Gun control or justifiable? pineys at home

You know, Tom, I read that story this morning, and I thought: “What a F***ing moron!”

As soon as they said that he was doing a gun safety demonstration and shot himself, I thought, “He’s gonna drop the clip and not clear the chamber.” Sure enough…

Now, you and I both know that, barring a major mechanical malfunction, if he had actually cleared the chamber, the round would have been ejected. And if it somehow hadn’t ejected, the only way it would have fired is if the safety was off and his finger was on the trigger.

My guess: The DEA is covering up what really happened to safe face.

My opinion: The unnamed officer should be relieve of duty and fired.

You listed the three basic rules of firearms safety many posts ago, and you are absolutely right. And it’s still amazing how many people, even those with er, extensive, weapons training fail to adhere to them.

I guess I must’ve misunderstood your original point, then, as I assumed you were talking about gun ownership by private citizens.

Am I to understand that you don’t feel law enforcement officers should be armed?

Those who are unable or unwilling to commit acts of violence will always be subject to the tyranny of those who will.

I can’t believe the bullshit I’m reading here today. The argument should be simple and easy to see. You need guns because of me.

I’m 6’5", and weigh around 250 pounds, I’ve run 3 miles in under 17 minutes. I’ve been trained to incapacitate and kill you. I’m bigger, faster and stronger than you and if a loose wire in my head causes me to enter your home with the intent to hurt you, what chance do you have of stopping me? None. If you manage to call the police, you’ll still be dead. You can not outrun me and you can not fight me off in a close quarter encounter.

The only hope you have is a gun. You can shoot me several times standing with your back to a corner, protecting your family, facing the entry to a room as I approach. You need no special training but you do need to spend a many hours getting comfortable with your gun. Learn to load and unload it, learn to hit a human sized target center mass from 10-20 feet. Learn to do everything as safe, smooth, and fast as possible, in that order. Get professional instruction. Make sure your entire family is aware of the gun and where it is and why it is there. Don’t make it accessible, keep it loaded in a lock box near your bed that only responsible adults know the combination to. Make sure you can open it in the dark- quickly. Practice, practice, practice.

If you suspect someone is in your house, gather your family in one room if you can, call the police speak clearly and loudly so the intruder may hear you and leave. Then shout loudly “Attention intruder, I have a gun and will protect my family, the police have been called, leave now or you will be shot.” (maybe they’ll leave) This way if the intruder is a drunk who wandered in the wrong house, your kid trying to sneak back in after sneaking out, or a friend playing a really funny practical joke you will not shoot them.

People kill family and friends mistakenly because they try to replicate the complex moves of an elite military group that they have seen on TV, they quietly get their gun and snoop and poop through their own house- and shoot their 16 year old headed to the kitchen for a glass of milk when he suprises them rounding a corner. Taking those classes will only make matters worse for most, you’re not clearing a building, your making a hasty defensive position hoping to scare off a criminal off before he gets close to you.

I have given this same speech to every woman who has ever meant a damn in my life- mom, aunts, friends, girlfriends, etc. I stand in front of them a ask what would happen if I was coming through their bedroom window with bad thoughts in my head. There’s one way to stop me, shoot me in the chest and head, several times if need be, until I stop moving.

Also, handguns are horrible home security weapons, at night an intruder may not see a black .38 small frame pistol, I have a 12 gauge pump shotgun for this purpose. The sound of that action is loud enough to get your attention and if you do come through my bedroom door you will be sure to see what’s waiting for you. Again, hopefully that will cause the bad guy to rethink what he’s doing and leave. If you can learn to handle that type of weapon and understand that it can shoot through walls (as in you need to know what’s on the other side) it’s also much easier to understand the concept of ‘pointing’ a shotgun as opposed to aiming a pistol.

And after all that, I have never pointed a weapon at another human being, never come close to shooting anyone. I have many, many guns, they have never killed anyone. I am a law abiding citizen and a member of the United States Marine Corps. I have no deep internal desire to shoot some jackass stealing my lawn mower. But if you come in my house looking for trouble- you will get it. I refuse to allow anything to happen to my family because someone who is bigger, faster, and stronger than me decided my house looked like a good target.

Tom, you should be ashamed of yourself, I know you hate a whole lot of women, but they more than anyone have the right to carry a gun so that they are not subject to the evil that lurks in the heads of some whackos.

Women, get a gun, get instruction, and get ready to protect yourself.

Everyone, protect your life and your family and be glad we live in a society that allows you to do that.

Assholes, oops I mean ‘gun control advocates’, don’t quote me statistics that show how stupid most people are with guns. That does not alter my right to protect myself and my family. If you try to take that away from me in any way, you will get the fight of your life.

Recently a law enforcement officer was showing me his new firearm. He dropped the magazine and cleared the chamber, handing it to me with the chamber in open battery as is safe and customary. I cleared the weapon prior to examining it.

Once I examined his new firearm I re-opened the chamber and lcoked the slide to the rear then handed it back to him, grip first.

He (the trained law enforcement officer) proceed to sweep my face and chest twice in under five seconds with the barrel of the weapon. I said, “Would you mind not pointing your weapon at me?”

There are some highly proficient, well trained law enforcement officers who are highly effective combat gunmen. And there are also some who require more training.

I realize I am beating a dead horse, but since you asked, and they are very good questions…

Q: “Why do the UK, Germany, Spain, France and Japan (all industrialized nations) have less than 10% gun related crime when compared to the USA?”
A: Let’s start by getting the facts… (sorry about the format, table is at http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html)
International Homicide Rate Table (Death rates are per 100,000)

Country…Year…Total-Homicide…Gun-Homicide…Non-Gun-Homicide…%-Gun-Ownership
United States**…**1999…5.70…3.72…1.98…39.0
England/Wales…1997…1.41…0.11…1.30…4.7
Germany…1994…1.17…0.22…0.95…8.9
France…1994…1.12…0.44…0.68…22.6
Spain…1993…0.95…0.21…0.74…13.1
Japan…1994…0.62…0.02…0.60…n/a

Now, I don’t have statistics for all “gun related crime” handy, so I’ll just focus on homocides. You can see the US has the highest gun homocide rate by far (among these), but gun ownership is not all that much higher than France. The interesting column is non-gun homocide. US has 3.72 times more non-gun homicides (per 100K) than all the others put together (the sum is 1.00), while 1.08x the sum of the gun related. Which points out that the US is just more violent in general. Why? Well, for example, Japan is basically a police state, with near unlimited right for police to search, and for practial matters they can arrest and detain indefinitely without a hearing. Confession rate is like 95%, so you can imagine it isn’t much fun to be arrested, guilty or not. Another reason, and the main one, is the social structure of the US. For instance, the homocide rate in Mexico is 17.58, and it is also very high in the US among Mexican immigrants (and very low among Japanese and UK immigrants). Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, Finland, and Norway all have high gun ownership levels but very low homocide rates (and Isreal depending how you count). Russia and N. Ireland, among so called “industrialized nations”, are the shining examples of extreme gun control but yet an extemely high homocide rate. So, in general, I think the answer to your question is that those countries have fewer “criminals” in general. BTW, comparing countries gun homicides to US, we have respectively 25%, 21%, 20%, 17%, and 11% (not <10% quoted), although crime has typically been going down so this is somewhat skewed by the different years compared.

Q: How many people in the USA legitimately need a gun/rifle/machinegun to defend themselves every year:
A: Depending on the survey used, somewhere between 2.5 million and 800K defensive uses per year in the USA. BTW, the severe restictions on class III firearms have had no statistical impact on crime. Very very few “assault rifle” crimes have ever been committed. Even the anti-gun establishment admits it is just a step towards making all ownership illegal, not based on actually making the country safer.

Thanks for reading more of my gun-nut propaganda :slight_smile:

Dan

bruiser98 wrote: “I’m 6’5”, and weigh around 250 pounds, I’ve run 3 miles in under 17 minutes"

Are these at the same time? I just got done watching “Soldier,” you must be one of those genetically engineered new soldier guys.

trianimal, you and I are good to go for weapons handling: Trained, experienced and qualified.

The average REMF-ass, civilian type dweeb off the street isn;t qualified to weild the deadly capabilities of a swiss army knife, let alone an M4, Glock, H&K or other combat weapon.

They are a “no go” at this station. They have never had an “explanation, demonstration and a practical application” and still think S.P.O.R.T.S. is something you watch on ESPN.

Nothing worries me more than an armed idiot.

Did you know this? You are probably in the militia whether you know it or not.

U.S. Constitution, Amendment II–
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

U.S. Code, TITLE 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311–

Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

Should we have mandatory firearms training for all US male citizens starting at age 17? Should we require all men between the ages of 17 and 45 to keep a rifle and ammo at the ready?

<<Should we require all men between the ages of 17 and 45 to keep a rifle and ammo at the ready? >>

Just one?:wink:

Brett

I knew it, tri bri. My tour of duty with the unorganized militia ends this year. And I am bummed. I guess I go back to being a civilian type dweeb on July 29.

Well, my tour ended 4 1/2 years ago, but I ain’t givin’ up my weapons! (I actually have an '03-A3 and a Model 1911A from Army surplus stock–my dad got 'em back in the 'fifties for about 25 bucks as part of the civilian marksmanship program).

Release Date: November 27, 2003

Vancouver, BC - Restrictive firearm legislation has failed to reduce gun violence in Australia, Canada, or Great Britain. The policy of confiscating guns has been an expensive failure, according to a new paper The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales, released today by The Fraser Institute.

What makes gun control so compelling for many is the belief that violent crime is driven by the availability of guns, and more importantly, that criminal violence in general may be reduced by limiting access to firearms, says Gary Mauser, author of the paper and professor of business at Simon Fraser University.

This new study examines crime trends in Commonwealth countries that have recently introduced firearm regulations. Mauser notes that the widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations is to examine trends in total violent crime, not just firearm crime.

The United States provides a valuable point of comparison for assessing crime rates as that country has witnessed a dramatic drop in criminal violence over the past decade for example, the homicide rate in the US has fallen 42 percent since 1991. This is particularly significant when compared with the rest of the world in 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990s.

The justice system in the U.S. differs in many ways from those in the Commonwealth but perhaps the most striking difference is that qualified citizens in the United States can carry concealed handguns for self-defence. During the past few decades, more than 25 states in the U.S. have passed laws allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. In 2003, there are 35 states where citizens can get such a permit.

Disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined in this study. In all these cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive. In all cases, the effort meant setting up expensive bureaucracies that produce no noticeable improvement to public safety or have made the situation worse. Mauser points to these trends in the countries he examined:

England and Wales

Both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive firearms laws over the past 20 years; all handguns were banned in 1997.

Yet in the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50 percent, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000. While not yet as high as the US, in 2002 gun crime in England and Wales increased by 35 percent. This is the fourth consecutive year that gun crime has increased.

Police statistics show that violent crime in general has increased since the late 1980s and since 1996 has been more serious than in the United States.

Australia

The Australian government made sweeping changes to the firearms legislation in 1997. However, the total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again. While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia. Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise for example, armed robberies have jumped 166 percent nationwide.

The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms has cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million. The cost of the police services bureaucracy, including the costly infrastructure of the gun registration system, has increased by $200 million since 1997.

And for what? asks Mauser. There has been no visible impact on violent crime. It is impossible to justify such a massive amount of the taxpayers money for no decrease in crime. For that kind of tax money, the police could have had more patrol cars, shorter shifts, or better equipment.

Canada

The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada.

The Canadian experiment with firearm registration is becoming a farce says Mauser. The effort to register all firearms, which was originally claimed to cost only $2 million, has now been estimated by the Auditor General to top $1 billion. The final costs are unknown but, if the costs of enforcement are included, the total could easily reach $3 billion.

It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public. No law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. Maybe we should crack down on criminals rather than hunters and target shooters? says Mauser.

Read the whole report here: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin...dExperiment.pdf

When read in conjunction, does this mean that if you’re under the age of 17 or over the age of 45, you don’t have a constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” ???

If so, there sure are a lot of felons out there.

No, last time I checked, “the people” means “the people” not “the militia”. And how do you go from gun ownership outside the militia to felon? Because it’s Friday?

Nope-- Article

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, just because something is not enumerated in the Constitution, does not mean a right does not exist.

Should we have mandatory firearms training for all US male citizens starting at age 17? Should we require all men between the ages of 17 and 45 to keep a rifle and ammo at the ready?

Yep. It seems to work for the Swiss.

Yep. It seems to work for the Swiss.

I though they just used those little knives…

Yeah, those Swiss have some good ideas. I say we adopt their model, and give every member of the militia an assault rifle, a mountain bike, a trusty pocket knife, and the training to use all three.

Sounds sort of silly, but I think it would actually work.

If those French Canadians ever try to invade and make all our women stop shaving their pits, I’ll be there.