Gun Control: Is it counterproductive?

[OU_Sooners75]

First, I know there a few threads about gun control, but I wanted to start this thread so you all could see these links...

According to a study by Havard, gun control is counterproductive.

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

In the link is the actual study you can look at via PDF.

Then there is this study by the CDC which isn't exactly a gun lobbying group...

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Next there is the study done by the American Journal for Preventive Medicine:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=209529

Finally I will leave you with this piece from Chicago Law Professor, Richard Epstein:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/123236


Basically everything here shows that looser gun laws do not correlate to a rise in violent crime, but the opposite.

There is a reason why Israel and Switzerland are among the least violent crime nations in the world. Because they require everyone to own a gun!

[OU_Sooners75]

Where are the studies that show more gun control laws lower violent crimes?

[Midtowner]

Where are the studies that show more gun control laws lower violent crimes?

Those studies basically fail on the whole correlation =/= causation principle, however,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/gun-control-laws-and-gun-deaths-florida.jpg

Interesting stuff here, written by economist Richard Florida in the Atlantic.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/

[OU_Sooners75]

Whodthunkit?

The mangina is the first to reply! Lol


Here is something you can look up and ponder...

The last 20 years violent crime rates in the US have declined. While the gun control law have loosened.

HMMMMMM....

Wrap your delusions around that.

You can say that the studies fail to correlate the cause of violent crimes.

The fact remains less gun control laws have led to a reduction in violent crime.

Yes, the US is still pretty high on the list when it comes to nations with violent crimes.

Anyway, what I find funny when talking to idiots like you is that you all think more gun control will curb violence and mass killings.

It won't.

You say your an attorney, so you aren't completely stupid. So I ask you this...

Most people committing a violent crime does not want to be confronted with force or violence back at them. So when some dip**** wants to start shooting people, where are they likely going to do so; a police station full of gun toting cops or a school filled with no guns and a bunch of kids that can't protect themselves from such violence?

[Midtowner]

The last 20 years violent crime rates in the US have declined. While the gun control law have loosened.

Federal laws have loosened, state? Not quite as much. In fact, in regions with more gun control, violence has gone down fastest, especially in California, while the South, i.e., the land of hillbillies and rednecks leads the nation by a long shot and hasn't declined as much as the rest of the country, probably because of the southern states' lax gun laws.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/assault-deaths-us-ts-region.png


Most people committing a violent crime does now want to be confronted with force or violence back at them. So when some dip**** wants to start shooting people, where are they likely going to do so; a police station full of gun toting cops or a school filled with no guns and a bunch of kids that can't protect themselves from such violence?

We can pass laws and try to create a world where there is less violence, and so far, laws tend to push things in that direction.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Gun control is an invitation for the government to take further control of the very lives of its citizens.Raise your hands if you think that will end well.

[SCOUT]

Why are you defining violence so narrowly? You are speaking in general terms but providing data that is very specific. Assault deaths < violent crimes. Also assault deaths =/= gun deaths.

[Midtowner]

Gun control is an invitation for the government to take further control of the very lives of its citizens.Raise your hands if you think that will end well.

Continuing to allow private sales without background checks will end wonderfully.

[OU_Sooners75]

Continuing to allow private sales without background checks will end wonderfully.

Dude, if a crazy or criminal wants to get a gun, even with a checkered background, they can.

People intent on committing a violent crime of any kind will skirt the laws regardless.

All more gun control laws will do is make it harder for law abiding people to equip themselves adequately to defend themselves.

[OU_Sooners75]

Why are you defining violence so narrowly? You are speaking in general terms but providing data that is very specific. Assault deaths < violent crimes. Also assault deaths =/= gun deaths.

So now one type of violence should take precedent over another?

Any person that has an intent to commit a violent crime, be it a mass murder/suicide, rape, aggr assault, murder, etc will think twice when they know the person or people could be packing a gun as their chief protection.

[SCOUT]

So now one type of violence should take precedent over another?

Any person that has an intent to commit a violent crime, be it a mass murder/suicide, rape, aggr assault, murder, etc will think twice when they know the person or people could be packing a gun as their chief protection.
No. Mid was contradicting reports on incidence of violent crime. He did so with a report on fatal assaults. Apples and Oranges.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Dude, if a crazy or criminal wants to get a gun, even with a checkered background, they can.

People intent on committing a violent crime of any kind will skirt the laws regardless.

All more gun control laws will do is make it harder for law abiding people to equip themselves adequately to defend themselves.This logic does NOT penetrate the cranium of the statist. They simply don't believe in the constitution, and laws of this country.

[OU_Sooners75]

Midtowner, I read your link and don't agree with its entirity.

Do me a favor and actually read the last link in the OP. It will be worth while.

[OU_Sooners75]

No. Mid was contradicting reports on incidence of violent crime. He did so with a report on fatal assaults. Apples and Oranges.

My bad, thought you were talkin about the OP....lol

[OU_Sooners75]

Here midtowner, read this one too...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229929/gun-control-and-mass-murders/john-r-lott-jr?pg=3#

[kevpks]

I see a lot of high minded talk about defense from tyranny and criminals as a justification for owning one or more guns. However, I think Phillip Van Cleeve head of the Citizen's Defense League in Virginia exemplifies a different, perhaps more common rationale:


Challenged by those who see any gun as an instrument of destruction, they defend their belief that guns are beneficial. Harder still is to explain the allure of weapons like the .223-caliber Bushmaster, a military-style semiautomatic rifle that a some want banned.

“I could ask you why should anyone want a Ferrari?” Van Cleave said Sunday. “[Bushmasters] are absolutely a blast to shoot with. They’re fast. They’re accurate.”

And there’s no denying that their fearsome, combat-ready appearance adds to their appeal, he said.

“Guns are fun, and some of them are much more cool than others. It’s just like we have television sets that look cool, and others are much more boxy,” Van Cleave said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/gun-rights-advocates-under-attack-after-school-shooting/2012/12/16/04cba1aa-47d6-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html

I'm not saying it's wrong, but there is definitely a lot of this attitude out there in the gun community. He sounds like a guy talking about his badass new grill or something. In my world, this is how people talk about their new MacBook. Besides, I can't think of many reasons other than "fun" that a law abiding citizen would want or need a gun that fires six bullets per second. Honestly, I would prefer more gun advocates to be honest like this when confronted by people wanting to curtail their hobby. I get a little tired of hearing about how they need these guns for when the government becomes too tyrannical or we get invaded by China.

[OU_Sooners75]

And this one as well.

I know it will be hard for you to read this one, but do so, or scroll down to gun control...then read from there.


http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=1260

[OU_Sooners75]

I see a lot of high minded talk about defense from tyranny and criminals as a justification for owning one or more guns. However, I think Phillip Van Cleeve head of the Citizen's Defense League in Virginia exemplifies a different, perhaps more common rationale:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/gun-rights-advocates-under-attack-after-school-shooting/2012/12/16/04cba1aa-47d6-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html

I'm not saying it's wrong, but there is definitely a lot of this attitude out there in the gun community. He sounds like a guy talking about his badass new grill or something. In my world, this is how people talk about their new MacBook. Besides, I can't think of many reasons other than "fun" that a law abiding citizen would want or need a gun that fires six bullets per second. Honestly, I would prefer more gun advocates to be honest like this when confronted by people wanting to curtail their hobby. I get a little tired of hearing about how they need these guns for when the government becomes too tyrannical or we get invaded by China.

It not any different than when bikers talk about their bikes or car collectors talk about their cars.

At least in how that guy talked about his guns.

Kev, have you ever shot a gun? Have you ever went out and shot at targets? Clay pigeons?

Maybe you should try it.

A lot of these guns are made just for fun. However I do agree some guns shouldn't be on the market.

But....there it is...since they are, I would much rather them be in the hands of a sane law abiding person over a crazy mentally ill person or a hardened crinimal!

[kevpks]

It not any different than when bikers talk about their bikes or car collectors talk about their cars.

At least in how that guy talked about his guns.

