Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

FYI- I heard somewhere that there are more stabbings in the country than fire arm issues. (unsure how true that is, but it's easy to see how that could be true) So if we're so willing to take guns out of the equation for honest people, then why do we continue to make knives...something that can be bought at any grocery store without age limits?
Fear is often the reason to discuss gun laws, fear should never be in the equation.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=jsarno;399676]Well, I do respect your opinion, but I slightly disagree as to why there are guns. There are people shot all the time that don't die, therefore they are not intended solely for killing people. In fact, many thefts / break ins have been prevented just because a gun was present.
I understand there are ramifications for the use of guns, but I also understand that nothing protects you better.

I do firmly agree with the 2nd amendment, however, if the country could guarentee that gun laws would keep guns out of the hands of evil people, then I'd listen more intently and reserve the right to change my mind. We all know that will never happen, so all gun laws do is hurt the honest people, which makes them pretty damn useless. This is something that pro gun law people miss regularly. All gun laws will do is cause more harm because people won't be able to protect themselves, and the evil people will have easy access to them. For that fact alone, the argument about gun laws becomes moot.
There is a reason we as americans have the right to have fire arms, this country was founded on it. You don't go outside and take a sledge hammer to the foundation of your house do you? So why take one to what made America great?

[B]I am curious as to what you meant by, "no need for new laws, just use the existing ones." The existing laws allow everyone to own a gun. So what laws are you speaking of?[/[/B]quote]
the laws on the books, as far as when someone uses a gun to commit a crime. or the minimum sentence laws that require, in most cases, a minimum of 5 years in any crime committed with a gun. too much plea bargaining. and not enough of the stiffer sentencing

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

and do you understand what the word " amendment " means? it takes something like the constitution, which is over 200 years old, and makes it adapt to today's way of life. back when it was written, everyone needed a gun. that doesn't apply to today's world( in my opinion)

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=dmek25;399797]and do you understand what the word " amendment " means? it takes something like the constitution, which is over 200 years old, and makes it adapt to today's way of life. back when it was written, everyone needed a gun. that doesn't apply to today's world( in my opinion)[/quote]

Which is why I don't advocate widespread lax gun laws too much. If everyone had a gun, the world would be even more wrecked than it is now. Ex-cons coming out of jail getting guns because they couldn't be restricted. I mean people would be even more prone to breaking in if they had a gun. Its a 50/50 chance then and for some guys, thats more than enough.

There's even a problem now with gang members joining the military, then coming out with military tactics and using high powered guns against the police who have decent training but not enough to go up against a guy with military battle skills.

I don't mind people having guns but the laws need to be a little more restrictive or tightened up a little.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

After hearing everything that occurred surrounding Sean's death, I personally have taken steps to make sure my house is secure. I don't live in an area where break-ins happen on a daily basis, but they are frequent. If someone comes into my house, they will be met with a nice "round", if you catch my drift. The 2nd Amendment was made for a reason.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=MPNRedskins;399868]After hearing everything that occurred surrounding Sean's death, I personally have taken steps to make sure my house is secure. I don't live in an area where break-ins happen on a daily basis, but they are frequent. If someone comes into my house, they will be met with a nice "round", if you catch my drift. The [B]2nd Amendment was made for a reason.[/B][/quote]

Maybe we're wrong about bearing arms. Like Family Guy said: Maybe we have the right to HANG bear arms on our walls. :)

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=MPNRedskins;399868]After hearing everything that occurred surrounding Sean's death, I personally have taken steps to make sure my house is secure. I don't live in an area where break-ins happen on a daily basis, but they are frequent. If someone comes into my house, they will be met with a nice "round", if you catch my drift. [B]The 2nd Amendment[/B] [B]was made for a reason[/B].[/quote]
the reason was to withstand the government turning on the everyday Joe, and basically turning into a communistic society

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;399795]
the laws on the books, as far as when someone uses a gun to commit a crime. or the minimum sentence laws that require, in most cases, a minimum of 5 years in any crime committed with a gun. too much plea bargaining. and not enough of the stiffer sentencing[/QUOTE]

