American Gun Laws - What do you think?

Not all the Easy Coast is as restrictive as Mass either. Maine is an open carry State as well and is also a SHALL issue State. The shall issue is dependent upon background check and short course involving the legalities and responsibilities of concealed carry, and time on the range with your weapon and instructor. When I first moved to Maine it was just pay the fee and get your CCW, a few years ago (maybe about 8) they added the handgun course to the requirement as well, but as long as you take it and pay you get your CCW provided the background check is clear.

tighter restrictions lower crime rate? Never see it happen, the criminals would then just have free reign over anybody they encounter because the threat of that person MAYBE being armed is gone. Not everybody has to be armed or have a CCW, to benefit from the ability to get one if they choose to.
 
Odin said:
but would common sense also mean that she has the right to fend off the rapist without pulling the trigger?...if she was was to turn to her attack and raise the gun up to his chest, why does she need to pull the trigger?
Click to expand...

What if he doesn't stop? You're assuming that an assailant will simply stop in his tracks, and that's not a good assumption to make when someone's life is at stake.


in this way she has defended herself without actually killing anyone.
Click to expand...

Again, you assume that a criminal would stop.

I have always thought that police officers are trained to deal with situations like the one mentioned above..and hopefully that training puts killing someone at the bottom of the 'what to do list'.
Click to expand...

Police officers are not trained to read minds. They are trained to end the threat by whatever means are most practical, according to the situation.

I this case, where a man is waving around a gun and not listening to police orders, ausing a ruckuss, you can't assume that he's not going to be a danger to everyone around him, and thus the police offers were completely justified in taking care of an obvious situation the way they did. It's as clear-cut as the rapist example, where a woman would be completely justified in shooting a rapist.

Again, it comes down to common sense.
 
achilles95 said:
Do you think if American gun laws were made much stricter and it became harder for people to get hold of guns, it would significantly decrease American crime?

:shooter:
Achilles
Click to expand...


no! and it has been statisticaly proven time and time again, out law guns and only the crooks have a gun. every place that kind of BS has happend the crime rate has soared to new hights and stayed there!
 
One thing that I forgot to mention on the subject of police in the US having firearms for self defense vs. ordinary citizens:

Governments have gone to court (in at least two instances that I know of) to prove that they have no legal duty to come to your assistance, and the courts have agreed. This was specifically in cases of failure to respond to calls to the 911 emergency phone system calls.

I think that speaks for itself about a citizens right to be armed for self defense.
 
-Just a side thought: the people who press for stricter gun laws, could some of them perhaps rationalize that if people are allowed to carry guns, what happens when a law-abiding citizen suddenly becomes a criminal? I'm trying to figure out the reasoning, if there is one separate from the standard (less guns, less crime) line of thinking. I do believe people should be trained and licensed but this could just be like immigration; enforce the laws that already exist, don't muck it up with new ones. Seriously, when did laws and policies start replacing common sense? Probably multiple answers to that question;-)

Andrew
 
achilles95 said:
Do you think if American gun laws were made much stricter and it became harder for people to get hold of guns, it would significantly decrease American crime?

:shooter:
Achilles
Click to expand...


Not necessarily. Crime is caused by a host of factors.

Gun laws at the federal level attempt a "one size fits all" blanketing effect of the legislation. North Dakotans, for instance, probably don't want anti-gun laws and likely don't need them. We shouldn't pass federal laws that impinge upon their right to own firearms. Likewise, in my state of Indiana, the population seems quite content with their firearms. The laws here are "liberal" (in the traditional and proper sense of the word) and we recently instituted a lifetime carry permit...which I now have.

Gun crime itself could be looked at as a symptom, rather than a cause. Examine the root causes of the violence that leads to gun crime, and we find a host of problems. Drug "turf" wars often are a major cause of violence. If we can find effective ways to stop the turf wars, we might well find a drop in gun crime.

Alcohol could be listed as a "cause" of violence...but is always listed as a contributing factor and seems never demonized to the level guns are. Being male is another correlation. Being poor yet another. Being young still yet another. Perhaps we should outlaw poor drunk youths?

My point is that we spend much time assigning blame, listing those demons that scare us the most. The survivor of the alcoholic home lists booze as the arch-nemesis, a feminist who was molested by her father might list men as the evil, a curmudgeon will point the finger at the youngster, a bigot will point at a minority, an elitist finds fault with the poor.

And, noting that each of these shrill perspectives carries a nasty appellation with it, some find it preferable to point at a perfectly inert chunk of steel. It's easy. It is particularly easy for the person who has never handled a gun and who has developed a visceral fear of them. To them, a gun is often a political icon, a symbol of all they consider evil. Hence the vitriol. Thus the political drive to outlaw them.

I suppose there was a day when swords were likewise considered wicked...and there was a call to beat them into plowshares.

Virginia Techs massacre failed to engender any substantial anti-gun jeremiad...which may be reflective of the times. The left has learned that its anti-gun rhetoric alienates moderates whose votes they desperately crave--and indeed--need. There were so many other issues raised by that rampage, however, that it became clear to everyone that the means were outpaced by the madness. In perusing the pictures of the shooter, one could not look at the eyes of Cho Seung Hui and fail to recognize the source of terror that day.

The irony is that he may have brought a measure of sanity to the debate.


Regards,


Steve
 
Grenadier said:
I will simply counter, that firearms availability does not affect the ability of someone to kill himself. After all, Japan, a nation that forbids firearms to the law-abiding populace, had a suicide rate of over 20 per 100,000 people in 1990, compared to the US, which had a rate of 12.2 per 100,000 people.
Click to expand...
On a side note I would like to point out that much of the suicide rate in Japan is with teenagers. Japan has a really high suicide rate among young people because too much pressure is put on young people to succeed academically, ect. So banning guns is not the answer to stopping suicide, rather the answer is to not push young people so hard and to have help available.
 
achilles95 said:
Interesting point. I personally feel gun laws must be made much stricter and and that gun sales must be closely moderated.
Click to expand...
Are you saying the rest of the USA should be like New Jersey with gun laws? New Jersey has among the tightest gun laws in the country along with Mass, D.C. and CA, and such places aren't any safer than the rest of the country, as a matter of fact, all those places have a high crime rate.
 
Lisa said:
No, take a look at Canada. We aren't any safer and our crime rate has not dropped. It did however, cost the tax payers billions
Click to expand...
You might want to move to the USA. You get more freedom and in most places it doesn't get as cold as Canada.
 
elder999 said:
I thought he said it pretty well, is all-it's not the best. For me, though, it's a pretty bottom line statement-if you carry a firearm and you're not trained in its use, you're not properly armed.
Click to expand...

And they are not the problem. The legal gun owner isn't out killing folks in the streets
 
elder999 said:
I got two words that not only put the lie to what you're saying, but support all I'm saying about training:

George Zimmerman.
Click to expand...

George Zimmerman wasn't a problem his shooting was legal and jusitifed. In the same situation I'd do the same thing.
Regardless how many of the hundreds of homicides in Detroit and Chicago do you think were committed by legal gun owners. Your 1 extream example can't compare to the 1000s of homicides a year by illegal guns
 
I totally agree with training I'm totally against it being a forced prerequisite to exercise a right. If I don't need to show an ID to vote because that's a financial hardship then spending hundreds on classes is also a financial hardship
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DF: UNBELIEVABLE Archery!!!

Previous Thread

Primitive Long Range Shooting

Next Thread

Similar threads

Ninjamom
Op Ed Piece on Va Tech and Gun Control in LA Times (USA)
Replies
9
Views
2K
jks9199
J
P
  • Locked
The chicken or the egg in relation to gun laws and crime
Replies
15
Views
2K
Dirty Dog
Dirty Dog
KenpoTex
"Wouldn't you feel safer with a gun"
Replies
14
Views
2K
Sukerkin
Sukerkin
KenpoTex
No more idiotic gun lawsuits
Replies
15
Views
2K
Grenadier
Grenadier
Cryozombie
Brilliant or Racist ?
Replies
18
Views
2K
loki09789
L

Latest Discussions

Back
Top