Do you carry?

[troopie]

For all of you who live where such things are legal, 1:) Do you have a concealed weapons permit, and 2:) Do you carry?

My answers are 1: Yes and 2: Yes.

troopie

[PvK]

No and No.

[Joe 98]

troopie said:
My answers are 1: Yes and 2: Yes.
troopie




Where do you live?

[troopie]

Where do you live?

[/quote]

I live in the US now, in the Pacific Northwest, in a county where carrying is permitted with a licence.

I'm from South Africa, where a lot of people carry.

troopie

[Joe 98]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

You should carry a concealed person.

[troopie]

Joe 98 said:
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

You should carry a concealed person.



I carry a concealed gun because I can't carry a concealed tank.

troopie

[Joe 98]

You make the Pacific Northwest sound like Baghdad

-

[Hiro_Antagonist]

Joe 98 said:
You make the Pacific Northwest sound like Baghdad


Ironic, since the pacific northwest is generally the most liberal, progressive, and laid-back part of the country.

Seattle specifically has a lot of car breakins and thefts, but otherwise it's pretty peaceful up here.

-Hiro_Antagonist

[troopie]

Hiro_Antagonist said:

Joe 98 said:
You make the Pacific Northwest sound like Baghdad


Ironic, since the pacific northwest is generally the most liberal, progressive, and laid-back part of the country.

Seattle specifically has a lot of car breakins and thefts, but otherwise it's pretty peaceful up here.

-Hiro_Antagonist



It is a fairly peaceful area. But we have our villains and gang garbage here also. In all the time I've had a carry permit, I have drawn the pistol once and fired once into the air. Gun situations are very rare. The idea is to have one when it is needed.

And I don't really want to carry a concealed tank.

troopie

[Phoenix-D]

Odd. Every permit course I've ever heard of has said you -don't- do warning shots. Mainly because you don't know where the things are going to come down..

Special circumstances, perhaps?

[troopie]

Special circumstances. I had to explain my actions to a judge and was cautioned not to fire any more warning shots.

troopie

[El_Phil]

Which would imply that next time you should stick to a verbal warning (normally ineffective) or just shoot the person in question. Tricky.

[Atrocities]

I have a CW permit and have had one since 91. I have carried on and off as needed since then. The one thing that comes to mind when you carry is that the responsibility to avoid conflict shifts squarely into your hands. You as the person carrying a firearm are made responsible for any situation you get into. Knowing you have a gun that could be used as a weapon give you tremendous responsibly that cannot be taken lightly. Those who get a high from carrying because they think it makes them powerful, or allow such a thing to go to their heads should have their license taken from them and be beaten with bat.

Carrying a gun makes you accountable for any action you take. If you get into an argument or altercation and pull that firearm without cause, or even if you do not and it is seen, you WILL most likely go to jail or at the very lest it will be confiscated and you WILL loose your permit. It has been my experience that most people who choose to carry often avoid any situation that might escalate into conflict. I would say that most even go so far as backing down from altercations that they normally would not do otherwise.

I have only had to pull my gun ONCE in my life and that was the scariest thing I had done up to that point. I knew that if the situation continued to worsen, as it was doing, I would have no choice but to end someone’s life. Thankfully the man saw reason, or God, which ever, and the situation was resolved without any one getting harmed.

I am lucky though; I have been around guns my entire life and know what they can be made to do. I have had training upon training upon training and still feel uncomfortable around them when around people who have had no training.

I support a national carry law because I think it is high time that the conceal carry laws between states be made uniform thus allowing a legal CW licensee to carry in any state they happen to travel through, including New York and Massachusetts.

This is not a gun debate, currently we have the legal right to own firearms and until the Democrats take that right from us, I feel any American who wants to own a gun, should do so and hopefully will consider taking a training and or safety class. No one wants to see his or her gun used to harm another.

[Xrati]

"Deadly Force" is only justifiable when your LIFE or someone else is in question! You have the right to "keep and bear arms", not to freely use them. We'd have less problems with guns if we had more training for them.

I come across so many parents that have an anti-gun mentality. When I tell them that their 'bubble' world for their children is not possible and explain to them, should their child be involved with friends that had a gun (for whatever reason) wouldn't they want to know that at least one of them would know enough about gun safety to make a difference in the outcome of the situation! I don't get any more arguments from them...

Is there anybody from Australia out there? I'd like to know how their country wide gun ban is going? I hear it's not going well!

[FJ_MD]

I don't understand why a common citizen have to carry a gun, a knife, a bat.....

