Do you carry? - Page 5

Atrocities · #41 February 7th, 2006, 07:59 AM

Give me a phase and I will change the world.

PvK · #42 February 9th, 2006, 08:36 PM

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...

Mustang · #43 February 25th, 2006, 05:09 PM

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 · #44 April 13th, 2006, 01:34 PM

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 · #45 April 20th, 2006, 03:08 AM

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.

Quote:

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 · #46 April 20th, 2006, 06:15 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · #47 April 21st, 2006, 05:27 PM

I have received no PM.

Morkilus · #48 April 21st, 2006, 06:01 PM

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

)over this post, but this is something I feel strongly about.

Atrocities · #49 April 22nd, 2006, 01:22 AM

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 · #50 April 28th, 2006, 12:38 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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