Kev, have you ever shot a gun? Have you ever went out and shot at targets? Clay pigeons?

Maybe you should try it.

A lot of these guns are made just for fun. However I do agree some guns shouldn't be on the market.

But....there it is...since they are, I would much rather them be in the hands of a sane law abiding person over a crazy mentally ill person or a hardened crinimal!

I earned an archery merit badge in the Boy Scouts, but I don't have much experience with guns. I shot a few of my dad's rifles living on a farm growing up. It's just not something that I ever pursued. I drive by H&H every day on the way to work and thought about trying it out. At this point, I would never have a gun in my house. I respect how dangerous they are and wouldn't want one until I felt qualified to handle and secure it. I agree with your points. I was struck by Van Cleeve's candor more than anything.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Last time I went to visit the U.S. Supreme Court, I had to pass through a metal detector in get into the building and then again to get into the court chamber. I wonder what Scalia and his posse think about this type of gun control.

[SCOUT]

Last time I went to visit the U.S. Supreme Court, I had to pass through a metal detector in get into the building and then again to get into the chamber. I wonder what Scalia and his posse think about this type of gun control.
I am sure they think that the armed security guards will do what the otherwise armed populace would do in public.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I am sure they think that the armed security guards will do what the otherwise armed populace would do in public.

The armed security guards won't allow you into the courtroom with a concealed weapon. The armed populace wouldn't stop you from that.

[SCOUT]

The armed security guards won't allow you into the courtroom with a concealed weapon. The armed populace wouldn't stop you from that.

Right. In a very contentious environment there are professionals to keep the peace. In more general situations, those professionals aren't available. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

[OU_Sooners75]

Last time I went to visit the U.S. Supreme Court, I had to pass through a metal detector in get into the building and then again to get into the court chamber. I wonder what Scalia and his posse think about this type of gun control.

And yet at every school I have been to there are stickers that show no guns are allowed on the premises.

So I ask how many mass murders have occurred at the Supreme Corut?

[Midtowner]

Right. In a very contentious environment there are professionals to keep the peace. In more general situations, those professionals aren't available. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

He makes a valid point. If you have an absolute right to keep and bear arms, why can any government entity tell you that you can't carry? Those metal detectors are an implicit statement by the Court that the right has its limits.

[jk the sooner fan]

i havent read any of the posts in this thread - but i'm going to post my thoughts

1. Lanza didn't buy a gun - so the new gun laws proposed wouldnt have kept him from being hell bent on his path of destruction.
2. you can stop selling guns today - but you CAN NOT get rid of the millions of guns that already exists. - it's pure fantasy to think otherwise.
3. criminals obtain guns thru nefarious means - they steal them, they trade them amongst each other, etc etc - but they get them - and they use them to carry out crimes.....gun laws already in place (i.e. background checks, etc) dont seem to be stopping them
4. Norway has gun control laws - yet a mad man killed 80 kids/adults on an island - then he got 30ish years in prison
5. if I'm hell bent on killing somebody - sure a gun is an easy option but if it's not available - certainly not my last option


love or hate Glenn Beck all you want - but he tweeted on Friday "It is not the gun. it is the soul"

i agree 100%.......if politicians truly want to address this problem - then they need to drill deep and look at the disease.....how/why does our society create these kinds of individuals - what is the common thread among these types? Start there - and you'll get much more traction than simply using a tragedy to serve an agenda that has existed way before these incidents became news worthy.


i'm also of the opinion that this notion these shooters are looking for notoriety - is a straw man argument. i dont think their level of mental illness lends itself to such logical thought - it's a bit difficult to take notoriety and fame to the grave with you - whats the point of being the best unless you can enjoy it. without truly knowing what is in the mind of these types - assuming they were looking for fame is an easy out

they were looking to inflict as much hurt and pain as possible - there's a reason people do that....... start there

[olevetonahill]

Just ask Kennesaw Ga. about Gun Laws and their effectiveness :biggrin:

http://askville.amazon.com/gun-law-Kennesaw-GA/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=65199301

[SanJoaquinSooner]

And yet at every school I have been to there are stickers that show no guns are allowed on the premises.

So I ask how many mass murders have occurred at the Supreme Corut?

Those metal detectors, no doubt, make mass murder at the Supreme Court less likely. I guess instead of the using metal detectors, Scalia and his brethern could all pack some heat to inhibit crazy folks from trying something stupid.

[jk the sooner fan]

there are ways to protect schools - the cost is really not so exorbitant that it can't be done - or shouldnt.

metal detectors are not necessarily the answer - they come with their own set of problems/issues

[olevetonahill]

Those metal detectors, no doubt, make mass murder at the Supreme Court less likely. I guess instead of the using metal detectors, Scalia and his brethern could all pack some heat to inhibit crazy folks from trying something stupid.

Come on jaun , Im pretty sure you are smarter than that. The SCOTUS judges are Prime Targets as is Obama and a Lot of other High Profile folks. Little kids in school are not normally targeted as much

[sappstuf]

Good article.


In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.

Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.


Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.


A lengthy study by Mother Jones magazine found that at least 38 of the 61 mass shooters in the past three decades “displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings.” New York Times columnist David Brooks and Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson have both suggested that the ACLU-inspired laws that make it so difficult to intervene and identify potentially dangerous people should be loosened.


He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

“Disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks,” Lott told me. “A couple hundred people were in the Cinemark Theater when the killer arrived. There is an extremely high probability that one or more of them would have had a legal concealed handgun with him if they had not been banned.”


“With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund#comments

[KantoSooner]

disclaimer: I own guns. I don't want them taken away. I like my 2nd amendment rights.

Question: has there ever been one of 'these' incidents that has been stopped by an armed citizen? When my father and I were talking about the massacre over the weekend, we got to the 'public force' argument in favor of widespread gun ownership and neither one of us could think of an instance in which an armed citizen stopped a random shooting. Can anyone help me with an example?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Come on jaun , Im pretty sure you are smarter than that. The SCOTUS judges are Prime Targets as is Obama and a Lot of other High Profile folks. Little kids in school are not normally targeted as much

I'm not really suggesting that. This thread was starting on the general topic of gun control.

[OU_Sooners75]

Those metal detectors, no doubt, make mass murder at the Supreme Court less likely. I guess instead of the using metal detectors, Scalia and his brethern could all pack some heat to inhibit crazy folks from trying something stupid.

Who is to say they don't have gun uunder the bench? Lol

Also, why not put armed security or cops along with metal detectors at school?


That would be a pretty seamless and inexpensive move.

But instead some of you want to rid the nation of guns.

I'm just perplexsed that all you smart intellectual people here fail to understand that gun laws are not the end all, nor is banning the right ofr the citizens to own guns.

You would seem to be able to understand that a person hell bent on causing mayhem will regardless if you ban guns or put more restrictive laws in place.

And while some of you are set to abolish one of the Bill of Rights under the constitution, why not go ahead and abolish them all?

IDK for certain, but the likelihood of if you ever were in a position that those kids were in with out a gun, you would be praying heavily that the cops show up faster with theirs or wished someone in the building that was sane had one to end the threa.

Itsw alwaysw easy to say what you are against until faced with it first hand.

[OU_Sooners75]

disclaimer: I own guns. I don't want them taken away. I like my 2nd amendment rights.

Question: has there ever been one of 'these' incidents that has been stopped by an armed citizen? When my father and I were talking about the massacre over the weekend, we got to the 'public force' argument in favor of widespread gun ownership and neither one of us could think of an instance in which an armed citizen stopped a random shooting. Can anyone help me with an example?

There are rumors that the Oregon Mall shooting was baswically stopped because a man that had his CCW had his pistol trained on the killer. But didn't take the shot because too many people were behind him. The killer saw the man with the gun drawn and aimed at him and then offed himself.

[GrapevineSooner]

There are rumors that the Oregon Mall shooting was baswically stopped because a man that had his CCW had his pistol trained on the killer. But didn't take the shot because too many people were behind him. The killer saw the man with the gun drawn and aimed at him and then offed himself.