[Jack Simth]

FJ_MD said:
I don't understand why a common citizen have to carry a gun, a knife, a bat.....


It is better if the need is not present.
However, if the need is present (or has a "reasonable" chance of becoming present), it is better for the common citizen to have such than not.
Consider an area where the police response time is three minutes, and valiant bystanders are scarce. If someone pulls a knife and tells you to go away while he forcefully has his way with your wife, which would you prefer? The ability to shoot and kill him yourself immediately, or the ability to call for aid which will arrive in three minutes time who are willing to shoot and kill him - if not for the fact that he knows the local response time and finishes up and leaves and one minute prior to their arrival ... perhaps with your wife dead, perhaps not.

This of course assumes that everything runs smoothly for the comparison - that there are no areas where the police will not answer calls, that he would let you out of his sight to make the call, and that all police potentially involved are honest. If you carry and know appropriet use of a firearm, at worst you need a 10 second distraction to terminate the situation (and that individual, and any further situations he may have caused in like manner), areas where police will not answer calls (or that have longer response times) become mostly immaterial, and the police force can have a few compromised individuals without adding further risk to the life of your wife.

Here (http://www.a-human-right.com/) is a link to a (slanted) list of questions on the subject that can sometimes help people clarify their own positions on the subject (and also occasionally change a person's position).

[Atrocities]

They recently over turned a Manadory Flee law in Florida. The law mandated that when faced if a dangerous situation you were legally obligated to flee and call police. That you did not have the right to self defense. Thankfully the people of Florida saw the futility of this foriegn inspired run away law and made changes within their legal system to give people back their human right of self defense despite all the lies and bull**** thrown up against it.

Additionally criminals can nolonger profit from their crimes. Say some dumbass crack head breaks into your home and in the process of doing so is bitten by your dog. Say he is caught and then sues you for having been bitten by your dog. In the old days, the Florida law would hold you responsible for his injuries. Not any more.

We need more laws to protect the real victims of crime and not the crimals who caused the crime. Although the law is in place now that protects people from unwarrented prosecution for having defended themselves, they are still obligated by law not to use any force greater than that which is deemed nessassary to secure their safety. In other words, if some punk is yelling at you, you cannot shoot him. However if the punk has a knife and attacks you, well defend away if you can. On the flip side, if he has a knife, and you pull a gun, and he drops the knife and runs, you cannot shoot him in self defense. If you did shoot him, well that would be cause for criminal action.

[FJ_MD]

Let's try to see the thing from an higher level.


If you take isolated fact you seems to have all the right to possess and carry.


But take a general look at it. Do you think that if every citizen will carry a gun the security will be better?


Think about the past and you can have an idea. Remember that your liberty end when begin the liberty of another.




Anyway the problem here is another. In fact if the justice will work much better, less common citizen will think about to carry a gun. So this subject is clearly related to the internal security, that is related to the social situation, tha is related to........all is related to somethin else http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[Chazar]

This thread is just frightening... /threads/images/Graemlins/Cold.gif ...and reinforces me in trying to minimize my travels to the USA...

Sure, criminals with knives can be defended against by carrying a gun, but what about criminals carrying guns as well to keep up with everybody else?

Even worse is that people seem to be concerned that such crimes might really happen to them with a likeliness high enough to offset the trouble and danger of carrying a firearm. (And I did have had my share of firearms training as a soldier...) It is this "I-know-that-I-am-always-the-good-guy"-mentality that frightens me even more. I am of the arguable personal opinion that there is no such thing as universal-good and unviersal-evil. However, I think that it is less arguable that there is a proper likeliness of human misperception and mis-judgement, especially when under stress and pressure. But you cant take a chance if it is either them or you, right? After all, your criminal opponent might carry a gun as well, right? What about innocent cultural strangers that just happen to act differently?

So I am frightened. Maybe carrying a gun would make me happy again...trigger-happy...

[Atrocities]

Crime here is no worse or better than any other place in the world that has a civilized culture. The problem in the US is that we have a meth epidemic coupled with a self esteme issue. To many kids are growing up without morals or values and all they care about is getting instant gratification without the guts or incentive to work for it. It can be said that a significant portion of the crime in America is drug related. Deal with the drug epidemic and well, crime goes down.

I have a permit to carry but I have not carried in over five years. So having the permit does not mean one will always carry. However, if I chose to carry at least I am legal to do so. Not that I would want to carry unless I was traveling.

