to be comfortable carrying at this time myself.

[||§§||Hand_O_Death]

Sadly, most gun deaths are from illegal guns and gus improperly kept in a house, with that said, I really wish we got rid of guns alltogether. but I would make sure that mine was the last one in the blast furnace.

[||§§|| Sven The Slayer]

Sadly, most gun deaths are from illegal guns and gus improperly kept in a house, with that said, I really wish we got rid of guns alltogether. but I would make sure that mine was the last one in the blast furnace.

Yeah if somebody is going to commit a crime with a fire arm they are not going to all the legal trouble to get one and then a carry permit and all that. So it's really not the people who jump through the hoops you have to worry about. You cannot get rid of all fire arms. People would still find ways to kill each other and somebody is just going to manufacture their own guns or a close facsimile there of.

[||§§||Dr.H]

We have to understand that many people from other countries will have problems understanding the United States views on privately owned and carried guns. There are even tons of people in the U.S that can't understand it.
Their main problem is due mainly to lack of proper information due to the huge worldwide anti-gun conglomerates who have very powerful connections in world wide politics and media. What makes the United States a free country is tightly bonded to our rights to own weapons and the anti-gun community knows that is a very hard battle to fight so they choose to work around it. They use small numbers and improper facts, and sometimes completely wrong facts to try and move people over to their side. It doesn't matter if what they say is wrong or right the point is that they get people who are not familiar with gun or gun facts to listen, then they repeat what they say over and over and over until fiction becomes fact in the minds of many.

They will commonly group all gun crimes together to make things look the way they want. You will never see them separate murders cause by illegal guns, legal guns, self inflicted, accidental. If you put them all together it looks like a better argument.

While it may seem logical that if all guns where banned then there would be no more guns crimes, that is sadly far from the truth. There are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation worldwide and a very small percentage of those are legally owned by permit owners. So even if you banned people from legally owning guns it will do almost nothing to effect black market guns because they do not come from the same places.

In fact we are currently unsure if removing legally owned guns might have the exact opposite effect on gun crime. Many countries that banned guns in the 90's like England and Canada have had rising violent crime rates while the United State crime rate has been dropping.

I will continue this later lol since I'm on my lunch break.

[||§§||Postal]

They will commonly group all gun crimes together to make things look the way they want.

I personally wish that people would stop using statistics to prove points. I took statistics and statistics analysis classes and I wont be the first to say that most any statistic can be made to say what ever you want it to. Believing the numbers is believing their lies. Ok, maybe not lies but believing them is falling into their trap.

I also agree with Sven. You can't predict when and where a psycho will strike next and being unprepared is a good way to wind up a statistic. Criminals are going to break the law. They do this by definition. You take away publicly owned guns and criminals will still get them and use them. All you're really doing is setting up the people to be unguarded sheep for the wolves' to just pick off as they please.

Being a gun owner, I wont look down on a non-gun owner. It's their choice not to own one. However, when someone starts pushing their views on me (not just on guns but any topic) that's when they've crossed their bounds and are infringing on my rights to my own choices. I respect other people's choices and expect the same from them. I'm a firm believer that as long as you're not posing a threat to others, your personal choices are none of my concern.

[||§§|| Sven The Slayer]

I know there is at least one state that has really lax gun laws and they have the least amount of gun violence.

(As a criminal say you want to mug somebody) If you never know who is carrying you are less likely to do so. If you know within reason that you are the only one armed then you can do whatever you want and there won't be any resistance. Just look at a match of COD4 with only snipers on one team.

Guns don't kill people anyway. They just make it easier for other people to do so. People should be publicly banned world wide. Not to mention it's easier to kill people with cars and those are a lot less regulated.

What it really boils down to is anybody who owns a gun should know how to handle it safely and take care of it so it doesn't fail. More people need to be informed of the actual facts and just get the "guns are bad" stink out of their head.