I agree with you on that 100%. I've been preaching stiffer sentences for years, problem is, the jails and prisons are already full, and no one wants a prison near their home.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;399797]and do you understand what the word " amendment " means? it takes something like the constitution, which is over 200 years old, and makes it adapt to today's way of life. back when it was written, everyone needed a gun. that doesn't apply to today's world( in my opinion)[/QUOTE]

I absolutely do...maybe I do not understand what you are refering to then cause when you "amend" something you just adjust it, not delete it.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=DynamiteRave;399805]

I don't mind people having guns but the laws need to be a little more restrictive or tightened up a little.[/QUOTE]

Really, I don't see how it can be. It can only hurt the honest people, not the "evil people". Only the honest will follow the rules, so there is no point in doing that since the honest ones are the ones that need protection. There are no stiffer penalties in site right now, and that is what is needed for the "evil people".

(note- evil people is not a reference to "evil doers", it is merely lumping together all people that do armed robberies, or break ins, or car jackings etc.)

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=jsarno;400025]Really, I don't see how it can be. It can only hurt the honest people, not the "evil people". Only the honest will follow the rules, so there is no point in doing that since the honest ones are the ones that need protection. There are no stiffer penalties in site right now, and that is what is needed for the "evil people".

(note- evil people is not a reference to "evil doers", it is merely lumping together all people that do armed robberies, or break ins, or car jackings etc.)[/quote]


I disagree... If I could adopt my own policy I would make it more difficult and pricey to purchase a firearm. I would make it federally mandated to have all firearms registered in all neccessary jurisdictions. I would put into place a prerequisite for criminal history, mental health, qualifying (with each weapon) and training in order to own a firearm, but take away the restrictions on what kind. Banning pistol grips on assault rifles, certain types of bullets, and limiting magazine sizes doesn't really do anything.

Then, I'd put in place a MANDATORY minimum 5 year sentance on ANY gun related charge. Everyone who gets caught with a gun that doesn't check out goes to the can, but those allowed to carry them, can carry them anywhere. Federal buildings, schools, airplanes, etc...

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=canthetuna;400028]I disagree... If I could adopt my own policy I would make it more difficult and pricey to purchase a firearm. I would make it federally mandated to have all firearms registered in all neccessary jurisdictions. I would put into place a prerequisite for criminal history, mental health, qualifying (with each weapon) and training in order to own a firearm, but take away the restrictions on what kind. Banning pistol grips on assault rifles, certain types of bullets, and limiting magazine sizes doesn't really do anything.

Then, I'd put in place a MANDATORY minimum 5 year sentance on ANY gun related charge. Everyone who gets caught with a gun that doesn't check out goes to the can, but those allowed to carry them, can carry them anywhere. Federal buildings, schools, airplanes, etc...[/QUOTE]

In theory sure, but like I have already said, all you're doing is hurting the honest. The dishonest already get their guns without government knowledge, and just like drugs, they will continue to get them in underhanded ways. To not see that is doing a huge injustice to the honest people of the world.
Also, assuming the dishonest / evil people were caught (only the dumb), we don't have enough room in the prisons / jails. So your theory would not work at all.

I find it interesting that people think it's OK for the Military or Police to have guns, but not the general population. You need to ask yourself WHY do they have / need guns? PROTECTION. Why give them the right to protect us or even themselves, but not give the right to us?

Speaking of your theory, if for some crazy reason the country does decide to ban guns, I hold firm to Charlton Heston's comment..."from my cold dead fingers." I'll NEVER give up my fire arm and my right to protect my family...NEVER. I am quite sure there are millions out there just like me too. Just like prohibition, gun laws won't work either.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=canthetuna;400028]

Then, I'd put in place a MANDATORY minimum 5 year sentance on ANY gun related charge. [/QUOTE]

So what you're saying is it's ok to drink and drive and get caught 2 or 3 times (or more depending on the state) and gets 1 month in jail, but someone that had a gun in his glove compartment for protection would go to jail for a minimum of 5 years?