That doesn't jibe with what gun-control zealots tell me would happen. These "experts" told me that there would be a hail of bullets and somebody would get caught in the crossfire.

It's like this guy was a responsible gun owner who realized you don't just take a shot and hope to hit your target!!!

Anyway, I read this guy's account and it seems to me that he followed textbook gun safety.

1. He hid behind a pillar
2. Waited until the shooter had to stop to reload.
3. Drew his weapon on the target, but didn't fire because there were innocent people behind the shooter.
4. Took cover in a nearby store but kept his gun drawn on the shooter.

And as soon as the shooter saw he was being met with resistance of any kind, decided he'd rather meet his maker himself instead of letting somebody else did it for him.

A gun-free zone is another person's target-rich environment.

[soonercruiser]

Those studies basically fail on the whole correlation =/= causation principle, however,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/gun-control-laws-and-gun-deaths-florida.jpg

Interesting stuff here, written by economist Richard Florida in the Atlantic.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/

The Atlantic.com?????
That's the first place I would go to see an article with credible research!!??? NOT!

Although it would be difficult to make any direct correlation in gun laws versus crimes. Mainly because so many states have so many different laws in place, with varing limitations.

However, in the search that I had done on-line, the majority of concealed or open carry states and cities have either less crime, or less since allowing guns to be carried.

That means that is what the crime statistics correlate to "armed citizens = less crime".
Most of the studies that are "equivocal" on the issue, are not throwing out suicides by gun. That number should not be considered to skew the statistics, since a person can commit suicide in many ways....gun is just the quickest.

[jk the sooner fan]

i'd just like to say that having midtowner on ignore, makes these threads so much more enjoyable

that is all :)

[olevetonahill]

i'd just like to say that having midtowner on ignore, makes these threads so much more enjoyable

that is all :)

Kinda Like Me with the Pill boy?

[soonercruiser]

I see a lot of high minded talk about defense from tyranny and criminals as a justification for owning one or more guns. However, I think Phillip Van Cleeve head of the Citizen's Defense League in Virginia exemplifies a different, perhaps more common rationale:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/gun-rights-advocates-under-attack-after-school-shooting/2012/12/16/04cba1aa-47d6-11e2-b6f0-e851e741d196_story.html

I'm not saying it's wrong, but there is definitely a lot of this attitude out there in the gun community. He sounds like a guy talking about his badass new grill or something. In my world, this is how people talk about their new MacBook. Besides, I can't think of many reasons other than "fun" that a law abiding citizen would want or need a gun that fires six bullets per second. Honestly, I would prefer more gun advocates to be honest like this when confronted by people wanting to curtail their hobby. I get a little tired of hearing about how they need these guns for when the government becomes too tyrannical or we get invaded by China.

Before I went to Nam, I got trained on the M-16, and M-60!
The idea was to get proficient in order to kill the Cong.
To tell you the truth, both were very efficient; but, oblitterating a 50 gal metal drum with the M-16 at 50 yards....I haven't had that much fun in 40 years! (I have never had a hole in one though...)

As an officer in the AF, we kill paper mostly!

Read the Constitution and papers of the Founding Fathers!
If the citizens must oppose an opressive government, a 12 Ga shotgun will be worthless!
Slow, shallow thinkers will throw out the Constitution without understanding why it's there!

[jk the sooner fan]

Kinda Like Me with the Pill boy?

mmmhmmm :)

[soonercruiser]

disclaimer: I own guns. I don't want them taken away. I like my 2nd amendment rights.

Question: has there ever been one of 'these' incidents that has been stopped by an armed citizen? When my father and I were talking about the massacre over the weekend, we got to the 'public force' argument in favor of widespread gun ownership and neither one of us could think of an instance in which an armed citizen stopped a random shooting. Can anyone help me with an example?

KANTO!
There are plenty! Have you really looked?
Problem is....the liberal media will not publish articles on these cases. If they get no "press", they are unknown to many!
They don't report on what they don't believe in.
:crushed:

[Tiptonsooner]

disclaimer: I own guns. I don't want them taken away. I like my 2nd amendment rights.

Question: has there ever been one of 'these' incidents that has been stopped by an armed citizen? When my father and I were talking about the massacre over the weekend, we got to the 'public force' argument in favor of widespread gun ownership and neither one of us could think of an instance in which an armed citizen stopped a random shooting. Can anyone help me with an example?

Most of these shootings occur where "law abiding gun owners are denied the right to carry", so it would make it hard for them to intercede...

[8timechamps]

Everytime someone argues that we need stricter gun laws, I laugh. Because we all know criminals are troubled by the law. They plan all of their acts in advance, so not to break any laws.

[jk the sooner fan]

so the current focus seems to be on AR's.....i'm not a fan of the "why do you need that" argument


ok, we ban future sales of assault rifles and high capacity magazines - then when Sandy Hook #2 happens with handguns.......then what?

[soonercruiser]

EXACTLY!!!!

[olevetonahill]

The best Gun control is a very steady hand.

[kevpks]

so the current focus seems to be on AR's.....i'm not a fan of the "why do you need that" argument

I don't like that question either. I also don't like when it is answered with a quote by Thomas Jefferson about defending the nation from tyranny. I don't think that's it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also don't think those guns are great for hunting or home defense inside a house (defending a farm might be a different story I suppose). Unless someone is actively training in a militia, a more likely reason he or she has a gun like that is that it's fun to shoot. Not my idea of fun, but to each his own.

[olevetonahill]

I don't like that question either. I also don't like when it is answered with a quote by Thomas Jefferson about defending the nation from tyranny. I don't think that's it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also don't think those guns are great for hunting or home defense inside a house (defending a farm might be a different story I suppose). Unless someone is actively training in a militia, a more likely reason he or she has a gun like that is that it's fun to shoot. Not my idea of fun, but to each his own.

They are fun to shoot, they are also great hunting weapons for certain critters,I dont hunt anymore but if I did I'd use the Mini14 the Bushmaster whatever for a lot of smaller game

[soonercruiser]

I'm not that great a shot myself.
The wifie, while she was on the family farm while I was in Nam, ...one shot from a second story window and killed a ground hog that had scared the kids! (...at about 70 yards)

Me? I'd think that I'd rather use the AR-15 and wipe him out "guaranteed"...rather than wait around and take 3 separate shots to get him/her!

[olevetonahill]

I'm not that great a shot myself.
The wifie, while she was on the family farm while I was in Nam, ...one shot from a second story window and killed a ground hog that had scared the kids! (...at about 70 yards)

Me? I'd think that I'd rather use the AR-15 and wipe him out "guaranteed"...rather than wait around and take 3 separate shots to get him/her!

Mount a scope on it and you can shoot em all day from a distance

[kevpks]

I do agree with the premise that banning one particular type of gun at a time because it happened to be used in a shooting doesn't make a lot of sense. That's the same thinking that has us all taking our shoes off at the airport. Pointless illusion of safety.

[hawaii 5-0]

I earned an archery merit badge in the Boy Scouts, but I don't have much experience with guns. I shot a few of my dad's rifles living on a farm growing up. It's just not something that I ever pursued. I drive by H&H every day on the way to work and thought about trying it out. At this point, I would never have a gun in my house. I respect how dangerous they are and wouldn't want one until I felt qualified to handle and secure it. I agree with your points. I was struck by Van Cleeve's candor more than anything.


My 1st Boy Scout merit badge was in Marksmanship, earned with a .22


5-0

[soonercruiser]

Mount a scope on it and you can shoot em all day from a distance

Worked in the bedroom!
Never thought about it on the gun!
:cheerful:

Reminds me of the ole joke about the 85 year old man that "bothers" an old woman resident in the retirement home.
Police arrest him, and charge him with "Assault with a Dead Weapon'!
:biggrin:

[soonercruiser]

disclaimer: I own guns. I don't want them taken away. I like my 2nd amendment rights.

