Hail to the Chief!

General Discussion
521

According to “Science method and Exploration” a gun used in self defense is extremely rare and then, the majority of that is against animals. Yet, more then 500 children are killed each year accidentally with guns in a home and the chances that a confrontation will end in death during conflicts between members in the same household is three times more likely if a firearm is present. Needing a gun for self defense is so much over rated, IMO, proponents of free gun access have to make up senereos to justify their positions. @MikeInNH as you point out, you have to be looking for trouble and in some case, instigate a deadly situation to actually need a gun for self defense.

Btw, according to “The dog Whisperer” an extended umbrella discourages just about any small to medium size animal for confronting a human being…so guns play second fiddle to umbrellas in practicality too where animal protection is concerned.

Fear tactics even include having to defend yourself from the govt…thus enhancing the need for military weapons. Red Dawn is alive and well in every fearful mind. Gun manufacturers are totally dependent upon unnecessary fear for their survival. Even though, the chance of being murdered, 1 in 45000 is about the same as being hit by an asteroid. Driving with winter tires in the winter shows much better results in life saving strategies. Spend a few hundred extra dollars on that.

522

I know you believe what you are saying but the thing is, your vote and my vote counts exactly the same.

Only two times have I wanted a gun for protection and neither time did I have it in the car. The one time was on a lonely 100 mile stretch of highway in northern Minnesota when I was being harassed by another car. I would have been fired if I had a gun along. Another time was an encounter with a presumed rabid racoon at our little cemetery. I put the gun in the car for any future encounters. I’ve been through most big cities and found locks and a heavy foot keep me in charge most of the time, but then luck has been with me all my life.

I have shotguns, 30-30, 22, etc. but no hand guns but really I haven’t shot a gun in probably 20 years. I just don’t like you telling me I can’t. And I’m not going to tell a trained, even tempered vet they can’t either. That’s where we disagree.

523

@Bing… I am 100 % with you in the situations you stated having the options you discribed. You like me may feel that we need the protection of a weapon, even though statistically, neither one of us is correct. If I were in those situations, especially at my age without the stamina of my youth, I would carry too with no second thoughts. The difference is, I feel comfortable with or without a weapon and I have enough years of l training and a permit to feel comfortable with the decisions I make.

If everyone who felt like us, took the time to do justice to the responsibility of owning a gun by getting a permit and training, NO ONE should question our decision.

That is the ONLY way you and I differ. There is nothing wrong with wanting protection, even to he extent of carrying a gun. But, making that decison with out the preparation necessary creates indecision which increases the chance for misuse. We train to use a car and license it because we know it has the potential to kill. We should have at least, the same respect for a weapon whose SOLE purpose is to kill. If people don’t get that, IMO, they shouldn’t be owning or using a gun.

And, if you prepared yourself, you may not have to wonder about the times you wanted a weapon for protection but didn’t. Maybe you could have made that decision and not been fired. You would be legal and that would be your right, unless there was some unusual circumstance we don’t know about. There is really little difference in our votes.

524

Advocates of confiscating handguns, eve specific categories of weaposn, talk as if the laws will be complied with by other than law-abiding citizens. Anyone here who thinks that criminals prone to violence will be concerned about breaking a gun law please raise your hand. What, no hands?

I’m in favor of background checks. But I have an alternative proposal. Let’s take people convicted of violent crimes out of society permanently. Then background checks will be unnecessary. Convicted of a violent crime? You won’t be free to buy a gun! Then law-abiding citizens can carry guns openly without fear from the rest of us.

But don’t think even this will prevent the mass-murders that spurned the conversation. There will always be mass murders.

525

"advocates of confiscating handguns " you are making that up my good man…Please, with all due respect…they want them registered with background checks as even machine guns are not illegal to own if you are a law abiding citizen and jump throgh the right licensing hoops !

Who said that ? Not allowing criminals and those who can’t pass a background check is ALL most people want. Right now THERE is no federal law that provides checks for a felon, juvenile, mentally incompetent etc. from buying a gun in a private sale. And the only way you can keep those people from getting guns this way is to mandate everyone does go through a check and register the gun…that’s it. I’m raising my hand because I have interviewed seasoned criminals and they know the laws better then you. They will not carry a machine gun…most will not steal a gun in one state and transport it to home turf when (federal offense accoss state lines) when all they have to do is buy one in Uncle Henry’s and stick it in the trunk and drive across which is not a federal offense. They will steal them instate from law abiding citizens. They will not buy a registered gun from anyone…they don’t care about present federal background check as the present ones have no affect on them. Federal laws do affect criminal behavior. And, Convicted felons are real careful about firearms. And federal bail bonds are the most serious and risky if they comit a federal offense. Escaping to another state is no longer as viable an option.