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=jsarno;400055]So what you're saying is it's ok to drink and drive and get caught 2 or 3 times (or more depending on the state) and gets 1 month in jail, but someone that had a gun in his glove compartment for protection would go to jail for a minimum of 5 years?[/quote]

what i'm saying is if someone has an illegal gun he's gone...what's an honest person doing with an illegal gun???? that simple. there has to be guidelines...

and do me a favor... find the post where I advocate 1 month sentences for repeat drunk driving offenders. If I were writing the laws, there would be very stiff penalties for that as well....

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

and jsarno... I'm not saying it would be perfect, but it would be a vast improvement over what we have now, and a vast improvement over all the bans that we're seeing that don't do anything.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=canthetuna;400057]what i'm saying is if someone has an illegal gun he's gone... that simple. there has to be guidelines...

and do me a favor... find the post where I advocate 1 month sentences for repeat drunk driving offenders. If I were writing the laws, there would be very stiff penalties for that as well....[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying you wrote that...thus the question mark at the end of the sentence. I just find it odd that gun laws got looser around the early 90's and gun related crimes have dropped ever since...not a coincidence. Yet we have a huge drunk driver issue in this country and no one is talking about it. Instead we are here talking about how we should ignore what this country was founded on and take control out of the hands of the innocent. The evil people don't care about laws...only the honest do. So all you're doing is hurting the honest.
I leave you with this scenario...imagine someone breaks into your house, your wife calls 911...the intruder comes into your room and shoots your wife and your kid cause he's all hopped up on something. If you had a gun you could have stopped him, but since you chose to put your faith in government for protection instead of your own hands, your family is dead, and the intruder fled the scene before the police could get there. What do you think about gun laws now? Cause those gun laws didn't deter the intruder from keeping a gun, only keeps you from having one. For the record I sincerely hope that NO ONE EVER goes through this, but it does happen and can happen. I choose to take matters into my own hands rather than let someone else "save" me.
Hey, no one is saying get a gun...it's your choice. Seriously. But don't tell me I shouldn't have one, and don't tell me that someone else will protect me, and don't tell me that more gun laws will help the common person. That's a load of crap. Put your mind to work on what will stop the criminals, not the innocent.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=canthetuna;400059]and jsarno... I'm not saying it would be perfect, but it would be a vast improvement over what we have now, and a vast improvement over all the bans that we're seeing that don't do anything.[/QUOTE]

I am all for harsher penalties, in fact it's past due...but to take control the innocent like that is absurd when it won't deter the evil.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=jsarno;400064]I'm not saying you wrote that...thus the question mark at the end of the sentence. I just find it odd that gun laws got looser around the early 90's and gun related crimes have dropped ever since...not a coincidence. Yet we have a huge drunk driver issue in this country and no one is talking about it. Instead we are here talking about how we should ignore what this country was founded on and take control out of the hands of the innocent. The evil people don't care about laws...only the honest do. So all you're doing is hurting the honest.
I leave you with this scenario...imagine someone breaks into your house, your wife calls 911...the intruder comes into your room and shoots your wife and your kid cause he's all hopped up on something. If you had a gun you could have stopped him, but since you chose to put your faith in government for protection instead of your own hands, your family is dead, and the intruder fled the scene before the police could get there. What do you think about gun laws now? Cause those gun laws didn't deter the intruder from keeping a gun, only keeps you from having one. For the record I sincerely hope that NO ONE EVER goes through this, but it does happen and can happen. I choose to take matters into my own hands rather than let someone else "save" me.
Hey, no one is saying get a gun...it's your choice. Seriously. But don't tell me I shouldn't have one, and don't tell me that someone else will protect me, and don't tell me that more gun laws will help the common person. That's a load of crap. Put your mind to work on what will stop the criminals, not the innocent.[/quote]

did you even read any of my posts or did you find one thing to disagree with and run with it????

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

most people that support their second amendment rights are borderline fanatical. not saying you, jsarno. but if the shoe fits....