[||§§||Hand_O_Death]

I wouldn't look down at non gun owners either. They will slow the Zombies down while I get away LOL

[||§§||GhostDog]

What sort of a situation do you fellas envision yourselves in that would require the use of a gun and how many of you have ever been in that sort of situation so far in your adult lives? I'm not talking about something you read about, or were told about it by a friend of a friend. How many of you have a contact in the black market? If a mugger had a gun, wouldn't he he be pointing it at you already? You'd have to be David Blane get out of that one. How many of you have been mugged?

According to wikipedia: "Approximately 70 percent of the total murders in the U.S. are committed with firearms, versus about 30 percent in Canada."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada#Comparisons

Now I don't know if Wikipedia has been hijacked by a bunch of gun-hating-constitution-robbing-leftwing-crybabies, but I haven't conducted any studies of my own lately so I'm going to go with it. ;)

Is it fair to say that anyone who speaks out against carrying a concealed weapon is guilty of being misinformed or manipulating information? I'm sure we're all making the same effort to be correct. Or that the freedom of your country is dependant on the average middleclass citizen carrying concealed weapons?

I'm no stranger to guns, in fact I've been around them my whole life. My grandfather kept 3 gun cabinets full of rifles and we had access to them anytime we wanted. I personally own five hunting rifles and one pistol tucked away in safe. That doesn't mean I want random individuals walking around in public with one hidden away in their jackets. And the reason for that, is that I could never bring myself to put that much trust in a stranger's judgement. Especially not someone who gets wood every time the topic of guns comes up. You know the guy who's got a Benelli for home security and an MP5 for shits and giggles.

I'm not anti-gun. I recognize that guns don't kill people anymore than rock music does. Even if that's the only thing handguns were designed for. I also understand that if someone wants to kill you they're going to come up with a plan to get it done, gun or no gun. But if they're not carrying a gun that's one less thing for you to worry about.

Qualified, tested, hoops or no hoops, I know I wouldn't be comfortable taking my kid to the park or the mall knowing that someone within range could be carrying something intended to kill one of us. I just can't bring myself to put that much faith in the judgement of a complete stranger. How many people shit their pants at the first sign of a confrontation? How many people can muster anything that resembles an intelligent thought at the first sign of trouble? In my opinion, the average person is not wired for decision making on that level. Even if they think they are. It's delusional to think that an average person can deal with that kind of pressure and intelligently manage a deadly weapon at the same time.

I was taught to never hunt with someone you don't know and trust. That would be putting yourself in a dangerous situation and be utterly stupid. Even though you can see this person walking next to you, you don't know if he's got the brains or the restraint to put your safety first when something jumps out of the bush. To me, an armed stranger on the street is just as dangerous.

My uncle told me about a friend of his that went down to the states to a UFC event. He was cheering on one of the fighters when some guy behind him tapped him on the shoulder and told him to shut his mouth. My uncle's friend basically said 'whatever' and the guy opened his shirt and showed him his gun. Maybe he had a permit for it. But what I want to know is would that guy have been so bold if he wasn't carrying it and what power and control over others did he think that gun entitled him to?

[||§§||Kit]

This is just coming from an educational standpoint...I, along with most other teachers, teach students to never use wikipedia as a source in a research paper. Why? Because it's not reliable. It's a place where anyone can go and enter information that isn't necessarily true. If you're looking for convincing sites that are reliable, you need to look for .org sites.

Sorry, but wikipedia just doesn't convince me of anything you're saying.

[||§§||GhostDog]

I know wiki is open to the public. That doesn't automatically invalidate any and all of the info there. Besides, my argument did not rely on one link with a statistic. It was supplemental at best.

Do you trust a stranger with a gun?

[||§§||Kit]

Do you trust strangers with things that are not policed by the government, say like, oh...knives. I think you can die of stab wounds, right?

[||§§||GhostDog]

Answering my question with another question is not an answer. That's a tactic that angry people without a sufficient answer use. Do you trust an angry person with a gun? :)

[||§§|| Sven The Slayer]

I don't trust anybody. As for your uncles friend story. Showing and threatening a person with the gun like that license or no license IS illegal. The point of have an LTCF is so you can carry concealed. Nobody is supposed to know its there. I would also be a lot more willing to trust the person who has gone through the legality and knows the laws then some thug who has a gun stashed in their tighty whities. I've had 3 background checks just to be able to carry. One to get the gun and two alone just for the permit. In my county your local cops have to check as well as the sheriffs office.