[Leslie]

I don't have a gun, but I do have this magnificent walking stick I use as a cane for when I walk in excess of 3 blocks (where having it is useful to my mobility).

Made from a sledge hammer handle of solid hickory and topped with a solid oak grip.

Now if a person attacks me, they damn well better have a gun, because a knife will just get you clubbed to death.

[Hiro_Antagonist]

Jack Simth said:
If someone pulls a knife and tells you to go away while he forcefully has his way with your wife, which would you prefer?


Hmm... I assume your odds are better of being hit by lightning than this sensantionalist event happening. Do you carry a lightning rod too?

-Hiro_Antagonist

[Atrocities]

Actually the odds of being assaulted are far greater than being struck by lightening. Especially in areas like Seattle where meth use could lead to higher crime rates like it has in Portland/Vancouver area. Albeit the chances that someone, other than a coward of a man, would ever stand by and allow some low life POS to rape his wife uncontested are extremely remote, it could happen as often as being struck by lightening, although I sincerely doubt it would.

Most likely it would be a car jacking with your wife or child, god forbid both, in the car. In that case what would you do? Call 911 on your cel phone and hope that the police will react? It has been reported, although I cannot find any written proof, that some folks have claimed that there was a child in their car following a car jacking, in order to get the cops involved and to recover their car.

I personally do not know if I would pull out a gun and shoot a car jacker, albeit the Portland PD has shot several people who allegedly were about to run them down, so the precedence has been set for a viable defense in just such a scenario. My opinion is better to let them have the car, then to risk hurting someone who was not involved with a stray or ricochet.

[Jack Simth]

Hiro_Antagonist said:

Jack Simth said:
If someone pulls a knife and tells you to go away while he forcefully has his way with your wife, which would you prefer?


Hmm... I assume your odds are better of being hit by lightning than this sensantionalist event happening. Do you carry a lightning rod too?

-Hiro_Antagonist

If I'm in an area where thunderstorms are part of the normal course of events, and there aren't lots of things around taller than me (huge swaths of the Great Plains, for instance), I will be thinking about defenses against lightning (but not carrying a lightning rod - that's silly - lightning rods ATTRACT lightning - it's their job, and why they are effective at keeping lightning away from important things, like people's skin - and if you were HOLDING one during a thunderstorm, you would likely be in for a nasty shock), and make sure to have some reasonably viable method of not getting zapped (probably making sure a good steel frame car is within quick walking distance - sure, it will get hit by the lightning - but the lightning will go around anyone in the car, not through them, provided that they avoid touching the metal of the car). Most people who get struck by lightning do so because they are outside, in fields, with nothing meaningfully taller than they are nearby (many are in the middle of swinging a golf club).

The odds of the *specific* event happening? Sure; a lightning strike is more probable (especially as I'm not married). The odds of a violent threat of some form wherein severe injury/death of someone involved is likely due to malicious actions and threats of actions by someone present? Considerably more probable than getting struck by lightning. The example in question was simply chosen because most people put there fundamental assumptions on the side of "it would be ethically acceptable to shoot the antagonist in question" and mostly avoids the magnitude side-issue involved with a mugging example where all the antagonist is after is a person's wallet.

Of course, in the post your partially quoting, you are pulling a statement of mine very thouroughly out of context. Re-read the first two sentances of mine in that post.
Really; re-read them. There's a situational qualifier before the example is brought up. The first two sentences. One of the very first things in that post was noting (briefly, granted) that it depends on the general situation.

[Mephisto]

I rather not see civilians armed. The German police is quick to respond while I can defend myself or third persons in the mean time without a gun. The fastest respond time for the police was 30 seconds, the longest around 6 to 8 minutes. Just my 0.02$.

[El_Phil]

I'm just reminded of the story from ages back. Deep in the darkest Cornwall there was my old uni's test mine. Well being a mining school they needed a test mine. Being a mine it had an explosive store. Obviously such a store had hefty walls and a hefty steel door, however this was felt not to be enough. So there was a silent alarm linked up to the local cop shop and from there to the armed response unit.

However, this store was in the middle of nowhere so the claimed response time of >5 minutes was rubbish, as various lightning storms proved. (The alarms were very sensitive, obviously given what they protected, and apart from the police the mine manager was also alerted. He timed a run once and it came out at around 15 minutes and he was still waiting for the police to arrive.)

Nothing much to do with topic I know, but it seemed relevant at the time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Kamog]

No, I don't have a concealed weapons permit, and no I don't carry any weapons. I don't know anybody who carries a concealed weapon. I do know of a few people who own guns, but they don't carry it around with them. Some guys I know carry knives, but I don't carry anything.