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;399928]the reason was to withstand the government turning on the everyday Joe, and basically turning into a communistic society[/QUOTE]

Which would NEVER happen today...:rolleyes:

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;400093]most people that support their second amendment rights are borderline fanatical. not saying you, jsarno. but if the shoe fits....[/QUOTE]

That is a gross over generalization.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=jsarno;400064]I'm not saying you wrote that...thus the question mark at the end of the sentence. I just find it odd that gun laws got looser around the early 90's and gun related crimes have dropped ever since...not a coincidence. Yet we have a huge drunk driver issue in this country and no one is talking about it. Instead we are here talking about how we should ignore what this country was founded on and take control out of the hands of the innocent. The evil people don't care about laws...only the honest do. So all you're doing is hurting the honest.
I leave you with this scenario...imagine someone breaks into your house, your wife calls 911...the intruder comes into your room and shoots your wife and your kid cause he's all hopped up on something. If you had a gun you could have stopped him, but since you chose to put your faith in government for protection instead of your own hands, your family is dead, and the intruder fled the scene before the police could get there. What do you think about gun laws now? Cause those gun laws didn't deter the intruder from keeping a gun, only keeps you from having one. For the record I sincerely hope that NO ONE EVER goes through this, but it does happen and can happen. I choose to take matters into my own hands rather than let someone else "save" me.
Hey, no one is saying get a gun...it's your choice. Seriously. But don't tell me I shouldn't have one, and don't tell me that someone else will protect me, and don't tell me that more gun laws will help the common person. That's a load of crap. Put your mind to work on what will stop the criminals, not the innocent.[/quote]



All right, I was a little drunk last night and didn't feel like getting into it, but I firmly believe the RIGHT gun laws definitely will help the common person. You cannot deny that we should have laws to monitor the distribution of guns. No 8 year old with a credit card needs a gun. No repeat violent criminal needs a gun. I would take it a step further and say that no one with confirmed mental health issues can have one, and no one who is untrained can have one either. Who is it hurting to have people who are untrained and mentally ill, voilent crimials, etc... not have weapons?

What I don't get is you argue with me and you basically say the same thing. I said earlier the police can't be everywhere all the time... so if you had licensing for owning and carrying firearms, where qualifying, training, and testing were required, you could feel comfortable allowing certain people with a certain level of licensing to carry their guns just about anywhere, including federal buldings, schools, and airplanes. I think it should be the responsibility of people who are able to help deter or prevent violent crime.

Stiffer penalties for drugs haven't wiped out drugs altogether, but it has at least contained the crack epidemic. With such stiffer penalties for just possession, the plea bargainers allow access to the dealers. Right now they don't even really investigate where an illegal gun comes from. They run it through a computer and if it's not registered, they just book it. There are still states who don't reqiure you to register guns, and I would change that as well. Just like you register your car to deter theft.... same principle.

With my system in place, crimes like the VT shootings and 911 at least have a chance at being thwarted, or casualties minimalized. I think a lot of the newer gun laws were pushed through in order to appease the democratic party, and weren't really thought through. Taking away assault weapons from the public is wrong. It is completely against the second amendment. Guns aren't just for hunting and just a short 230 years ago this country was formed by men using guns to overthrow their ruling government. Not saying that's why we should have guns, but we romanticize their efforts and say today is a different world those old rules don't apply.

I agree. Today is a different world. There's as much social unrest in the world today than there's ever been. The United States is very fortunate not to have any of its recent wars carried onto its soil, with the exception of Pearl Harbor. Airline travel and the internet make assaults on our soil easily coordinated and executed. We've seen the domestic side of things as well, with Katrina, Rita, the LA riots, School Shootings, 911, etc... Now is not the time to disarm the public, or limit the quality of defense available to them. Now is the time to make sure the public is prepared to use the weapons made available to them.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=canthetuna;400151]All right, I was a little drunk last night and didn't feel like getting into it, but I firmly believe the RIGHT gun laws definitely will help the common person. You cannot deny that we should have laws to monitor the distribution of guns. No 8 year old with a credit card needs a gun. No repeat violent criminal needs a gun. [b]I would take it a step further and say that no one with confirmed mental health issues can have one, and no one who is untrained can have one either. Who is it hurting to have people who are untrained and mentally ill, voilent crimials, etc... not have weapons?[/b] [/quote]

I certainly agree with that.