Question: has there ever been one of 'these' incidents that has been stopped by an armed citizen? When my father and I were talking about the massacre over the weekend, we got to the 'public force' argument in favor of widespread gun ownership and neither one of us could think of an instance in which an armed citizen stopped a random shooting. Can anyone help me with an example?

Just a few smaller stories that didn't make the liberal national media.
How many lives qualifies as "stopping a mass murder"?
3 or 4 enough? And how many twozies and threezies are need to add up to saving a crowd?

“14 year-old… stops would be attacker”(sorry the local TV video is no longer linked..)
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/tims-thoughts/14-year-old-stops-would-be-attacker?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=14%20year%20old%20boy%20stops%20attac ker.html%20Plus%20(1)&utm_content=

Could this gun have extended the vilence to the school, surrounding children?
Texas CPL Holder Stops Daylight Attack Near SchoolWritten by Duncan Mackie on November 16, 2012
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm-departments/true-stories/texas-cpl-holder-stops-daylight-attack-near-school/

California Mom Uses Shotgun to Save 2-Year-Old Daughter
Written by Duncan Mackie on November 16, 2012
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm-departments/true-stories/texas-cpl-holder-stops-daylight-attack-near-school/

Florida Senior Citizen Stops Armed Robbery of Internet Café
Written by Duncan Mackie on October 4, 2012
A 71-year-old Ocala CCW-holder was in an internet café when he saw two masked men, one armed with a pistol and the other with a baseball bat, trying to rob the place. Fearing for his own life and that of the other patrons, he drew his legally-carried .380 pistol and fired on the robbers, wounding both men and putting them to flight. Police apprehended both would-be robbers a short time later. County authorities have announced that the CCW-holder acted lawfully and will not face charges.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm-departments/true-stories/florida-senior-citizen-stops-armed-robbery-of-internet-cafe/

[jk the sooner fan]

gun enthusiasts have been collecting military arms for ever......the M1 Garand is still a popular purchase, as is the Springfield 1903 (i own one of both)

so it stands to reason that the AR platform would be fun for gun enthusiasts. they aren't a traditional hunting rifle but they ARE a popular choice for hunting feral hogs in Texas.....and as Vet said - they're fun as hell to shoot. i take mine to the range and go thru a couple hundred rounds just to practice marksmanship - and to shoot because i enjoy it

if you make the argument that "i dont need this type of weapon" - then next the argument will be made "you dont need more than one rifle, or more than one handgun"....frankly it's just a slippery slope i don't wish to go down

this just wont have the impact people hope it will have - and as i said - when the next massacre happens, we'll continue to go to the tired old "gun ban" debate - mean while we're still ignoring the disease itself

it's like putting a band-aid on a paper cut when there's a sucking chest wound that needs to be treated

[8timechamps]

I don't like that question either. I also don't like when it is answered with a quote by Thomas Jefferson about defending the nation from tyranny. I don't think that's it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also don't think those guns are great for hunting or home defense inside a house (defending a farm might be a different story I suppose). Unless someone is actively training in a militia, a more likely reason he or she has a gun like that is that it's fun to shoot. Not my idea of fun, but to each his own.

I guess I don't understand your disapproval of the Thomas Jefferson quote. What part of it do you disagree with? The right to bear arms is predicated on the idea that a government will never be able to overpower it's people. Or, at the very least, will give great pause before trying to do so. What part of that is wrong?

As for banning ARs, I don't particularly know why anyone would 'need' an assault rifle, but I also understand that they are fun for some folks. Why are cars made in the United States made to go 100+ mph, when the highest speed limit in the country is 85? Something to think about.

In the end, this isn't about guns. I know that's what a lot on the left want it to be about, but it's wasted energy. Until the mental health system is addressed, and improved, things like this will continue to happen with scary frequency.

[cleller]

Federal laws have loosened, state? Not quite as much. In fact, in regions with more gun control, violence has gone down fastest, especially in California, while the South, i.e., the land of hillbillies and rednecks leads the nation by a long shot and hasn't declined as much as the rest of the country, probably because of the southern states' lax gun laws.



I find it interesting that you have no problem identifying the South as "land of hillbillies and rednecks", implying a conclusion that those persons are responsible. This area is also distinct in that it has the highest percentage of Afican-Americans, yet you don't feel that they could be another factor, completely ignored it.

Do you also have derogatory names for the African-Americans of this region? If so, what? I don't think anyone would believe you think they are included within the "hillbillies and rednecks" net you've thrown out.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I find it interesting that you have no problem identifying the South as "land of hillbillies and rednecks", implying a conclusion that those persons are responsible. This area is also distinct in that it has the highest percentage of Afican-Americans, yet you don't feel that they could be another factor, completely ignored it.

Do you also have derogatory names for the African-Americans of this region? If so, what? I don't think anyone would believe you think they are included within the "hillbillies and rednecks" net you've thrown out.Dude has swallowed Lib-think hook, line and sinker-of-America.

[kevpks]

I guess I don't understand your disapproval of the Thomas Jefferson quote. What part of it do you disagree with? The right to bear arms is predicated on the idea that a government will never be able to overpower it's people. Or, at the very least, will give great pause before trying to do so. What part of that is wrong?

As for banning ARs, I don't particularly know why anyone would 'need' an assault rifle, but I also understand that they are fun for some folks. Why are cars made in the United States made to go 100+ mph, when the highest speed limit in the country is 85? Something to think about.

In the end, this isn't about guns. I know that's what a lot on the left want it to be about, but it's wasted energy. Until the mental health system is addressed, and improved, things like this will continue to happen with scary frequency.

I don't disagree with the quote. I just don't think that is a reason most people buy those guns. I'm fine with that. I don't particularly think they should be banned. I just get annoyed when people romanticize their hobby by making grandiose statements about fighting off tyranny when they really just want to shoot large guns for fun and sport. It's their right to do so.

[soonercruiser]

gun enthusiasts have been collecting military arms for ever......the M1 Garand is still a popular purchase, as is the Springfield 1903 (i own one of both)

so it stands to reason that the AR platform would be fun for gun enthusiasts. they aren't a traditional hunting rifle but they ARE a popular choice for hunting feral hogs in Texas.....and as Vet said - they're fun as hell to shoot. i take mine to the range and go thru a couple hundred rounds just to practice marksmanship - and to shoot because i enjoy it

if you make the argument that "i dont need this type of weapon" - then next the argument will be made "you dont need more than one rifle, or more than one handgun"....frankly it's just a slippery slope i don't wish to go down

this just wont have the impact people hope it will have - and as i said - when the next massacre happens, we'll continue to go to the tired old "gun ban" debate - mean while we're still ignoring the disease itself

it's like putting a band-aid on a paper cut when there's a sucking chest wound that needs to be treated

jk,
Your post brought a correlating thought.
The liberals in society want all their stuff. They want their Pot and better drugs; they want to marry their best friend of the same sex; they want to redistribute my hard-earned money; they want to be able to say and watch videos of the most disgusting behavior, music; they want to murder their babies.....all as a "Right"!

These things make them feel good! But, none of them do society any long-term "good"!

None of those liberal rights are protected under the Constitution!
But, owning a gun, and "bearing arms" IS!
And, shooting makes us feel good too! And we do it for the reason the Founder intended!
So, the gun-runaway libs should "Go Fish"!

[jkjsooner]

I want to go back to the "is gun control counterproductive" question. I think this is a flawed question. It tries to oversimplify a complicated situation with many variables.

In a country that has hundreds of millions of guns, some types of gun control is probably counterproductive. This is especially true for state initiatives since states have little control over the flow of guns into their states.

If we restrict a little we may worsen the problem of gun violence. If we restrict a lot we may improve the problem. If we loosen gun laws a little we may improve the problem. If we loosen too much we could worsen the problem.

If we do one thing locally we may have one outcome but doing the same nationally could yield the opposite outcome.


The most obvious example of this is if we had as restrictive gun laws as England. It would be hard to argue that we would have the gun violence we have today under those circumstances - assuming we were able to confiscate the majority of weapons. (I'm not advocating this just using it as an example.) This example demonstrates that whatever we learn from minor tweaks to our existing laws can't be extrapolated to the extremes.