[Gandalf Parker]

Actually, anyone trained in any weapons can tell you that a trained person will usually beat an untrained person. Even if the trained person has a stick and the untrained person has a gun. Of course untrained people usually will say that a gun will always beat a stick but reading news reports or watching real-life cops shows will show how often thats wrong. Few people who just grab a gun and shoot it end up hitting anything important even if the target is standing still. Often its some innocent bystander. And cops will tell you that a gun for protection gets works against the person more often than not.

Along that line.. I have never, since the age of 10, failed to go "armed". But its been something like a stick, or a heavy 4-inch iron washer off of a train, or a bicycle sprocket, or a dog leash (the chain kind). "Why no officer, that is not a shuriken. Thats a bicycle sprocket." "But it was just luck that I had that dog leash in my pocket."

Of course now that Im old I can post such things. In my younger days I was smart enough not to make a public record of the fact that I didnt just happen to have such things in my pocket.

Oh, and I have 4 expert shooting ribbons from the military in 4 different firearms. I still wouldnt carry.

Gandalf Parker

[Kamog]

Yes, I have been told something similar by someone who studied martial arts. At close range, a knife in the hands of a trained person is supposed to be much more dangerous than a gun.

[Atrocities]

This is not directed at any one. So please no hate mail. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

To understand this debate you must really be an American. It has been an American right since the inception of the Constitution and one cannot expect a foreigner to understand what it means to us.

Trying to explain something such as the constitutional right keep and bear arms to a non-American is like trying to convince an American to use a commode when there is a perfectly good toilet next to it. It just doesn't work.

For us the right to keep and bare arms is as essential to our constitution as the 1st amendment. Without it, none of the amendments would mean anything because they could all be taken away at a whim.

Our definition of freedom is different from those out side the US and we often catch a lot of flak for it. But unless you are American the debate over the constitution holds no special meaning for you.

For the most part saying that our system is wrong because it does not conform to your system is nothing less than age-old political horse fodder. It is best to practice what you preach and not pass judgment on us for who we are. We have our ideals and you have yours. Let us leave it at that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[douglas]

Atrocities said:
For us the right to keep and bare arms is as essential to our constitution as the 1st amendment.


Wait, you're saying the Bill of Rights guarantees my right to wear a short sleeve shirt? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[El_Phil]

I think you should change that first amendment to

"The right to arm bears"

That way not only will accidental shootings go down, but hunting becomes more of a sport. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[Atrocities]

LOL, I was wondering if any one would make a joke. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Puke]

i was wondering if anyone was going to answer "no" and "yes"

while i own weapons and enjoy having rights to do so, i fully acknowledge that most people should NOT be allowed to do so. extensive education should be required before owning a weapon, not just a Basic Firearm Safety Certificate.

as for concealed carry, i feel bad for the people that need to be armed to feel safe.

[tigertunes]

No and No its illegal in the UK and i dont believe we can get a liscence to acrry a weapon at least not in public unless you wear a uniform a a Badge

[tigertunes]

It is illegal to carry a weaopn in UK there are no permits therefore Nope here , although i would love a shooter hehe

[Atrocities]

Move to the US and take up citizanship.

[El_Phil]

My view would be; if you want a gun you probably shouldn't be allowed one. There are exceptions, there always are, but as a general rule of thumb it seems solid.

[Kamog]

Something I wonder about is why we are allowed to carry a knife but not a nunchaku. They are illegal in Canada. Are those numchucks really that dangerous? They also seem kind of awkward and hard to use properly unless you practise an awful lot.

[Hugh Manatee]

It's like a lot worse then getting hit by a bat because it's going faster think, flails weapons are all energy in motion. Ever watch battle bots or robot wars and see a flail bot shred up another bot? You don't really have to pull off any bruce lee moves either, just whip it around and bring it down.

Screw guns I want a sword cane like steerpike in gormenghast or Goemon from Lupin III.

I live in texas, and that's a no and no to the original topic. I feel relatively safe in my appartment. Though my dad is a psycho, so we used to have an unregistered pistol in the top of the closet, and I keep a bat under my bed now, never needed it and when I was a kid I knew better then to play with it(any dumbass kid who blows his head off has it coming, and if said dumbass kills another kid, lock him the hell up, and I know for a fact that theres tons of stupid dumbass kids, lucky me I wasn't one of them and my mom had the good sense to keep me from them). Dad had guns, tons of them, autos, semi autos, huting rifles, uzi lookin things you see in crappy D movies, and his brother has a gun with nekkid ladies etched into the handle he takes to competitions, some people take guns waaaay to far. When the kid who I grew up with down the street started dealing out of his house and atracting cops and thugs, we just left the area, that simple. I'm all for personal defense, but in the wisdom of sam kinninson, "if the area sucks that %&$# much just $#@^&*@$ move, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"

[Atrocities]

Give me a phase and I will change the world.