[||§§||Kit]

I don't know Sven, and I would trust him with a gun (seeing as he's a stranger and all and you wanted my answer). I would trust him because I know that he has gone through all the appropriate actions to own a gun legally.

Yet at the same time I agree that it's hard to trust anyone who you don't know. But that doesn't just all come down to owning firearms. I don't trust other people's driving. That is certainly something that can become deadly.

It really is how you think about it.



Answering my question with another question is not an answer. That's a tactic that angry people without a sufficient answer use. Do you trust an angry person with a gun? :)

And no, I'm not an "angry person without sufficient answer." I'm just a bitch. There's a difference.

[||§§||Dr.H]

I have meet people who have been mugged. I am lucky enough to not have been myself since I live in a pretty safe area. You would be surprised on how easily distracted muggers and thiefs can be and most will run away when up against an armed citizen, even an old one.
I do not have any contacts where to buy black market guns because I'm a law abiding citizen but I'm sure some of our police members know of areas where you can.

Each state has it's own specific laws when it comes to being able to carry handguns.

In the U.S. people conceal carry all of the time and no one ever knows. That's the point, I'm sure even here in New England I walk by people every week who are armed and I have no idea. The guy who flashed his gun to your uncle broke the law by doing so and you uncle should have informed the police.

I can say I'm lucky enough to have never meet someone who actually gets an erection from owning a shotgun and MP5 but I would think the percentage of people who do is very small. Shotguns I believe are actually the number one home defense weapon in the world, a bit part of that is their intimidation factor so that they are not needed to be used.

I would say you have a better chance of winning the million dollar lottery then happen to be in a park at the same time a licensed conceal carry permit owner is planning to specifically shoot you or your daughter.
You can't live your life always fearing what other people are going to do. You'd never cross the cross walk fearing if the licensed driver of a 3000+LB piece of metal is going to hit you with it.

Would I ever trust a stranger with a gun? No I wouldn't, that is why there are specific rules when dealing with firearms between two people. If I'm with someone who has a firearm it can only be a few things. Either we are safely hunting, target practice or showing the gun to each other in purposeful conversation or a person is armed in attempt to hurt me or my family. Otherwise I shouldn't even know he has a gun.

Our of all my family members that have permits there is only one who actually carries. That is my sister, she is an avid fisher and often goes out very early or late by herself in remote places fishing.
Otherwise no one else carries their guns. The handguns where all bought for target practice first and home defense second.

[||§§||Dr.H]

I wanted to mention just encase this thread continues.

We are all just voicing different viewpoint we have in a friendly debate.
There will be no rude comments here.

[||§§||GhostDog]

I think both sides have valid points. Which, in my view, makes this topic a two-sided coin. Like this statement:


You can't live your life always fearing what other people are going to do.

That could be used by either position to get it's point across and still be valid.

I'm glad I live somewhere where you're not allowed to carry. But if I did live in a place where you could, I'm sure I would apply for my permit as well because the only gun I like is the one pointing away from me.

[||§§||Dr.H]

the only gun I like is the one pointing away from me.

Lol that there is going on my wall of best statement ever!! Well said. :lol:

In CT we actually don't have a choice, our gun permit doubles as a conceal carry. While I suppose this is fine I'm sure they could make some more tax money if they broke it up into two permits but they probably figure it would be to hard for people to move guns from there home to the shooting range or from the store to their home.. who knows, maybe they just figure people who own will carry whether they have a permit or not.

[||§§|| Sven The Slayer]

I'm glad I live somewhere where you're not allowed to carry.

That's certainly where some problems arise. The people who are going to commit crimes and carry illegally don't care if it's illegal. Because you cannot legally carry with a permit isn't going to do anything to stop gun crime. Where are you located? In the states somewhere?