[kevpks]

But, owning a gun, and "bearing arms" IS!
And, shooting makes us feel good too! And we do it for the reason the Founder intended!
So, the gun-runaway libs should "Go Fish"!

Could you clarify what you mean by "And we do it for the reason the Founder intended!"? People own guns for a lot of reasons. I was curious which reason you were referring to and what precisely the "Founder" intended.

[nutinbutdust]

I don't disagree with the quote. I just don't think that is a reason most people buy those guns. I'm fine with that. I don't particularly think they should be banned. I just get annoyed when people romanticize their hobby by making grandiose statements about fighting off tyranny when they really just want to shoot large guns for fun and sport. It's their right to do so.
A 223 caliber AR is not a large gun. I would never use one for deer hunting too small. great caliber for fox or coyote. Good for target shooting too, the ammo is cheap. The two that JK mentioned(.M1 Garand and Springfield 1903) are much larger caliber(30.06) and much more suited to deer hunting.

[kevpks]

A 223 caliber AR is not a large gun. I would never use one for deer hunting too small. great caliber for fox or coyote. Good for target shooting too, the ammo is cheap. The two that JK mentioned(.M1 Garand and Springfield 1903) are much larger caliber(30.06) and much more suited to deer hunting.

It appears large enough to do some pretty significant damage. However, I don't know much about guns. Replace large with powerful or a more appropriate adjective.

[jk the sooner fan]

A 223 caliber AR is not a large gun. I would never use one for deer hunting too small. great caliber for fox or coyote. Good for target shooting too, the ammo is cheap. The two that JK mentioned(.M1 Garand and Springfield 1903) are much larger caliber(30.06) and much more suited to deer hunting.

you can kill a deer with a .223- not with a hind quarter shot - but head and/or vitals - definitely

but your point is correct, it's not typically suited for deer hunting. smaller game however - perfect

i have a good friend that is a gun enthusiast - he makes a lot of $$$ and spends it on the hobby - he's been to several of the tactical shooting schools out in the Las Vegas area - and its a sport for him. many people might look at what he's doing and "not get it" - but the point is that he enjoys the hell out of it - its what he likes doing - and it's not hurting anything aside from the paper and the dirt berm behind the target

so - this whole notion of "why do you need that kind of rifle" - its a huge slippery slope when considering personal freedoms

i'm sure i could go thru the lives of anybody and question why they need "this, that, or the other"

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I posted this in another thread, it may be more appropriate here...
All you effing gun controllers. Lets take the absurdity of reducing my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT into an absurd notion curtailing something for you.


Lets pass a law that requires you to get a permit to have sex and to have a child. If you have sex without a permit, then there is a fine of $500 the first instance, the second instance a $1000 fine and the third instance, life in prison or castration...

If you have a child without a permit, immediate castration and prison for life.

How does that sound to you, hmmm?

At least gun ownership is a protected CONSTITUIONAL RIGHT. having children isn't and can be regulated by the gubment easily.

[jk the sooner fan]

it's an emotional response to a horrible situation, it's not well thought out - it's a band aid on the wrong wound

i'm all for meaningful discussion about guns and violence - but EVERYTHING needs to be on table

simply placing a ban in effect is - in the long run - going to be very disappointing to those asking for it

[OU_Sooners75]

I don't disagree with the quote. I just don't think that is a reason most people buy those guns. I'm fine with that. I don't particularly think they should be banned. I just get annoyed when people romanticize their hobby by making grandiose statements about fighting off tyranny when they really just want to shoot large guns for fun and sport. It's their right to do so.

An AR-15 is not a particularly large gun. The rounds you put through a AR is slightly larger than a .22 caliber. Hell, its a .223 round. The cartiridge 9r brass casing is larger, but the round (or lead) itself isn't much bigger.

Not exactly sure why a lot of misinformed people try to say or think an AR is a high powered rifle. It isn't. It is a high capacity weapon. It is an assault rifle, but not a high power rifle.

That said a AK-47, 30/30, 30-06, 7 mag, etc are high power weapons. And all can be bought as a swemi-automatic. The AK47 is the only weapon iof those I mentioned that cannot be bought as a bolt action.

[OU_Sooners75]

It appears large enough to do some pretty significant damage. However, I don't know much about guns. Replace large with powerful or a more appropriate adjective.

Hell man, a .22 can be just as lethal.

A 9mm pistol in proper range has just as much stopping power as an AR.

[OU_Sooners75]

you can kill a deer with a .223- not with a hind quarter shot - but head and/or vitals - definitely

but your point is correct, it's not typically suited for deer hunting. smaller game however - perfect

i have a good friend that is a gun enthusiast - he makes a lot of $$$ and spends it on the hobby - he's been to several of the tactical shooting schools out in the Las Vegas area - and its a sport for him. many people might look at what he's doing and "not get it" - but the point is that he enjoys the hell out of it - its what he likes doing - and it's not hurting anything aside from the paper and the dirt berm behind the target

so - this whole notion of "why do you need that kind of rifle" - its a huge slippery slope when considering personal freedoms

i'm sure i could go thru the lives of anybody and question why they need "this, that, or the other"

In Oklahoma, you cannot use a .223 rifle to hunt deer.the reason is because you can hit a good shot on it and maim it without killing it quickly.

I believe the smallest rifle in Oklahoma you can legally use is a .243 round

[OU_Sooners75]

I want to go back to the "is gun control counterproductive" question. I think this is a flawed question. It tries to oversimplify a complicated situation with many variables.

In a country that has hundreds of millions of guns, some types of gun control is probably counterproductive. This is especially true for state initiatives since states have little control over the flow of guns into their states.

If we restrict a little we may worsen the problem of gun violence. If we restrict a lot we may improve the problem. If we loosen gun laws a little we may improve the problem. If we loosen too much we could worsen the problem.

If we do one thing locally we may have one outcome but doing the same nationally could yield the opposite outcome.


The most obvious example of this is if we had as restrictive gun laws as England. It would be hard to argue that we would have the gun violence we have today under those circumstances - assuming we were able to confiscate the majority of weapons. (I'm not advocating this just using it as an example.) This example demonstrates that whatever we learn from minor tweaks to our existing laws can't be extrapolated to the extremes.

There are way too many weapons out there to effectively control the market now.

Sure, you can control the sale of new guns, hell even resale. But you will not effectively rid this nation of drum magazines, 30 round banana clips, or any of that. You damn sure cannot regulate the guns already bought and in someones gun cabinet or arsenal.

What happened in Connecticut is very tragic and I pray for the kids and famillies of that little town.

But gun control should be the last on the table. The government needs to find better ways to make schools of all ages safer. If that means allowing the teachers and staff to conceal carry, then so be it, as long as the rules have more testing and qualifications for them to carry than a regular joe does!

Whatever the government does, they need to stop politicizing this tragedy (and all tragedies) and work at getting the schools safer for the kids and everyone else that is in the schools. Gun control wouldn't have stopped the vile acts of last Friday!

[OU68]

Legal Means of Taking
Rifles: Centerfire rifles firing at least a 55-grain weight soft-nosed or hollow-point bullet and having an overall cartridge case length of 1 1/4 inches or longer (9mm rifles are not legal). Clips or magazines of all .22 caliber centerfire firearms may not be capable of holding more than seven rounds of ammunition.

It's the bullet weight, not the caliber.

[kevpks]

Hell man, a .22 can be just as lethal.

A 9mm pistol in proper range has just as much stopping power as an AR.

That's all well and good, but not really the point. My point is that the 2nd amendment already applies to individual gun owners. There is no reason for gun owners to play militia anymore and try to convince me that they are protecting our nation from enemies, foreign and domestic. People buy these guns (big, small, whatever) to defend their homes, shoot animals, or because they like things that go bang. I see no reason to glamorize gun ownership beyond that.

[OU_Sooners75]

That's all well and good, but not really the point. My point is that the 2nd amendment already applies to individual gun owners. There is no reason for gun owners to play militia anymore and try to convince me that they are protecting our nation from enemies, foreign and domestic. People buy these guns (big, small, whatever) to defend their homes, shoot animals, or because they like things that go bang. I see no reason to glamorize gun ownership beyond that.

Your point, though valid for you, may not be valid for others.
Its plenty apparent you don't like guns or the sports that guns provide.

Many people like yourself look at guns as the evil. They aren't evil. Its the people that slay others with guns (or any other weapon) that are evil.

Ill put it this way. If another civil war occurred, hell if a foreign army or nation overtook our military, you would be up **** creek without a paddle if all these guns were liquidated and taken away from our society.

The threat of something like that happening in our lifetime may be slim to none, but there is always a probability of some crazy **** happening.

I'm not a doomsday believer, but I have my guns for sport and protection.

Everyone thinks, "oh, it can't happen here." And that's what's wrong with our society today.

I bet Thursday of last week, the mother of the killer (still don't know his name, nor care to know it) probably thought that she would be alive on Saturday. She and many other in her community and state more than likely thought, "that it won't happen here."

I'm not making light of the tragedy. But if more people cared about their safety and protection then these mass murders wouldn't occur with such frequency. And hell they really don't occur in a high frequency anyway.

[OU_Sooners75]

Legal Means of Taking
Rifles: Centerfire rifles firing at least a 55-grain weight soft-nosed or hollow-point bullet and having an overall cartridge case length of 1 1/4 inches or longer (9mm rifles are not legal). Clips or magazines of all .22 caliber centerfire firearms may not be capable of holding more than seven rounds of ammunition.

It's the bullet weight, not the caliber.

Bullet weight and caliber go hand in hand.

The bigger the caliber, the more weight in lead, which requires more gun powder needed to get the bullet at a higher velocity.

[jk the sooner fan]

well - for the sake of keeping the playing field level - lets not be so quick to dismiss the .223 round - also known as the Nato Standard 5.56

which is the ammo used for the Army's main battle rifle - or to "kill the enemy"......a .223 round is lethal - quite so. we're not having a discussion about which guns will kill a deer or which ones wont - we're talking about people......and where people are concerned, the .223 is quite effective

just wanted to put that out there

[Soonerjeepman]

it's an emotional response to a horrible situation, it's not well thought out - it's a band aid on the wrong wound

i'm all for meaningful discussion about guns and violence - but EVERYTHING needs to be on table

simply placing a ban in effect is - in the long run - going to be very disappointing to those asking for it

agree....like you said earlier, GUNS are not even the problem... mental health (everything from anger management to self esteem) and I agree the "limit" is a slippery slope..when is enough/enough.

Cruiser has great points as well. Honestly I see abortion and more damaging to society than guns...really...HUNDREDS of babies killed every day....not a work from libs and dems...

[jk the sooner fan]

i found this article - and i think its a must read for everybody - i wont quote any of it - you can read it........or not,

but draw your own conclusions

http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2012/12/17/cowards-mass-murders-and-the-american-public/

[Soonerjeepman]

jk, great article...totally agree. I think the day has come. I understand it's a small chance it happens but IF it did I'd want me or someone else to be there. Guns are here for good (don't want them taken) so the choice is simple.

Supposedly there was a CC person in Oregon and when the kid saw him after the gun jammed that is when he killed himself. Not sure if that is true or not.

Probably a lot more folks carrying that ANYONE thinks.

[soonercruiser]

Could you clarify what you mean by "And we do it for the reason the Founder intended!"? People own guns for a lot of reasons. I was curious which reason you were referring to and what precisely the "Founder" intended.

If one must ask what the Founders intended in writing the Constitution, there is no use explaining it.
They were very clear!
:nonchalance:

[kevpks]

Your point, though valid for you, may not be valid for others.
Its plenty apparent you don't like guns or the sports that guns provide.

Many people like yourself look at guns as the evil. They aren't evil. Its the people that slay others with guns (or any other weapon) that are evil.

Ill put it this way. If another civil war occurred, hell if a foreign army or nation overtook our military, you would be up **** creek without a paddle if all these guns were liquidated and taken away from our society.

The threat of something like that happening in our lifetime may be slim to none, but there is always a probability of some crazy **** happening.

I'm not a doomsday believer, but I have my guns for sport and protection.

Everyone thinks, "oh, it can't happen here." And that's what's wrong with our society today.

I bet Thursday of last week, the mother of the killer (still don't know his name, nor care to know it) probably thought that she would be alive on Saturday. She and many other in her community and state more than likely thought, "that it won't happen here."

I'm not making light of the tragedy. But if more people cared about their safety and protection then these mass murders wouldn't occur with such frequency. And hell they really don't occur in a high frequency anyway.

Find one post of mine where I advocate guns being taken away or said they were evil. A lot of good the killer's mother's guns did her. Guns are not dangerous unless irresponsible or dangerous people get a hold of them. The killer's mother might have been prepared for doomsday scenarios or a foreign army invasion but she was not prepared for her own mentally ill son.

I think guns are a hobby for most people who own them, just like cars or computers or motorcycles. That's fine. I have no problem with that. I have no desire to own one, but to each his own. My point is that unless someone is actively training for military scenarios in a militia I call bull**** on their guns being intended for some foreign invasion or civil war.

[kevpks]

If one must ask what the Founders intended in writing the Constitution, there is no use explaining it.
They were very clear!
:nonchalance:

Read the whole quote:
But, owning a gun, and "bearing arms" IS!
And, shooting makes us feel good too! And we do it for the reason the Founder intended!
So, the gun-runaway libs should "Go Fish"!

Is he saying that the founders wanted us to feel good? That was not my interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Plus, Founder with a capital "F" makes it sound like he is talking about God. I'm not sure if that is what he meant either.

[kevpks]

I find it funny that if you don't own a gun people on here assume you are anti-gun or against the 2nd amendment. Let me clarify: I support 2nd amendment rights. I just wish people would defend that right with reasons grounded in plausible reality rather than trying to convince us all that Red Dawn is just around the corner because Obama is going to sell us out to some foreign invader.

[jk the sooner fan]

I find it funny that if you don't own a gun people on here assume you are anti-gun or against the 2nd amendment. Let me clarify: I support 2nd amendment rights. I just wish people would defend that right with reasons grounded in plausible reality rather than trying to convince us all that Red Dawn is just around the corner because Obama is going to sell us out to some foreign invader.

like it or not, some people actually believe that

just because you dont agree with it or find it plausible - doesnt mean you should dismiss others who think differently

[kevpks]

doesnt mean you should dismiss others who think differently

Why not? That's what everyone else does on this board--dismiss what you find ridiculous or implausible. I give that or any point of view more respect than most show Mid on this board. I have no doubt that some people believe in these doomsday scenarios. I do, however, doubt that is a primary reason that most people buy guns, yet it is one of the first thing many gun proponents will bring up.

Post script: I brought up the fact that arming teachers might not be a good idea based on my experience as a professor and was dismissed by some as a naive academic. Dismissing ideas is par for the course here.

[OU_Sooners75]

Find one post of mine where I advocate guns being taken away or said they were evil. A lot of good the killer's mother's guns did her. Guns are not dangerous unless irresponsible or dangerous people get a hold of them. The killer's mother might have been prepared for doomsday scenarios or a foreign army invasion but she was not prepared for her own mentally ill son.

I think guns are a hobby for most people who own them, just like cars or computers or motorcycles. That's fine. I have no problem with that. I have no desire to own one, but to each his own. My point is that unless someone is actively training for military scenarios in a militia I call bull**** on their guns being intended for some foreign invasion or civil war.


I don't prepare for it. But I damn sure know what ill be doing if it happens!

My point is pretty simple really. My guns are for hunting and protection and fun. But I'm a pretty good shot with all my guns, so if the world were to go to hell in a hand basket, ill know who will be begging for my help in protecting them. Those of you that don't own guns.

When the worst start to happen to people that are against something that may benefit them in anyway, its weird how they are all of a sudden for it when they desperately need it!

Who gives a **** why any person has a gun? If the person that owns them own them legally and have never used them to harm any of their fellow man, then who ****ing cares what type of gun they own?

Like I've said plenty of time, gun control wouldn't have stopped the mass murder last Friday. Nor will it pprevent the next one.

[OU_Sooners75]

Why not? That's what everyone else does on this board--dismiss what you find ridiculous or implausible. I give that or any point of view more respect than most show Mid on this board. I have no doubt that some people believe in these doomsday scenarios. I do, however, doubt that is a primary reason that most people buy guns, yet it is one of the first thing many gun proponents will bring up.

Post script: I brought up the fact that arming teachers might not be a good idea based on my experience as a professor and was dismissed by some as a naive academic. Dismissing ideas is par for the course here.


Maybe its because Mid has brought it on himself with his know-it-all attitude.

There are quite a few liberals here that don't get disrespected like midtowner.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

If one must ask what the Founders intended in writing the Constitution, there is no use explaining it.
They were very clear!
:nonchalance:

If they had been clear, like mathematicians, they would have defined "arms."

[8timechamps]

I don't disagree with the quote. I just don't think that is a reason most people buy those guns. I'm fine with that. I don't particularly think they should be banned. I just get annoyed when people romanticize their hobby by making grandiose statements about fighting off tyranny when they really just want to shoot large guns for fun and sport. It's their right to do so.

Gotcha. I was reading your comment to mean something else. Yeah, I would agree that the majority of people don't think of the TJ quote (or reasoning) when purchasing guns.

[kevpks]

Who gives a **** why any person has a gun? If the person that owns them own them legally and have never used them to harm any of their fellow man, then who ****ing cares what type of gun they own?

Like I've said plenty of time, gun control wouldn't have stopped the mass murder last Friday. Nor will it pprevent the next one.

I agree that gun control would have done little to prevent that tragedy. However, the people who are going to be making laws about guns care why people own them, which is why it is important for those who wish to defend their rights to do so with more convincing reasons. Laws in Hawaii and California that are being challenged in the courts make people justify why they want a handgun.

The general public, courts, and lawmakers do not see foreign invaders and our own government as a realistic threat to safety. I know some feel differently but I would rather defend my second amendment rights with reasons that more people can readily identify with.

[TitoMorelli]

Appreciate your comments, kevpks.

I don't know that the "doomsday" scenario is the prevalent reason for most gun purchasers/owners. I think it's more likely the simple realization by many that the time interval from when you place a 9-1-1 call till when law enforcement arrives might well be more than enough time for someone bent on destruction to forever ruin yours and your family's lives.

Just finished reading a lengthy post by a blogger who recounted a harrowing evening in the aftermath of the acquittals in the Rodney King beating trial. No civil war or commie invasion, just a furious and rapidly-growing mob looking for things to steal and people to harm. Link below.

http://www.seraphicpress.com/jew-without-a-gun/

[kevpks]

Appreciate your comments, kevpks.

I don't know that the "doomsday" scenario is the prevalent reason for most gun purchasers/owners. I think it's more likely the simple realization by many that the time interval from when you place a 9-1-1 call till when law enforcement arrives might well be more than enough time for someone bent on destruction to forever ruin yours and your family's lives.

Just finished reading a lengthy post by a blogger who recounted a harrowing evening in the aftermath of the acquittals in the Rodney King beating trial. No civil war or commie invasion, just a furious and rapidly-growing mob looking for things to steal and people to harm. Link below.

http://www.seraphicpress.com/jew-without-a-gun/

That is a realistic scenario and strong evidence for people to assert their 2nd amendment rights in urban areas. I can't say there weren't times I'd have been more comfortable with a gun while living in Chicago. There were muggings and attacks every other week around my campus. I just would not own a gun until I know much more about how to use one safely and effectively. I respect them too much to buy one just because I can.

[SCOUT]

That is a realistic scenario and strong evidence for people to assert their 2nd amendment rights in urban areas. I can't say there weren't times I'd have been more comfortable with a gun while living in Chicago. There were muggings and attacks every other week around my campus. I just would not own a gun until I know much more about how to use one safely and effectively. I respect them too much to buy one just because I can.
I respect your approach to this discussion. I own my guns for a variety of reasons. The first reason is that each of my 9 guns have an historical significance. Second, I enjoy target shooting as a recreational sport. Third, I occasionally hunt. Fourth, should I need to defend my home I have the means. Fifth, should the need arise for me to be a patriot, I would be able.

I agree with you that when people buy guns they don't do it to be some revolutionary. However, saying that isn't a reason isn't really true either.

[TitoMorelli]

That is a realistic scenario and strong evidence for people to assert their 2nd amendment rights in urban areas. I can't say there weren't times I'd have been more comfortable with a gun while living in Chicago. There were muggings and attacks every other week around my campus. I just would not own a gun until I know much more about how to use one safely and effectively. I respect them too much to buy one just because I can.

Kind of attitude every prospective owner should have.

[olevetonahill]

Kind of attitude every prospective owner should have.


I guess after having owned a weapon for over 50 years I just dont understand the Fear of em . I can understand the respect of them,I can understand the fear of them being in an idiots hands.

I cant understand some one Railing against them simply because they dont understand them or are not familiar with them

Go to a Range,Learn about them,Handle them,and Over come any and all fear of em .

[sappstuf]

jk, great article...totally agree. I think the day has come. I understand it's a small chance it happens but IF it did I'd want me or someone else to be there. Guns are here for good (don't want them taken) so the choice is simple.

Supposedly there was a CC person in Oregon and when the kid saw him after the gun jammed that is when he killed himself. Not sure if that is true or not.

Probably a lot more folks carrying that ANYONE thinks.

http://www.examiner.com/video/clackamas-mall-shooter-was-confronted-by-armed-citizen


“"I heard three shots and turned and looked at Casey and said, 'are you serious?,'" he said.

The friend and baby hit the floor. Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, positioned himself behind a pillar.

"He was working on his rifle," said Meli. "He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side."

The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.

"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.

"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I don't prepare for it. But I damn sure know what ill be doing if it happens!

My point is pretty simple really. My guns are for hunting and protection and fun. But I'm a pretty good shot with all my guns, so if the world were to go to hell in a hand basket, ill know who will be begging for my help in protecting them. Those of you that don't own guns.

When the worst start to happen to people that are against something that may benefit them in anyway, its weird how they are all of a sudden for it when they desperately need it!

Who gives a **** why any person has a gun? If the person that owns them own them legally and have never used them to harm any of their fellow man, then who ****ing cares what type of gun they own?

Like I've said plenty of time, gun control wouldn't have stopped the mass murder last Friday. Nor will it pprevent the next one.
Citizens' Right of Self Defense Quiz: A+

[sappstuf]

We can drop all the discussion about gun control. Obama, clearly dropping all pretenses of seriousness, is putting Biden in charge of looking at the issue...

If you don't recall, Obama put Biden in charge of the stimulus spending to make sure it was "efficient and effective". Yeah....

[TitoMorelli]

I guess after having owned a weapon for over 50 years I just dont understand the Fear of em . I can understand the respect of them,I can understand the fear of them being in an idiots hands.

I cant understand some one Railing against them simply because they dont understand them or are not familiar with them

Go to a Range,Learn about them,Handle them,and Over come any and all fear of em .

Agree. Those who are first-time buyers, and/or have no prior background or training - if you're gonna shell out the bucks for one, at least give a little more time and money to learn to handle properly and responsibly.

[olevetonahill]

Agree. Those who are first-time buyers, and/or have no prior background or training - if you're gonna shell out the bucks for one, at least give a little more time and money to learn to handle properly and responsibly.