[PvK]

Small martial arts nunchaku are not all that dangerous unless you are skilled with them, and your opponent has nothing more than a knife. I hear that they are good against people with knives, though.

BTW, the typical demonstration moves (as seen done by Bruce Lee, Inspector Cleuseau and Cato, for example) are not really the way they are generally used for real. Typically they are held "chambered" or taut and ready to snap out, the advantage being that they then strike very quickly but the reach is not very long for that, so someone (competant) with a larger weapon like a club would be hard to attack that way.

I think they're the victim of over-broad Canadian laws designed to outlaw things like chains (or maybe just the legistators were really suspicious of anyone carrying a flail...), but it's pretty hard to make weapon laws that everyone can agree on. BTW the police museum in Vancouver BC (at the old morgue) has an interesting collection of confiscated weapons and confidence game equipment and other stuff, including several flails, submachineguns... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Mustang]

Really, though, who would carry a nunchaku or a bat around in public unless they're trying to hurt someone? So it's not all that crazy after all.

About the claim that "only Americans understand this problem". I'm from the US (Virginia), and that isn't necesarrily true. There are plenty of people in America that want to ban guns, and saying that Europeans or others with the same point of view can't argue about it dosen't make sense. Europe limits gun ownership, and they have much lower crime rates. Whether or not this is just a coincidence, I don't know.

But guns would be much easier to effectively outlaw (if all of the free world cooperated) than, say, something that we haven't had much sucess outlawing such as drugs. You need to build them in real, expensive factories. You CAN make homemade guns, but no average criminal is going to bother doing that. So if most of the world made the manufacture of guns illegal for anything other than military use, it would be very hard for the average criminal to get one. Think about all the outlawed varities of weapons, like RPGs and .50 cals. Have you ever seen a criminal carry one of those around? No. Why? Because manufacturing them for civillian use is illegal. Sure, some criminals will still get their hands on guns. But not very many at all.

Basically, the only reason we have guns in America is because certain of us like to go out and kill animals. And if you still consider preserving that right enough to compensate for letting some guns to get into the hands of criminals, then there's nothing more I can say to convince you.

[Thermodyne]

1) Yes
2) No


I see no reason to carry on a day to day basis. Right to carry is not a right to use same. With the exception of being in your own home, using deadly force would be a bad choice, and cost you some serious money even when you were well within your rights to do so. In this state, you do not have the right to use deadly force, period. Not to mention, that were I to be waylaid by armed perps trying to kill me, a hand gun would not be my weapon of choice.


With all that out of the way, what do you/ would you carry?

I broke in on a 1911/45 then moved to a 1911/10mm, and ended up with a 1911ser80/10mm. It’s not fancy but it is dependable, has manageable recoil and more stopping power than a 357.

[Atrocities]

Thermodyne, I would suggest that you support the Castle Doctrain whenever it is brought before the DC political scene. You as a person should have the right to defend yourself and your family without fear of being sent to prison and or sued into bankruptcy.

Whether you support gun rights or not, you as a person, have the right to self defense and no law should ever take that right from you. We do not live in a run away and hide society, nor should you as an American be forced to abide by any law that keeps your from defending yourself by whatever means you can from a criminal and or criminal activity.

I hate to say it, but this is one of the reasons I left the democratic party and became a republican. I simply feel that an American has the right to be free, and with freedom comes the right to self defense. And I am not just talking about guns, I am talking about the fundamental human right to use whatever means are at his/her disposal to defend against being harmed.

Any politican that supports the run and hide laws should be voted out of office, tarred and feather, and ran out of town on a rail road pike.


Europe limits gun ownership, and they have much lower crime rates. Whether or not this is just a coincidence, I don't know.

I have to respectively disagree with you. Limits on gun ownership really do not have an effect on lowering crime. In fact the opisite is true, gun ownership reduces crime while gun bans and anti-gun laws have been proven to increase crime. Keeping in mind that lawful gun owners are not criminals nor are they anti-moral people.