Please, we keep saying the same falsehoods over and over and over. People in favor of criminals owning guns, make up things, have no solutions but plenty of off the head excuses. Right now it IS a federal offense for a felon to posses a gun…unless some dumb state has an over riding law and exceptions.

526

Dag, you might be shocked to learn that there are actually advocates of confiscating handguns.
There are also advocates of registering handguns/handgun owners.

Most folks, however, are advocating (1) backround checks for all gun sales including at gun shows, and (2) banning high-capacity clips. Many are also advocating banning assault weapons and. Some are advocating banning all semiautomatic weapons.

And the whole issue of “banning” has its own categories. Some want to ban the sale of, and many wnat to ban the ownership of…which implies confiscation. Most who advocate this believe the banned weapons could be retrieved by voluntary recall methinds. Others advocate forced confiscation.

And Dag, everyone who buys at a gun shop gets a background check, but currently those who buy at gun shows are exempt. Registration varies by state. In NH, there is no gun registration. Only a background check.

Um, as to the seasoned crimiinals you spoke with, I saw nothing in your post that suggested that additional federal laws of any sort (or state laws, for that matter) will prevent them from getting their guns. Or from committing their crimes. And many states have no gun registration laws. So as long as the criminals don;t purchase their wepons at a gun store they’re free to do whatever they want.

Your assumption that all advocates of gun control want the same controls is incorrect. And I would ask you, if the ownership of a category of weapon were banned, how woul dthat be enforced if not with confiscation?

Me, personally, I support background checks for all gun purchases, but only because so many violent criminals are released back into society every day, and I’m comfortable with banning high capacity clips and automatic weapons. That, I believe, would at least hopefully reduce the damage that a deranged gunman could do before being stopped. Beyond that, I think additional gun control laws will only be complied with by the law abiding citizens. And I know of not one single case of mass murder that would have been stopped by tighter gun control laws.

I’ve said no falsehoods. I’ve made nothing up. And I’ve not offered “off the head excuses”. I’ve stated facts and offered my opinions. If you disagree, that’s your right.

527

@same
Just a good debate but…federal laws AFFECT criminal bevioral as proven by the instances of full autos used in felony deaths. Please find any…it’s that simple.

First, most criminals are not convicted felons and the public at large are not routinely victims of the hardened convicted felon. They are actually part of the working/ non working class with SS numbers and actually pay taxes with their sometimes real jobs. A federal offense is a BIG thing to them. Making lots of money as a hardened felon with a record is TV land. It’s a hard life with lots of restrictions and danger and poverty. They will find a way of getting guns, but surprise. Homicides in this group are perpetrated on each other, more then the public. It is not where the discussion should be. The real problem is NOT gun shows, another fallacy…it’s private sales at gun shows and every where else ! That is where we are misinformed ! As you have heard, 40 % of all sales are not in gun shops…and i feel that study is very conservative…only an estimate.

When I say that something is a made up excuse, please see that I ALWAYS refer to those who want gun access by the criminal elements and have NO intention of passing any laws that actually do any good. I assume that isn’t you. Unfortunately, even the well intended are mislead by the groups who promote the line of the NRA leaders and gun manufacturers. Our present background check as a way to keep guns out of the hands of many criminals is a watered down, compromise bill to placate the NRA supporters who favors gun sales to eveyone. They have no answers because they are not interested in anything but profits. Politicians often pass compromise bills just to say they did something. The effectiveness is only judged by the passing of time. The ineffective Brady Bill is a case in point. Registering weapons along with federally supported background checks on all sales is an effective method everywhere and most would add, federally and state police supported permit programs and training

Confiscation has NOTHING to do with effective gun legislation. I just wish more people would get that and stop using that as a discussion starter…

Would you consider it confiscation to take a gun out of the procession of someone who could NOT pass a background check ? I wouldn’t. I would say it’s responsible.

528

From my cold dead hands will they pry my Dad’s Browning automatic shotgun that I inherited.

In the South Dakota paper, SD was chided for not reporting mental deficients to the Feds for background checks. Officials explained that it was a complicated issue even for folks with mental issues. They said returning vets diagnosed with PTSD would be banned from owning any gun forever. Truly this is not what anyone intends except a select few but it just illustrates that this whole thing is complicated and not as easy as Obama and Bloomburg make it out to be. What might be good in New York or Chicago doesn’t really make it in Sioux Falls, SD where 90% have guns. So would you want a vet to not seek help knowing that he could never again hunt?

529

@Same
If the assault weapon used had the same requirements as the full auto machine gun, I would be 99 .9 % certain it would not have been used the Connecticut shooting.

530

@Bing
My good man, Because I keep hearing the same old stuff…I will repeat too…see my previous post addressed to you. Could They “pry” that gun from you for a million dollars ? ;=)

531

What would you do with a million dollars? Buy something with it?

532
Dag, you might be shocked to learn that there are actually advocates of confiscating handguns.

Then you have the other end of the spectrum.

http://www.eveningtribune.com/topstories/x1084486199/SANDY-HOOK-CONSPIRACY-THEORY-Hornell-grad-at-center-of-media-frenzy

The retired psychologist who helped some of the kids who ran onto his property after they ran out of the school after their teacher was killed has been getting threatening phone calls because they say he’s part of the Sandy Hook Conspiracy.

533

"Truly this is not what anyone intends except a select few but it just illustrates that this whole thing is complicated "

Of course it is. If it wasn’t. it would have been done years ago and we would be agreeing like we usually do on car stuff. . If we don’t still tackle stuff that’s complicated, maybe there would be no vaccine, cars or electronics.

"What would you do with a million dollars? " Maybe get some firearm training and a permit if I thought the world was that dangerous. ANYONE has and will continue to have the right to do that. I have a an obligation to keep those around me safe with a firearm in the house both by using it as intended and not…

534

dunno how true this is, but if it is…
http://tinyurl.com/b3va82z

535

These people have a vested interest in ginning up fear. Read the “proposal” it’s little more then trying to enact a version of the Brady Bill…that has nothings do with sports firearms… Show case legislation. It just means certain guns like the one used in the killings can’t be pocessed there…big deal. A state measure against clips bigger then 10 rounds and buying ammo over the mail, which can’t be done in many states without in person, presenting an ID.
To look at the ad you gave, you would think the sky is falling. Folding stocks and pistol grips…show case. Requiring a permit to own a rifle with a pistol grip ? Looks like too, they want you to pass a background check (permit) before you can buy ammo…guess you’ll have to buy it in NH, Maine etc…if you are a criminal.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/2013SB-00161-R00-SB.htm

536

A great many of the most ardent supporters of firearm restrictions are unfamiliar with firearm terminology and to keep that group on track any proposal must be worded so as to be understood by them. Assault rifles are the current military issue. That’s obvious. And they have large capacity magazines that can be quickly replaced, they are short enough to be concealed, and they have the appearance of being purposed to attack people with nothing in common with the rifles and shot guns that are traditionally used for hunting. And just as Browning defined his pistols 100 years ago the weapons are automatics because the weapon ‘automatically’ cycles after firing each round to be ready to fire another round without operating a bolt or lever or slide or hammer. Those ardent but uneducated opponents of ‘assault weapons’ don’t need to be concerned with details beyond the obvious. No one needs such firepower and we would be much safer if such firepower were strictly regulated.

537

Even I can’t see how they’d go about taking 10+ round magazines from everyone. And if they did the ammo thing, that just means people will cross state lines to buy ammo if they can’t get it online, or have an out of state buddy/family order it and ship it to them in an unmarked box to their CT house. Right now, I do see it as tin foil hattery, but we’ll see what comes of it if/when they release the full deal.

I do still find it funny how New York forgot to exempt it’s police force from the 7 round limit when they wrote the bill. Though they won’t enforce it within the police force

538

Where is this going? Tell you true I am a brown belt tai kwan do, I do not know how hard I have to hit the solar plexus to knock a guy out, do not know how hard I have to front kick to break a guys arm, do not know how hard of a side kick to break a knee, then there is the reverse punch to the face followed by an elbow to the solar plexus and full punch to the forehead, My teacher got an award for disabling 2guys with a knife and 1 guy with a gun his first day in NYC subway and calling the coppers.

539

If high capacity magazines and assault rifles had been illegal the mother of the Newtown shooter would very likely have not had such weapons at her home and would very possibly be alive today. If the mere possession of high capacity magazines and light weight sawed off rifles carried a $1,000 fine and 30 days in jail a great many would be voluntarily sent to the crusher in short order.

540

Review how many mass shooters have been on psychotropic drugs, and if you look at the facts the high capacity rifle was actually left in the car. He took the guns from his mother, and the laws can prevent this how? There are whackos out there, sure deny them guns, but o deny the other 99% is like the mayor of NYC banning soft drinks bigger than 16 oz, to prevent obesity, stupid useless and ignorant