Or Come on down to the shack , Go out to Deans or many other Posters places. I'd venture a Guess that Most all of us would spend some time helping you become Familiar and proficient with a weapon

[TitoMorelli]

Or Come on down to the shack , Go out to Deans or many other Posters places. I'd venture a Guess that Most all of us would spend some time helping you become Familiar and proficient with a weapon

Thanks. If it wasn't out there in the middle of "Squeal like a pig!" country, we might take you up on your offer. :)

[olevetonahill]

Thanks. If it wasn't out there in the middle of "Squeal like a pig!" country, we might take you up on your offer. :)

Heh, Where better to learn? If ya can fight these rednecked arseholes off yer Golden

[OU68]

Or Come on down to the shack , Go out to Deans or many other Posters places. I'd venture a Guess that Most all of us would spend some time helping you become Familiar and proficient with a weapon

Honest question - why the "you're a dumbass" response to my post about believing CC holders should have more training?

[olevetonahill]

Honest question - why the "you're a dumbass" response to my post about believing CC holders should have more training?

Need to see the entire Post again, Where was it?

Anyone can use extra training or experience So I dont think I was responding to JUST that portion of yer post

[OU68]

Originally Posted by OU68
You hit on one of my pet peeves - the CC classes are a joke IMO. The only way an instructor can fail someone is if they show up drunk or shoot someone during the class. I think you should have to demonstrate a level of safety/proficiency before you are allowed to apply for a license. JMO

[Soonerjeepman]

http://www.examiner.com/video/clackamas-mall-shooter-was-confronted-by-armed-citizen

Thanks sapp...I knew it was out there, but hadn't seen quotes from the guy.

[soonercruiser]

Read the whole quote:

Is he saying that the founders wanted us to feel good? That was not my interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Plus, Founder with a capital "F" makes it sound like he is talking about God. I'm not sure if that is what he meant either.

Does that mean that I should not capitalize "Obama"?
Or, is he the Left's GOD?

I would bet you my life that the FOUNDERS wanted every American to feel good, about themselves, and about the country...100% of the time.
That's why they wrote the Constitution!

[soonercruiser]

Originally Posted by OU68
You hit on one of my pet peeves - the CC classes are a joke IMO. The only way an instructor can fail someone is if they show up drunk or shoot someone during the class. I think you should have to demonstrate a level of safety/proficiency before you are allowed to apply for a license. JMO

Wow! Kinda reminds me of our public scrool system!
Or, the past election. Even obvious failure didn't stop the Left's lemmings.
:stupid:

[olevetonahill]

Originally Posted by OU68
You hit on one of my pet peeves - the CC classes are a joke IMO. The only way an instructor can fail someone is if they show up drunk or shoot someone during the class. I think you should have to demonstrate a level of safety/proficiency before you are allowed to apply for a license. JMO

How are the Classes a "JOKE" the attendees are getting SOME training , right?

Yore statement of HAVING to Prove you are competent to get a license Has alreday been addressed in thw Application for one.
Hence My Yer a Dumbass statement
Ya see I Volunteered to Help folk over come any fears they may have, I didnt say they HADS to do it

[Soonerjeepman]

I thought the capital "F" was because of the writers of the Constitution...dang..all this time I've been wrong!

[soonercruiser]

Why not? That's what everyone else does on this board--dismiss what you find ridiculous or implausible. I give that or any point of view more respect than most show Mid on this board. I have no doubt that some people believe in these doomsday scenarios. I do, however, doubt that is a primary reason that most people buy guns, yet it is one of the first thing many gun proponents will bring up.

Post script: I brought up the fact that arming teachers might not be a good idea based on my experience as a professor and was dismissed by some as a naive academic. Dismissing ideas is par for the course here.

But, this argument reminds me that many on the board are all to willing to diss another's opinion when it doesn't agree with theirs, and call names.

Is believing in a Dooms Day scenerio any different than believing that it is GOOD (extra "o") to kill our babies?
55 million sine Roe v. Wade! Think about all those extra taxpayers, scientists, and doctors that ARE NOT!

BTW...the dinosaurs didn't believe in Dooms Day either!

[soonercruiser]

If they had been clear, like mathematicians, they would have defined "arms."

If the Founders had been mathematicians....200 years later they would still be calculating in order to set up a Constitution that would assure even a 99% chance that it would last 200 years!
And, thank GOD they weren't pure politicians as we have today!
They would have shot each other (duels to settle differences).
They were GODly men! And, probably more intelligent that the genious' of today.

[kevpks]

BTW...the dinosaurs didn't believe in Dooms Day either!

A T-Rex couldn't hold a gun with those tiny arms. The 2nd amendment wouldn't have done him any good to fight back against doomsday.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I don't know that a pistol is going to do the dinosaurs much good against a comet. Now if they would have had Bruce Willis to go up there and blow the thing to smithereens, then Jesus really would have had a Dino as a pet.

[OU68]

How are the Classes a "JOKE" the attendees are getting SOME training , right?

Yore statement of HAVING to Prove you are competent to get a license Has alreday been addressed in thw Application for one.
Hence My Yer a Dumbass statement
Ya see I Volunteered to Help folk over come any fears they may have, I didnt say they HADS to do it

OK, I understand where you're coming from. Again, just my opinion - don't see any restrictions (other than the criminal background, crazy, etc.) to buy a gun, but still think just being able to write a check for $60 and knowing which is the business end isn't enough to warrant carrying.

[soonercruiser]

Just a few smaller stories that didn't make the liberal national media.
How many lives qualifies as "stopping a mass murder"?
3 or 4 enough? And how many twozies and threezies are need to add up to saving a crowd?

“14 year-old… stops would be attacker”(sorry the local TV video is no longer linked..)
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/tim...)&utm_content=

Could this gun have extended the vilence to the school, surrounding children?
Texas CPL Holder Stops Daylight Attack Near SchoolWritten by Duncan Mackie on November 16, 2012
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm...k-near-school/

California Mom Uses Shotgun to Save 2-Year-Old Daughter
Written by Duncan Mackie on November 16, 2012
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm...k-near-school/

Florida Senior Citizen Stops Armed Robbery of Internet Café
Written by Duncan Mackie on October 4, 2012
A 71-year-old Ocala CCW-holder was in an internet café when he saw two masked men, one armed with a pistol and the other with a baseball bat, trying to rob the place. Fearing for his own life and that of the other patrons, he drew his legally-carried .380 pistol and fired on the robbers, wounding both men and putting them to flight. Police apprehended both would-be robbers a short time later. County authorities have announced that the CCW-holder acted lawfully and will not face charges.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm...internet-cafe/

And the Stossel video from another thread...

x2YC5cVxTcQ&feature=player_embedded

[OU_Sooners75]

OK, I understand where you're coming from. Again, just my opinion - don't see any restrictions (other than the criminal background, crazy, etc.) to buy a gun, but still think just being able to write a check for $60 and knowing which is the business end isn't enough to warrant carrying.

Have you even taken the class?

To obtain a conceal carry may not be hard if you have no felonies or violent misdemeanors. But they provide safety training and gun range time.

To say they just pass everyone unless you kill someone is absurd on your psart.

And even then after you complete your course, you still have to have your background ran by the OSBI, go to your local sherrifs office (where they do a much thorough background check) take photoes, fingerprints, etc.

By the time you get your permit to legally conceal carry it could be as long as 90 days after going to the Sheriffs department after you have taken the course.

The course is very similar to a hunter safety course, but a little more thorough, along with range time.

So until you go through the process maybe you should shut up about how easy the course is.

When my brother got his, there were three people that failed course. And neither shot anyone or themselves. They failed because they didn't pay much attention to the actual teachings of the course.


But anyway:

http://oklahomaconcealedcarry.com/site/mobile?url=http%3A%2F%2Foklahomaconcealedcarry.com %2FFAQ.php#2662

[kevpks]

Police told KPTV that a man went to the theater on Wednesday night asking if anyone had found his gun and turned it in to the lost and found. He’d lost it the night before in the theater.

Lost and found? What a dumbass. I'm glad they revoked his permit. This is an example of effective gun control that didn't even need a new law. Guys like him are why I would never favor handguns without permits.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/20/boys-make-the-right-move-with-loaded-gun-in-theater/?hpt=hp_t3