[Thermodyne]

Atrocities said:
Thermodyne, I would suggest that you support the Castle Doctrain whenever it is brought before the DC political scene. You as a person should have the right to defend yourself and your family without fear of being sent to prison and or sued into bankruptcy.

Whether you support gun rights or not, you as a person, have the right to self defense and no law should ever take that right from you. We do not live in a run away and hide society, nor should you as an American be forced to abide by any law that keeps your from defending yourself by whatever means you can from a criminal and or criminal activity.

I hate to say it, but this is one of the reasons I left the democratic party and became a republican. I simply feel that an American has the right to be free, and with freedom comes the right to self defense. And I am not just talking about guns, I am talking about the fundamental human right to use whatever means are at his/her disposal to defend against being harmed.

Any politican that supports the run and hide laws should be voted out of office, tarred and feather, and ran out of town on a rail road pike.


Europe limits gun ownership, and they have much lower crime rates. Whether or not this is just a coincidence, I don't know.

I have to respectively disagree with you. Limits on gun ownership really do not have an effect on lowering crime. In fact the opisite is true, gun ownership reduces crime while gun bans and anti-gun laws have been proven to increase crime. Keeping in mind that lawful gun owners are not criminals nor are they anti-moral people.



PM about this

[Atrocities]

I have received no PM.

[Morkilus]

I guess this is okay on the OT-est of the OT fora...

But I'm afraid that if this is the main reason for your joining the Republican party, you have been misled much like the religious right. You need to think of what the rest of their actual legislation implies and move beyond the hotbutton topics. You may find out that your ideals may directly conflict with their strategies as revealed in the Patriot Act, the domestic spying scandal, and holding American "enemy combatants" without trial. They may display this one freedom of gun rights as the bait while further building the trap of more governmental control.

I hope I don't lose any friends (or posting privelidges http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif)over this post, but this is something I feel strongly about.

[Atrocities]

I did not join the Rep party because of Guns. I joined them because I saw the Dem party turning into something that I no longer wanted to be a part of.

There are just as many Pro-gun dems as there are reps, so changing the name of the thread to spin a negative attribute is just disappointing.

[PDF]

Atrocities said:
Thermodyne, I would suggest that you support the Castle Doctrain whenever it is brought before the DC political scene. You as a person should have the right to defend yourself and your family without fear of being sent to prison and or sued into bankruptcy.

Whether you support gun rights or not, you as a person, have the right to self defense and no law should ever take that right from you. We do not live in a run away and hide society, nor should you as an American be forced to abide by any law that keeps your from defending yourself by whatever means you can from a criminal and or criminal activity.

I hate to say it, but this is one of the reasons I left the democratic party and became a republican. I simply feel that an American has the right to be free, and with freedom comes the right to self defense. And I am not just talking about guns, I am talking about the fundamental human right to use whatever means are at his/her disposal to defend against being harmed.

Any politican that supports the run and hide laws should be voted out of office, tarred and feather, and ran out of town on a rail road pike.


Europe limits gun ownership, and they have much lower crime rates. Whether or not this is just a coincidence, I don't know.

I have to respectively disagree with you. Limits on gun ownership really do not have an effect on lowering crime. In fact the opisite is true, gun ownership reduces crime while gun bans and anti-gun laws have been proven to increase crime. Keeping in mind that lawful gun owners are not criminals nor are they anti-moral people.





Atrocities, it's *facts* that "disagree" with you : countries were gun ownership is "free" have more violent crimes that the others.
Not surprising though, modern weapons favour attacker. You should wear flak jacket, helmet and IR googles at all times http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/stupid.gif

[Atrocities]

Actually the facts support my statement in that gun ownership here in the US reduces crime. I can only speak to the increased crime rates in the UK, Australia, Canada, and various cities such as WA DC, New York, and Chicogo here in the US following their gun bans as evidence that anti-gun laws do increase crime. Those numbers cannot be disputed as they are fact. The state of firearm ownership and privileges in other countries has tought us a considerable amount about both the value and fragility of our freedoms here in the US.

Notice I said "privileges" and not "rights." The US is one of the few countries in the world where we have a consitutional right to keep and bare arms. Where for the most part the act of self defense is not considered a crime.

