Here Is the Place, if any on this forum, for Gun Discussion

[2dueces]

Here is my take on the CHL's. I own and carry a hand gun 90% of the time. I have a Texas CHL and it is honored in 37 states. I understand that certain venues do not allow CHL's. But I will state this. If one person had a CHL in Colorado in the theater, less lives would have been lost. If one person had a CHL in the church, less lives would have been lost. If one of our Service men would have had a gun in the recruiting office..well you get the picture. These scumbags pick out easy targets. Not so easy when others have guns, are trained with them and not afraid to use them. Concealed Handgun is just that "concealed". I'd rather have one when I need it and suffer the fine if I use it than watch as a criminal who could care less about the law uses it against unarmed people.

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by 2dueces

Here is my take on the CHL's. I own and carry a hand gun 90% of the time. I have a Texas CHL and it is honored in 37 states. I understand that certain venues do not allow CHL's. But I will state this. If one person had a CHL in Colorado in the theater, less lives would have been lost. If one person had a CHL in the church, less lives would have been lost. If one of our Service men would have had a gun in the recruiting office..well you get the picture. These scumbags pick out easy targets. Not so easy when others have guns, are trained with them and not afraid to use them. Concealed Handgun is just that "concealed". I'd rather have one when I need it and suffer the fine if I use it than watch as a criminal who could care less about the law uses it against unarmed people.

It makes sense what you are saying...and I agree with it. But let me ask you this: how many accidental injuries/deaths have occurred since people have been allowed to carry firearms? I don't know statistics, but I'm willing to bet it's a decent amount...more to offset the good reasons to carry one? Who knows, but I also feel like I hear of more people shooting people over non issues too. In theory, carrying one for protection sounds fabulous, just not sure it works out that way half of the time.

I'm not totally against guns, I just don't see where guns are a positive outside of the military. Sure, they make for a great sport and practice, but outside of that, they just seem dangerous for the most part. We have to admit, even though most of the time it's the people that are the issue, they always get into the wrong hands and people always die when they shouldn't have. In reality, this will never end and people will always have guns, but that doesn't mean I have to say guns are cool and the Constitution gives me enough backing to say they are ok (we have evolved)...yes, guns are a necessary evil in some areas, but are too risky for any random joe to be walking around with one. Just my opinion...

One more thing...the cars/guns comparison doesn't carry any weight. Anyone could pick up a butter knife and go on a killing spree...anyone could ram their car into another car. A car's purpose isn't to kill, but to travel. A gun's purpose is to destroy something...anything if one desires

[2dueces]

Originally Posted by freakhappy

It makes sense what you are saying...and I agree with it. But let me ask you this: how many accidental injuries/deaths have occurred since people have been allowed to carry firearms? I don't know statistics, but I'm willing to bet it's a decent amount...more to offset the good reasons to carry one? Who knows, but I also feel like I hear of more people shooting people over non issues too. In theory, carrying one for protection sounds fabulous, just not sure it works out that way half of the time.

I'm not totally against guns, I just don't see where guns are a positive outside of the military. Sure, they make for a great sport and practice, but outside of that, they just seem dangerous for the most part. We have to admit, even though most of the time it's the people that are the issue, they always get into the wrong hands and people always die when they shouldn't have. In reality, this will never end and people will always have guns, but that doesn't mean I have to say guns are cool and the Constitution gives me enough backing to say they are ok (we have evolved)...yes, guns are a necessary evil in some areas, but are too risky for any random joe to be walking around with one. Just my opinion...

One more thing...the cars/guns comparison doesn't carry any weight. Anyone could pick up a butter knife and go on a killing spree...anyone could ram their car into another car. A car's purpose isn't to kill, but to travel. A gun's purpose is to destroy something...anything if one desires

In the hands of an untrained person guns are as dangerous as an unskilled driver. I'm 59, have carried for 28 years and have never once pulled it or shot it besides at the range. My girls were all trained on the dangers of guns. They knew and respected the power both inside my house and at their friends house. Trained to know that they are not toys and are not to be fooled with. But I'd rather have one and not need it than not have one and need it. And as a side, I am not a gun enthusaist.

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by 2dueces

In the hands of an untrained person guns are as dangerous as an unskilled driver. I'm 59, have carried for 28 years and have never once pulled it or shot it besides at the range. My girls were all trained on the dangers of guns. They knew and respected the power both inside my house and at their friends house. Trained to know that they are not toys and are not to be fooled with. But I'd rather have one and not need it than not have one and need it. And as a side, I am not a gun enthusaist.

It definitely makes sense! One big reason we own guns is to defend ourselves from people that have ill intent...protect from people with guns. In the end, owning a gun is a huge responsibility and now that any ol joe can carry one, we are asking for more issues IMO.

[packs]

I know what you're insinuating: that if someone had a gun they would have shot him. But that is assuming a lot out of a person who has never been in that situation. And besides, if you arm people like security guards at high schools, you're going to be at the mercy of that person's sanity.

[2dueces]

Originally Posted by packs

I know what you're insinuating: that if someone had a gun they would have shot him. But that is assuming a lot out of a person who has never been in that situation. And besides, if you arm people like security guards at high schools, you're going to be at the mercy of that person's sanity.