[||§§||GhostDog]

I am Canadian.

[||§§||Eraser]

You can't enforce the entire public based on what a minority uneducated and idiotic people do with those rights. If that was the case they should get rid of alcohol, more dumb people drink and then drive and kill people as opposed to people who buy guns and shoot people. btw, my new Sig 556 (think they put me on the watch list?) lol

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/876/img2620.jpg
By htown21 (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/htown21), shot with Canon EOS 30D (http://profile.imageshack.us/camerabuy.php?model=Canon+EOS+30D&make=Canon) at 2009-07-04

[||§§||Dr.H]

Lol bad ass gun but can you resize that into something a bit less huge. 1000px would even be easier to see than 3504px × 2336px

[||§§||Hand_O_Death]

If you werent on the list before, you are now LOL

[||§§||Postal]

What sort of a situation do you fellas envision yourselves in that would require the use of a gun and how many of you have ever been in that sort of situation so far in your adult lives?

I will field your question. My answer is once. And once was enough. Here's the tail:

My girlfriend goes to school in central Philadelphia. While walking back to her dorm late one night (was around 2 or 3 AM) after going out for Malaysian food, a man walking past us hit my girlfriend in the face for no apparent reason. I drew my extending baton on him and stared him down as he cowered off. Later I find out that this is how a lot of mugging go down. They hit the female to throw the male off then mug them both.

I didn't need a gun there but I might have. Would I have pulled a fire arm in that exact situation? No, not right away anyways. If I had been mugged at gunpoint, I'd've handed over my empty wallet (cause I never carry cash), then pulled my own piece as he was leaving and made a citizen's arrest (or killed him if I had to). And if he didn't have a gun, then I would've and there would've been no problem as long as he was smart about it and left quietly.

Point being, I didn't trust anyone that I don't know in that city before and I DEFIANTLY don't trust them now. I'd like to think people are good by nature and most are. But if you live under that assumption, the bad ones can get close enough to hurt you and they will; especially if they have nothing to lose to begin with. Like the boyscouts taught me "always be prepared" and I've taken that to heart.

[||§§||Hand_O_Death]

Just for future reference: If someone is leaving, never shoot them, ever. If you are not in any current threat of harm, it is not self defense, it is commonly refered to as murder for revenge on taking your crap. and some people don't like being offically arrested so attempting to do a citizens arrest might do more harm than good.

I like your motovation and intentions, but would rather not have yo hurt over an empty wallet.

[||§§|| Sven The Slayer]

Citizens arrests are in fact legal. Although there is nothing protecting you from the person you arrest taking legal action against you in the future. You arrest them, they sue you.

[||§§||Postal]

Didn't say citizen's arrest was the best plan, said it was my plan.

And as for Sven's post:
So you counter sue them for emotional trauma or pain and suffering (meaning that you're girlfriend was traumatized by the incident and you can't get laid. really, that's what it means). Seriously, civil courts are such BS. Nothing more than a legal way to rob someone. But that's another topic for another thread.

[||§§||Hand_O_Death]

Citizens arrest do not exist. You have no powers of arrest as a citizen. you can attempt to detain while await immediate response of authorities, but like you said, you are then open to civil action by the party for kidnapping and obstruction of freepassage depending on the state, especially if they are found not guilty or the case is dismissed. Then you have real issues.

And yes watch Judge Judy and you will see how much of a joke civil cases can be. People are little children and the courts placate to them way too much.

[||§§||Dr.H]

Man it's become complicated to defend yourself these days.. probably why the media has pushed the -if you get robbed just give them what they want, act like a scared little puppy and just hope they don't kill you- idea.

