Gun ownership in the US.

[Will Brink]

I got some rifles, but I need to get a shotgun and a bigger rifle for elk and hogs. I don't like handguns as their only real purpose is to hurt people unless your hiking in Grizzly Country. Best Home defense is a shotgun and a couple of good dogs in the yard

Yikes, it's sad when you see a fellow gun owner make such a stupid comment as "I don't like handguns as their only real purpose is to hurt people." You expect that from some anti gun type who knows zip about guns, but from a fellow gun owner, it's all the worse....Let's start with the basics son:

What guns are intended for is irrelevant. Cars are intended for driving to work, yet kill 40,000 per year. Pools and bikes-designed for biking and swimming respectively-kill more kids per year then guns. What guns are USED for is what???s relevant. There are negative and positive uses for guns.

A negative use of a gun is when a person commits a crime using a gun to commit it. That person is what is known as a criminal and all legal and or physical punishment should be applied to said person.

The positive use of a gun would be to prevent a crime or save a life, such as the 120lb women who shoots the 210 rapist, the 80 year old man who prevents the burglar from coming into his home and doing him harm, or the shop owner who protects his life work from looters after a storm, and so on

In that context, the ONLY relevant question is, what is the ratio of good to bad uses of guns? Between 700,000 (FBI???s data) and 2.5 million (Klecks data) times per year a gun is used in the in the US. in the positive sense Guns are used approximately 5 times more often to prevent a crime/save a life then they are to commit a crime.

So why not just remove all guns from the hands of citizens to reduce crime (which is not even possible nor constitutional but mentioned here for the sake of argument) which should lower crime? On a much larger historical picture, history has shown us over and over and over what happens to a population that is disarmed by it???s own government: they become subjects, slaves, or dead. Hitler knew that all too well when he said:

???History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." --- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.


Thus, why the Second Amend exists and reveals a universal truth: the right to self defense - be it from criminals or a tyrannical government - is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT no government can grant or take away.

Guns are a necessary evil but necessary to a democracy and that fact was recognized by men far smarter then we are. For example;

"A FREE people ought...to be armed..." -George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790.

And:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws
make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides,
for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment - (1764).

And a more recent opinion:

"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or laborer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." --George Orwell


This is no less true today then it was then, perhaps even more relevant today then it was then some have argued.


Use your logical mind, do some research, leave what you think you know of the topic behind, and you will be shocked at what you find.

 

[Will Brink]

A 9mm isn't even the best man stopper. On a pissed off bear it isn't worth much more than a paperweight. True, I'd rather have a 9mm than nothing, but there are much better choices out there. Most pro hunters and guides won't go into bear country with anything less than a 44 magnum. The bullet needs to get through that tough hide and then still have enough energy to penetrate and do damage to vital organs. All that being said, if a 44 magnum is too big and you can't hit your target, then it's of even less use than a 9mm. Bottom line; use the largest caliber you can accurately shoot. If that's a 9mm, then happy hunting.

There's an old saying, if you carry anything less than a 44mag for bears, make sure it's a small gun so it does not hurt so much when the bear shoves it up your a$%

 

[bio-chem]

Yikes, it's sad when you see a fellow gun owner make such a stupid comment as "I don't like handguns as their only real purpose is to hurt people." You expect that from some anti gun type who knows zip about guns, but from a fellow gun owner, it's all the worse....Let's start with the basics son:

What guns are intended for is irrelevant. Cars are intended for driving to work, yet kill 40,000 per year. Pools and bikes-designed for biking and swimming respectively-kill more kids per year then guns. What guns are USED for is what???s relevant. There are negative and positive uses for guns.

A negative use of a gun is when a person commits a crime using a gun to commit it. That person is what is known as a criminal and all legal and or physical punishment should be applied to said person.

The positive use of a gun would be to prevent a crime or save a life, such as the 120lb women who shoots the 210 rapist, the 80 year old man who prevents the burglar from coming into his home and doing him harm, or the shop owner who protects his life work from looters after a storm, and so on

In that context, the ONLY relevant question is, what is the ratio of good to bad uses of guns? Between 700,000 (FBI???s data) and 2.5 million (Klecks data) times per year a gun is used in the in the US. in the positive sense Guns are used approximately 5 times more often to prevent a crime/save a life then they are to commit a crime.

So why not just remove all guns from the hands of citizens to reduce crime (which is not even possible nor constitutional but mentioned here for the sake of argument) which should lower crime? On a much larger historical picture, history has shown us over and over and over what happens to a population that is disarmed by it???s own government: they become subjects, slaves, or dead. Hitler knew that all too well when he said:

???History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." --- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.


Thus, why the Second Amend exists and reveals a universal truth: the right to self defense - be it from criminals or a tyrannical government - is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT no government can grant or take away.

Guns are a necessary evil but necessary to a democracy and that fact was recognized by men far smarter then we are. For example;

"A FREE people ought...to be armed..." -George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790.

And:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws
make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides,
for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment - (1764).

And a more recent opinion:

"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or laborer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." --George Orwell


This is no less true today then it was then, perhaps even more relevant today then it was then some have argued.


Use your logical mind, do some research, leave what you think you know of the topic behind, and you will be shocked at what you find.

great post

 

[FishOrCutBait]

the stereotypes are all basically true. here in america we are all basically gun-loving rednecks who believe that gun ownership is our soveriegn right. well maybe not the liberals who are really just a small minority that we keep around so we can have someone to shoot at.

exactly what he said.

BUT SERIOUSLY

maybe its a matter of heritage, or a matter of security

maybe its a pass-time or a power trip.

I own guns, and I think I always will.

In fact, I look forward to getting my concealed weapons permit in Minnesota.

 

[danzik17]

I don't have one at the moment, but I think that [almost] every American should not only have a gun, but be trained in its use. It will make that murderer, rapist, or robber think twice about what they're doing if they know the 20 people next to them are packing and know how to use it.

 

[danzik17]

There's an old saying, if you carry anything less than a 44mag for bears, make sure it's a small gun so it does not hurt so much when the bear shoves it up your a$%

 

[Will Brink]

Thanx, I will be here for three shows per day...

 

[ALBOB]

Thanx, I will be here for three shows per day...

What's the cover charge?

 

[Will Brink]

What's the cover charge?

One box of Speer Gold dot 230g .45 ACP.

 

[ALBOB]

One box of Speer Gold dot 230g .45 ACP.

DAMN! You're not a cheap date, are you? Don't suppose you'd settle for a box of CCI Blazers? Or better still, my Dillon's already set up for .45, how about some nice 200 grain lead semi-wad cutters? (Yeah, I'm a cheap bastard.)

 

[Will Brink]

(Yeah, I'm a cheap bastard.)

Yes you are!