[Thermodyne]

Atrocities, it's *facts* that "disagree" with you : countries were gun ownership is "free" have more violent crimes that the others.
Not surprising though, modern weapons favour attacker. You should wear flak jacket, helmet and IR googles at all times http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/stupid.gif


What Europeans call freedom, Americans call intrusive government. The last six months in France are an example of a disarmed society. France’s immigrant population took to rioting in the streets, and there was little that law-abiding citizens could do to protect their property. Then the government tries to align its labor laws a little closer to the norm of the global economy, and it starts all over again. I’d like to see immigrants try to burn down a mid American town over the right to government handouts and jobs. But then I guess France has bigger fish to fry, things like testing nukes, building second rate carriers and maintaining it’s colonial possessions, and lets not forget the effort of holding together a secular state.

I have some French firearms from the late thirties in my collection, seldom fired and only dropped once. That’s sort of the way your government runs, they support whoever agrees to make purchases of French weapons and nuclear technology. Israel was your friend when they were purchasing fighters, but then you turn around and provide their antagonizes with the technology to develop nuclear weapons. It must be easy for a Frenchmen to promote the disarming of the public, having never enjoyed the right to bear arms himself.

As to your statistics, they are only partly correct. Without a breakdown by ethnic group they have only limited value. And that would be politically incorrect in the current climate.

[dogscoff]

I have a set of sword-chucks that I carry around with me. Only had to use them once. Am currently typing this with my nose.

[Atrocities]

I would use the tips of the sword-chucks to type if it were me.

[Hugh Manatee]

When it says Bear Arms..... does that mean I can own a tank with armor piercing rounds.... you know for self defense....

[Atrocities]

Hugh Manatee said:
When it says Bear Arms..... does that mean I can own a tank with armor piercing rounds.... you know for self defense....



If you must ask an asinine question like this, then why post a question at all?

[Atrocities]

Just before the 2000 election, Solicitor General Seth Waxman - the Clinton administration's top court room advocate- starkly confirmed that the government "did indeed take the position that the Second Amendment does not extend an individual right to keep and bear arms."

As a result of the 2000 election we have seen more serious scholarship in regards to the second amendment. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, asked the Justice Department's top legal minds to study whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear arms. DOJ's office of legal counsel reviewed the Second Amendment's text, as well as its historical origins as far back as the 17th century England, and concluded that: "the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units."

- Steve Cox

In other words, we do have the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment of the constitution of the United States. That is our right, and regardless of how you or the UN may feel about it, know this, only those who fear a free society fear an individuals rights to keep and bear arms. Take a good long hard look at the very people and governments who want to eliminate free ownership of firearms and you will see tyrants, power hungry medlers, and dictators.

The people who want to take the right of free Americans away from them, don't like it when the truth is spoken. They will do anything within their power to kill the messinger, attack the morals, and destory the good name of any who stand in their way. They will lie about, sue, and tarnish any and all who oppose their views. They cannot stand up against the truth so they attack it peace by peace, word by word, looking to dismantle any arguement that differse from their point of view. They will lie to all who will listen, promote untruth and spread mistruth without regard for truth. In the end they hope to win, not because they are right, but because they have lied their way to victory.

When these type of people lead the nations of this world, what kind of world will we all be living in?

[capnq]

Atrocities said: When these type of people lead the nations of this world, what kind of world will we all be living in?

By and large, these kind of people already lead the nations of the world.

[TerranC]

Thermodyne said:
What Europeans call freedom, Americans call intrusive government. The last six months in France are an example of a disarmed society. France’s immigrant population took to rioting in the streets, and there was little that law-abiding citizens could do to protect their property. Then the government tries to align its labor laws a little closer to the norm of the global economy, and it starts all over again. I’d like to see immigrants try to burn down a mid American town over the right to government handouts and jobs. But then I guess France has bigger fish to fry, things like testing nukes, building second rate carriers and maintaining it’s colonial possessions, and lets not forget the effort of holding together a secular state.

I have some French firearms from the late thirties in my collection, seldom fired and only dropped once. That’s sort of the way your government runs, they support whoever agrees to make purchases of French weapons and nuclear technology. Israel was your friend when they were purchasing fighters, but then you turn around and provide their antagonizes with the technology to develop nuclear weapons. It must be easy for a Frenchmen to promote the disarming of the public, having never enjoyed the right to bear arms himself.

As to your statistics, they are only partly correct. Without a breakdown by ethnic group they have only limited value. And that would be politically incorrect in the current climate.



Hear, hear. I can't believe I missed this gem of a post. I ought to start reading this part of the forums more often.

BTW, No, and no. Not because of lack of interest, rather costs. It's expensive to get a decent gun these days, you know.