So just to recap in an odd way.
1) Don't bother trying a citizens arrest, it's not worth it.
2) Don't shoot someone who robbed you in the back as they are walking away lol yell "Hey you!" and get them to turn around first :p

I'm sure the same goes for home invasions or robberies, get them back into your house before you "defend" yourself.
Heck even if someone is robbing and threatening your life at gunpoint and you shoot them, if they live they will probably just sue you for shooting them... sigh even though it usually takes only 1-3 bullets to put someone who isn't high down I believe I heard that police commonly empty the mag so I guess if you are actually going to go through the action of shooting someone you better make sure it's done right so that there is only your story for the police.. sad but probably safer. :(

[||§§||Postal]

I'm sure the same goes for home invasions or robberies, get them back into your house before you "defend" yourself.

Funny you should mention that. Where I live, it's patrolled by the State Police. The nearest barracks that I know of is at least 20 minutes away so I've got time ;)

Was at a friend of mine's (plays CoD4 under then name KithKaddith) party talken to his uncle and he told me that when he moved into the area, he called the police station to find out responce times, etc and the police basically told him "they're on their own. best response time is 20 min." to "not make it look like the crook was leaving" and "amonia, bleach and or lye will make a mess of any biological evidence" (with out being so blunt, obviously).

Kinda amusing that the police are telling people this, kinda scary too.


And yes, you are right about the empty the mag part. If you just shoot to wound, courts will say that you had time to think of a better plan if you had time to aim carefully. If you have you have to shoot someone, kill them.

[||§§|| Sven The Slayer]

I'm not sure where I heard the bit about citizens arrests being true. It was probably on TV some were. It is however certainly true. At least in the USA. Wikipedia has other countries listed as well but I know what you all feel about using wiki as a source of information. A quick Google search of .gov sites reveals a lot of court cases where citizens arrests where used, granted most of these are done by police officers out side of their jurisdiction but they have no more rights there than a normal citizen. I'm also pretty sure citizen's arrests is what enables stores to hold shoplifters until police can pick them up.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22citizen%27s+arrest%22+site%3A*.gov&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

[||§§||Hand_O_Death]

Yea CT Staties are pretty slow as well.

and you never shoot to wound.

You "Fire to stop the threat" and ou stop when the threat to you or others has been stopped.

btw unless you have fired a handgun in a life or death situation, you have no idea how you will shoot, but I promise you it will be worse than any range shooting you have ever done.

[||§§||GhostDog]

The idea of getting someone who is fleeing to turn around so you can shoot them, or using bleach, lye and amonia to cover your tracks doesn't sound like the language of people wanting to do what's right. Sounds like getting a few rounds off in a live situation and living to brag about it has more value than a human life.

Hand is right. It's not like the movies and it's not like the firing range. These are decisions that not only do you have to live with the rest of your life but someone else's family has to live with as well. Shooting a robber who's got both hands on your television set or running away with your wallet in his pocket is not defending you and your family.

[||§§||Dr.H]

Lol the comments were not meant to be taken in a literal sense, they are meant as a way of showing how backwards today's society is in defending of criminals.

Also you seem to be suck on some sort of stereotype that United States gun owners are cocky, bragging guys who are just looking for a fight and think they're tough because they have a gun? I wouldn't think that was any more true than many stereotypes, in fact I think most people who are forced to use a weapon against another individual would prefer not to have to do it and are not interested in talking about it afterwords. Anyone with famliy members who served in WWII, Vietnam or the Gulf can probably attest to that.
What someone says before having to be in a situation like that will most likely be very different after.

While in there own situations the comments are factual, it isn't always about defending yourself. We have a legal right to defend our personal property though it should be done without harm if possible. Everyone has to make the choice on whether the criminals life or your personal property is more important to you and you have to live with that choice. 50+ years ago it wouldn't be the issue that it is today since there wasn't as much of a "life above all" mentality. Some people will believe that when the criminal chose to take your wallet or break into your home he forfeited his right to live in that decision. I personally would do everything I could to resolve the situation peacefully and I would never take a life for granted but at the same time I would be able to live with myself if my hand was forced.

If you can get someone to drop their weapon if they have one and lay on the floor/ground waiting for the police then that would be best, of course when that person gets out of jail in a matter of months you better hope they don't hold a grudge though I can't see that being any less of a chance than his family holding a grudge if you kill him. Toss of the coin I guess..