[quote]What I don't get is you argue with me and you basically say the same thing. I said earlier the police can't be everywhere all the time... so if you had licensing for owning and carrying firearms, where qualifying, training, and testing were required, you could feel comfortable allowing certain people with a certain level of licensing to carry their guns just about anywhere, including federal buldings, schools, and airplanes. I think it should be the responsibility of people who are able to help deter or prevent violent crime.

Stiffer penalties for drugs haven't wiped out drugs altogether, but it has at least contained the crack epidemic. With such stiffer penalties for just possession, the plea bargainers allow access to the dealers. Right now they don't even really investigate where an illegal gun comes from. They run it through a computer and if it's not registered, they just book it. There are still states who don't reqiure you to register guns, and I would change that as well. Just like you register your car to deter theft.... same principle.

With my system in place, crimes like the VT shootings and 911 at least have a chance at being thwarted, or casualties minimalized. I think a lot of the newer gun laws were pushed through in order to appease the democratic party, and weren't really thought through. Taking away assault weapons from the public is wrong. It is completely against the second amendment. Guns aren't just for hunting and just a short 230 years ago this country was formed by men using guns to overthrow their ruling government. Not saying that's why we should have guns, but we romanticize their efforts and say today is a different world those old rules don't apply.

I agree. Today is a different world. There's as much social unrest in the world today than there's ever been. The United States is very fortunate not to have any of its recent wars carried onto its soil, with the exception of Pearl Harbor. Airline travel and the internet make assaults on our soil easily coordinated and executed. We've seen the domestic side of things as well, with Katrina, Rita, the LA riots, School Shootings, 911, etc... Now is not the time to disarm the public, or limit the quality of defense available to them. Now is the time to make sure the public is prepared to use the weapons made available to them.[/QUOTE]

My sincere apologies. I misunderstood you. Every once in a while I lump in posts and if they seem similar I put them together. Not saying it's right, but I'm not here often enough to get familiar with everyone. I thought you were someone else basically. Again, my apologies. Thank you for clarifying.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;400093]most people that support their second amendment rights are borderline fanatical. not saying you, jsarno. but if the shoe fits....[/QUOTE]

I didn't take it that way cause I am not fanatical. I am opinionated. If someone said I am wrong for having a gun, I'd laugh at them and keep on doing what I am doing. This is something I never discuss with anyone other than here cause no one knows I own a gun. I know people from the DC area are much more sensitive to this subject than most of the country. Partly due to crime in that area, partly due to a lot of democrats in the area, partly due to tragedies in the area. If we were to discuss this with people that mainly live in the south, this would be a vastly different conversation here.

It's just fun to occasionally discuss these sorts of things.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=jsarno;400271]I didn't take it that way cause I am not fanatical. I am opinionated. If someone said I am wrong for having a gun, I'd laugh at them and keep on doing what I am doing. This is something I never discuss with anyone other than here cause no one knows I own a gun. I know people from the DC area are much more sensitive to this subject than most of the country. Partly due to crime in that area, partly due to a lot of democrats in the area, partly due to tragedies in the area. If we were to discuss this with people that mainly live in the south, this would be a vastly different conversation here.

It's just fun to occasionally discuss these sorts of things.[/quote]

no prob for clarifying... i didn't quite understand what you diagreed with...

and the DC area is a prime example. There are gun related crimes daily in that small city and there is a citywide ban on all handguns.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=That Guy;398287]not really. sean taylor would have had one if not for his felony case (part of the probation was no gun ownership).

the problem with guns is kids finding them and blowing their own heads off with them. i think one of our DEs had friends do that when he was nine, and i know a guy that shotgunned his big toe off messing around in his room.

I won't own one. Our cops here carry M-16s though and theft/assualt/etc here is a great way to get fired and end up in jail very quickly.[/quote]
If guns are properly stored and kept their sould never be an issue of a kid finding one and shooting themself or a friend. The guy messing around with a loaded gun in his house should not have owned a gun or learned gun safty first.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=dmek25;400093]most people that support their second amendment rights are borderline fanatical. not saying you, jsarno. but if the shoe fits....[/quote]
No its the anti gun people who make them out to be fanatical. I support the second and believe people should have the right to own guns and I don't even own one.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;400542]No its the anti gun people who make them out to be fanatical. I support the second and believe people should have the right to own guns and I don't even own one.[/QUOTE]

People make fanaticism sound bad. ;)

Am I "fanatical" about preserving my right to protect myself and my family? Damn straight.

I'm also fanatical about the U.S. not being invaded, I'm fanatical about the Redskins, low cost auto insurance and goo deals on electronics.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=firstdown;400542]No its the anti gun people who make them out to be fanatical. I support the second and believe people should have the right to own guns and I don't even own one.[/quote]
in my case, this isn't true. i have talked to a bunch of people at my work who are avid believers in the second amendment. once i ask a bunch of them how they would react if the united states would enact total gun control. they all said that would never happen. and if it would, they would have to pry them out of their dead hands. and they were serious. i guess that's how things like Waco happen. because most of those guys own HUNDREDS of guns. which, to me, is even more of a reason to have some sort of gun control. one of thee guys owns a fully automatic AK47. what exactly is the purpose of owning a gun like that?

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;400555]in my case, this isn't true. i have talked to a bunch of people at my work who are avid believers in the second amendment. once i ask a bunch of them how they would react if the united states would enact total gun control. they all said that would never happen. and if it would, they would have to pry them out of their dead hands. and they were serious. i guess that's how things like Waco happen. because most of those guys own HUNDREDS of guns. which, to me, is even more of a reason to have some sort of gun control. one of thee guys owns a fully automatic AK47. what exactly is the purpose of owning a gun like that?[/QUOTE]

I know several people who own fully automatic rifles, none of which are wack-jobs ready to go off the deep end. They're actually all engineers who are just enthusiastic about the engineering and design aspect of firearms.

What's the purpose of owning a $650,000 Mercedes-Benz SLR? Who knows...it's hardly useful on public streets and it's the definition of excess, but I wouldn't begrudge anyone who wanted to drop the necessary dough on it.

Hell, I'd get one myself if I had the money.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

and with being fanatical, most of the time people cant think reasonably, when it comes to the things that they are fanatical about. using the redskins for example. how many times have people said things that are totally off the wall regarding the skins? it happens all the time. your thinking gets obscured. you cant reason properly about the things your are a fanatic about

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=mheisig;400560]I know several people who own fully automatic rifles, none of which are wack-jobs ready to go off the deep end. They're actually all engineers who are just enthusiastic about the engineering and design aspect of firearms.

[B]What's the purpose of owning a $650,000 Mercedes-Benz SLR[/B]? Who knows...it's hardly useful on public streets and it's the definition of excess, but I wouldn't begrudge anyone who wanted to drop the necessary dough on it.

Hell, I'd get one myself if I had the money.[/quote]
im not sure about your analogy? ones a driving machine. the others sole intent is killing. there is a helluva difference

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=firstdown;400538]If guns are properly stored and kept their sould never be an issue of a kid finding one and shooting themself or a friend. [U]The guy messing around with a loaded gun in his house should not have owned a gun or learned gun safty first.[/U][/quote]

I agree, but the fact is that he [U]does[/U] own a gun and he [U]hasn't[/U] learned gun safety first.

The problem with the "regulation by education" approach is that it looks at the top 10% of gun owners (in terms of education and responsibility) as the prototypical gun owner. You can't do that - laws and regulations have to address the middle of the bell curve.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;400563]im not sure about your analogy? ones a driving machine. the others sole intent is killing. there is a helluva difference[/QUOTE]

Killing persons with evil intent is a necessary part of life. Always has been, always will be.

Somewhere, at some point, it may come down to you or them. Things are a lot more civilized than they were hundreds or thousands of years ago but that doesn't change the fact that the wicked prey on the weak and innocent.

Yep, a firearm's sole purpose, intent and design is to be an effective and efficient killing machine as possible. What's wrong with that? I hope I never have to use it as such, and in past experiences I have gone well out of my way to preserve life and avoid confrontation, but that doesn't change the possibility of it being required in the future.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=mheisig;400586]Killing persons with evil intent is a necessary part of life. Always has been, always will be.

Somewhere, at some point, it may come down to you or them. Things are a lot more civilized than they were hundreds or thousands of years ago but that doesn't change the fact that the wicked prey on the weak and innocent.

Yep, a firearm's sole purpose, intent and design is to be an effective and efficient killing machine as possible. [B]What's wrong with that[/B]? I hope I never have to use it as such, and in past experiences I have gone well out of my way to preserve life and avoid confrontation, but that doesn't change the possibility of it being required in the future.[/quote]
so you are OK with what happened to Sean Taylor? guns today are so much more accessible our country needs some sort of regulation on them

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=dmek25;400603]so you are OK with what happened to Sean Taylor? guns today are so much more accessible our country needs some sort of regulation on them[/quote]
We do have regulations on fire arms its just people like the one who shot ST don't buy gun legally. We also have laws about breaking and entering and did that stop them?

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[quote=dmek25;400563]im not sure about your analogy? ones a driving machine. the others sole intent is killing. there is a helluva difference[/quote]
More people die in the US from car crashes and guns sole intent is not killing.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;400603]so you are OK with what happened to Sean Taylor? guns today are so much more accessible our country needs some sort of regulation on them[/QUOTE]

Can you point me to where I said what happened to Sean Taylor was okay? I never stated that or anything remotely close to that as far as I am aware, but if you have a link, by all means let me know.

I specifically said I have zero problem with guns being used to kill the evil to protect the innocent, not that I have no problem with ANYone being killed with a gun. Guns are an effective mechanism of taking a life, and I am all for taking the lives of those who would do me or my loved ones harm.

Guns are less accessible today than at any point in history since their inception, yet we have more crime than ever. What might that tell us?

Guns are already supposedly "inaccessible" to criminals and people with criminal records. We need to be a lot harsher about the dealing with the people who are violating the laws already in place, not just start making new ones.

When I was a cop, we'd do our damnedest to get Federal gun charges on the punks that we'd find with guns. Federal charges were the only ones that were any kind of real punishment that they'd be afraid of, state and local charges were a complete joke as the criminals knew damn well that the state charges would be plead down, dropped, they'd get probation, or at the very worst serve a sentence that would have them out in no time on parole. Not so with Federal charges.

About 5-8 years ago the department I worked for spent about 3 years working on a local gang and getting Federal charges on almost all of the leaders. There's now about 15-20 hardened criminals serving Federal sentences of upwards of 30 years with no hope for parole. THAT is how you handle criminals with guns, not these laughing stock state charges.

I'd have to dig up the link, but somewhere around 80% of firearms used in crimes are purchased on the black market or borrowed/taken/stolen from a friend or family member.

A very small minority of guns used in crimes are legally purchased.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;400624]More people die in the US from car crashes and guns [B]sole intent is not killing.[/B][/QUOTE]

I'd take issue with you there, even though I think we're coming from the same side of this debate.

The primary purpose of a firearm is to take a life (animal or human). That's what it was made to do, that's why it exists.

Yes, there are "target shooting" firearms, but let's be realistic and admit that the sole reason guns exist is not for the fun of plinking a few soda cans or target shooting. It's to take life.

I see no reason to equivocate or argue about that, and I have no problem with it. It's not something that needs to be defended, it's simple fact.

Re: AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;400622]We do have regulations on fire arms its just people like the one who shot ST don't buy gun legally. We also have laws about breaking and entering and did that stop them?[/QUOTE]

Laws rarely stop anyone, they just provide consequences when someone breaks said law and gets caught. It's a means of punishment for the most part, not determent or prevention

The real point is that an out and out ban on firearms will only take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens - the criminals will continue to get them.

Doesn't mean we can't have appropriate, sensible laws to punish those who use firearms with malicious intent.