If we took every senerio with a car, baseball bat or gun we'd live under rocks. Name a security guard, armored car guard or a bank guard that has gone insane and shot people dead. Ok name a terrorist, robber, car jacker that has shot innocent people. Which list do you think is longer and who do you want with you when crime happens? Would you put your hands in front of your face and say "don't shoot" or would you pull your gun and defend your family?

[packs]

Every time I make a post I feel like your instinct is: he thinks we shouldn't have any guns! But that is so far from what I'm saying that I don't understand the reaction. Because of the propensity of weapons from the Federal Assault Weapon Ban being used in mass shootings, all I've said was that the type of guns available for sale to the public should be amended. And that's because in most cases, the weapons I'm talking about taking off the market are bought legally.

Here are some security guard articles I think you should read that demonstrate the dangers of arming security people that I discussed in the post you quoted:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-children.html

http://www.wsbtv.com/videos/news/sec...stomer/vDPdpG/

http://consumerist.com/2010/10/14/ho...e-parking-lot/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...hood-security#

http://www.cbs12.com/news/top-storie...id_27193.shtml

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...blow-up-school

[chaddurbin]

Originally Posted by 2dueces

But I will state this. If one person had a CHL in Colorado in the theater, less lives would have been lost. If one person had a CHL in the church, less lives would have been lost. If one of our Service men would have had a gun in the recruiting office..well you get the picture. These scumbags pick out easy targets. Not so easy when others have guns, are trained with them and not afraid to use them. Concealed Handgun is just that "concealed". I'd rather have one when I need it and suffer the fine if I use it than watch as a criminal who could care less about the law uses it against unarmed people.

this is wrong, guns don't deter crimes and shootings with all the studies having been done. all i know is there's a weekly mass shooting across the country, and i read about how some dude just killed a waitress because he couldn't smoke inside the waffle house??? now another mass shooting in san berdune which hits a little too close to home.

this country is effed with no cure in sight. i don't feel safe going to the mall, i don't feel safe going to the theater, i don't feel safe sending my kids to school, and i certainly don't feel safe at work as some mentally disturbed individual can just go off on the rest of us because HR looked at them wrong. i'm actively looking for a transfer to my home country or might even consider canada at this point...y'all have fun with the assault rifles and open carries.

p.s.oh yea and i'm not white so i gotta watch my back for the po-po also....

[packs]

Guns used in this attack were AR-15s, the same AR-15s that would have been banned and illegal to sell under the previously held Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

Guns used in this attack were AR-15s, the same AR-15s that would have been banned and illegal to sell under the previously held Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

So an assault weapon ban would would eliminate these type shootings? Is that what you're saying? If that's not what you're saying, please explain your comment.

Assault weapons are banned in France too. That didn't stop the terrorists. 129 people dead.

They're banned in Norway as well. That didn't stop Breivik. 69 people dead.

[packs]

I guess we should sell them to whoever wants them and just wait around to see what they do with them. That's a better idea than taking them off the market and allowing people to possess other weapons not on the ban.

Also your mention of France and Norway is actually counter intuitive to your point, seeing as France and Norway do not have mass shootings in their countries that out number the days of the year like we do. So I would say not selling them in France and Norway does indeed impact the number of mass shootings in the country in which assault weapons are used.

Lastly, if your argument is that making something illegal doesn't mean you can't get it, that's obvious to everyone. But I don't see why you don't think there's a difference between something being legal to buy and illegal to buy.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

I guess we should sell them to whoever wants them and just wait around to see what they do with them. That's a better idea than taking them off the market and allowing people to possess other weapons not on the ban.

Ok, I'll bite. So, let's say that an assault weapons ban is re-instated. Going forward, no more sell (or trade or barter in any way) of assault weapons, the ammo they shoot, high capacity magazines, accessories (flash compressors, folding stocks, etc.) etc.

What about the ones already in the hands of individuals?

So, my question once again (since you failed to answer it the first time), would that (meaning a ban) eliminate these types of shootings?

Edited for clarification.

[packs]

No one is talking about a singular solution to this problem. The thing you're not grasping is that if something is illegal, that makes it harder to get. In almost every instance, an assault weapon that was previously banned was purchased legally by a person who then carried out a mass shooting. Very rarely are they not purchased legally. That's because they're easy to get. They chose that weapon specifically, not by chance.

So, once again, if you have a group of people in this country who are choosing to buy a specific type of weapon to carry out mass shootings, how is it not in the public's best interests to remove that weapon from store shelves?

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

So an assault weapon ban would would eliminate these type shootings? Is that what you're saying? If that's not what you're saying, please explain your comment.

Assault weapons are banned in France too. That didn't stop the terrorists. 129 people dead.

They're banned in Norway as well. That didn't stop Breivik. 69 people dead.

Not sure why more people don't think like this. Getting rid of weapons is not going to stop a criminal.

If you just lock the door to your house surely there will be NObody breaking in will there? Ummm yeah a "door lock" will stop a thief like "gun control" will stop a criminal.

I also don't know about you guys but all this gun-control crap is starting to seem more and more like big-brother.