[PDF]

Thermodyne said:




Atrocities, it's *facts* that "disagree" with you : countries were gun ownership is "free" have more violent crimes that the others.
Not surprising though, modern weapons favour attacker. You should wear flak jacket, helmet and IR googles at all times http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/stupid.gif


What Europeans call freedom, Americans call intrusive government. The last six months in France are an example of a disarmed society. France’s immigrant population took to rioting in the streets, and there was little that law-abiding citizens could do to protect their property. Then the government tries to align its labor laws a little closer to the norm of the global economy, and it starts all over again. I’d like to see immigrants try to burn down a mid American town over the right to government handouts and jobs. But then I guess France has bigger fish to fry, things like testing nukes, building second rate carriers and maintaining it’s colonial possessions, and lets not forget the effort of holding together a secular state.




Man, you have no clue of what you're talking about... What we call "rioting" here is surely more something like "everyday life" on your side, so it's normal you misunderstood !:P
Come live here for a few months ... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

[Atrocities]

Thanks for the invite to live near Paris for a few months, however given how rude some of the French are to Americans, I would rather live in Terron or Bagdad. At least there I know I would be safe.

[Hugh Manatee]

Atrocities said:

Hugh Manatee said:
When it says Bear Arms..... does that mean I can own a tank with armor piercing rounds.... you know for self defense....



If you must ask an asinine question like this, then why post a question at all?



Ever drive the hyways in texas? yeah.... I want me a friggin tank!

[Atrocities]

Well if that is the case, then ya you can legally own a tank, but the gun would require a special BATFE license and all kinds of insurance.

[PvK]

LOL! I just noticed Atro's posts last year about Seattle being a dangerous meth-infested place. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Speaking of Texas, I was just down there, and survived the highways fine, but I did notice plenty of arrests going on, and the TV news there reported a story last week which went something like this:

Fort Worth, Texas. A Mercedes SUV is stolen from its owner's house. Before it gets far, though, it comes under gun fire from the owner's house! The thief loses control and crashes the SUV into another vehicle, injuring two people in that vehicle. He bails out and tries to car-jack (IIRC) another car, shooting and wounding that driver. Then the police show up and shoot and wound the thief.

BTW, while meth and drugs are problems in the USA, and there are plenty of drug-related crimes and violence, there are other large problems leading to crime and dangerous parts. I would tend to point to bad education, bad child-raising, bad economic disparity, racial/cultural schisms, etc. Seattle isn't dangerous at all compared to some parts of Los Angeles, Chicago, or New York, and the reasons those places are dangerous have not so much to do with drugs as they do with large areas of the cities that are economically abandoned and angry thug culture fills the gap.

[Saber Cherry]

Hugh Manatee said:
When it says Bear Arms..... does that mean I can own a tank with armor piercing rounds.... you know for self defense....



Yes, and thermonuclear ICBMs. But not for self defense, for the security of the state. 'Arms' certainly does not imply 'guns', but rather, any military weapon. The framers did not know about fusion, and probably expected that the power of a weapon would always be proportionate to the number of people required to mobilize it (as with then-modern battleships). However, this right is still explicitly present, and has been (+is) unconstitutionally infringed on numerous occasions. There is an amendment system in place, in case unanticipated things like nukes show up, but the US government prefers to simply create and enforce illegal laws until the Supreme Court strikes them down - or doesn't, because their declarations rarely hinge on constitutionality anymore.

On the other hand, it may have been the intention of the framers - and remember, this was before widespread dictionaries standardized English spelling - to encourage more liberal dress codes. Bare arms (and bare legs, called an 'implied right' by constitutional scholars) are pretty hot, on the right person.

[PvK]

Yeah, the framers probably didn't anticipate genetic manipulation, either. The next generation may be faced with real manatees named Hugh who want bear arms for self-defense... ok, it's late...

[PDF]

Atrocities said:
Thanks for the invite to live near Paris for a few months, however given how rude some of the French are to Americans, I would rather live in Terron or Bagdad. At least there I know I would be safe.



It's rather the other way around, but we have no US Fries to rename. Plus noone bear arms except police http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif, and death by gunfire is pretty exceptional.

As for our rudeness, French just were right two years ago when we warned of what actually happened in Iraq ... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif

I don't know where Terron is, but as for Baghdad it depends whether you are in the bunkerized perimeter ruled by the US -huh no, Iraqi governement, where it should be ok, or elsewhere, where your life expectancy should be counted in hours (unless you're inside a Bradley at least) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Injured.gif

[Atrocities]

I Cannot argue with the truth there PDF. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif And for the record, I love french fries, bread, women, wine, and cheese. I don't really like the cars or the food though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif