My gun could have saved my husband

[biff]

Pro gun here. Living in VA and working in DC taught me something important. If you check the crime stats between the two places. The crime in N Virginia vs DC....the crime rate is 100 worse in dc. And the concealed carry permits are only for LEO (police) only. Dc has strict gun laws...But the bad guys have guns!
Va is pro gun and give out ccws like nothing and the crime is much much lower....kinda ironic...hmmmmmmmm

[nick__45]

What's a definition of registered gun holder that this article is referring to? I thought TN is a common sense state.

As far as personal finance is concern, guns can be used as investment because money spent on guns wisely is money not spent of junk.

[nick__45]

Originally Posted by biff

Pro gun here. Living in VA and working in DC taught me something important. If you check the crime stats between the two places. The crime in N Virginia vs DC....the crime rate is 100 worse in dc. And the concealed carry permits are only for LEO (police) only. Dc has strict gun laws...But the bad guys have guns!
Va is pro gun and give out ccws like nothing and the crime is much much lower....kinda ironic...hmmmmmmmm

Same here. DC is gun free zone and yet is very bad. Parts of DC is less safe than Iraq, Liberia, Afghanistan, Mexico, and other places we call cesspools.

It is funny that states that are anti-gun usually are the one benefiting the most from gun production. Most guns in the U.S. are manufactured in anti-gun states such as Maryland, Massachusetts, Illinois, Delaware, New Jersey, and many others.

[nick__45]

Originally Posted by zakity

So, you want to tell the good guys from the bad guys, make open carry legal everywhere. You will know who they are and you know that they are armed. Bad guys don't carry openly. They want to hide it. They don't want you to know that they are armed until they pull it out.

+1. Make it legal for all Americans to open carry almost anywhere except for a few places the Oval Office or some court places. But make sure the guns are traceable to the owners and require that stolen guns reported right away. I am not talking registration but rather but database where sell records are kept. When private takes place, the burden is on the seller and buyer to keep their own record or have an update in the national database. It is similar to the laws they have now but we just don't need to silly background check and the buy permit some states have.

Treat guns like we treat cars, which everyone has the right to own and punish those who abuse their right. Everyone has a right to own a car but driving is a privilege. So make gun ownership a right but if the owner abuse such right, he can't carry outside of his house the same way DUI people can't drive their car. But in the case of emergency, DUI people have the right to use their car to get to safety as gun owners, who lost their privilege to carry, have a right to use their guns for security. Of course, that would solve crime and the sheep dogs will loose their job since they can't 'protect' us anymore.

[nick__45]

Originally Posted by swanson719

Zakity,

Open carry being legal everywhere would be the equivalent of the old west. From the history books with that, it sure seems like both the good and the bad guys carried openly. Bad guys aren't going to walk around with a sawed off shotgun or an uzi in public because that's just asking to get arrested. If it was legal and commonplace, do you really think they wouldn't do it?

Greenback,

The military operates with the same principle, only calling it rules of engagement and use of force as opposed to "force continuum". The point I was trying to make is that people need to understand this concept and do what they can to abide by it. I may have chosen a poor example in the case of someone using a throwing knife at 21 feet. People need to be responsible to use lethal force as a last resort, and if they can resolve a situation with less than lethal means, it's for the best.

Are you talking about the actual old west or the Hollywood's rendition of it?

Do you know anyone who follow the U.S. rule of engagement in actual practice and get to live and talk about it? Not many I would say. The only time we may follow such rule is when they outnumbered the enemy 30 to one and they have air support. Normally, casualty rate is also against them as they'll run back and forth playing soldering and get wounded before being able to take the one enemy combatant out. Actual rule of engagement doesn't apply to enemy camps or strongholds as those place get flatten before they know what hit them.

Do you know what the rule of engagement for cops in public shooting? Sit and wait while looking all tactical during the massacre.

[nick__45]

Originally Posted by GREENBACK

The people I know that are ccw holders are, to a person, very responsible people and I know and encounter quite a few. I'm not the least concerned about them going into a place that serves alcohol with their weapon on them. I agree that alcohol and firearms don't go together anymore than alcohol and automobiles do. A person in a restaurant drinking a beer with his steak doesn't make me feel threatened.

Grimjack

Shootings at bars are not that uncommon. I don't know what stats you're looking at or for or if the FBI even compiles this information. I know from personal and professinal experience that hardened violent criminals don't go anywhere without their gun and it doesn't have to be some sleezy dive of a bar.

As for your politics, That's fine, I really try not to draw any conclusions about people online. Just discussing the topic.

CCW people are often very careful and polite and anti-violent simply because they have too much to loose. They know that even if the justifiably defend themselves in a fight, they will still have to loose tons of money and possibly their freedom because judge and jury without common sense can't figure out why it is necessary to use a gun against someone with a knife or bare hands. They don't realize that if you're cornered by someone with a temper, you have no other resort but to put them down the most effective way possible or you will be killed with your own gun. This is why many cops have a go-bag for when they don't want to chance their life on a jury after a shooting. It's easier to explain that someone charge at you with a box cutter or a cheap pistol than just trying to convince the jury that you are no match for a crazed 250 lbs guy with nothing to loose.

[Mr Nice Guy]

Mr. Nice Guy here, defender of the 2nd Amendment. Sorry i'm late to the thread

[miclason]

having lived through a civil war during my teenage years, I really hate guns. However, I don´t see the logic in not allowing law-abiding citizens to carry guns... guess what? The criminals WILL carry them, even if it is against the law...all the more so BECAUSE it is against the law...it´s what they do, that´s why their criminals

[nick__45]

Originally Posted by miclason

having lived through a civil war during my teenage years, I really hate guns. However, I don´t see the logic in not allowing law-abiding citizens to carry guns... guess what? The criminals WILL carry them, even if it is against the law...all the more so BECAUSE it is against the law...it´s what they do, that´s why their criminals

Be careful when using the term law abiding citizens because one day you may be caught jay walking and can't own a gun to protect your life and pursuit a happiness of the shooting sport. Speeding is also breaking the law, are speeders not allowed to own a gun. 'Law abiding citizen' is the term I **** and piss on.