| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/19/2011 03:42:17 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by jazzpaintball:
It seems like this thread got a bit off topic....
I think the thread starter just wanted an overall census, not a brawl, lol.
Personally I do and don't carry. I never saw the point of carrying my sidearm when I go to costco or safeway. But if I am taking my family to some 'possible trouble spots' I have it on me. I hope I will never have to use it, but I would rather use it than loose a loved one.
Just my two cents,
Travis Walthall |
Please don't take your family to trouble spots where they might get loose. Just seems like a bad idea all around. :) |
|
|
|
01/19/2011 03:50:35 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by jazzpaintball:
It seems like this thread got a bit off topic....
I think the thread starter just wanted an overall census, not a brawl, lol.
Personally I do and don't carry. I never saw the point of carrying my sidearm when I go to costco or safeway. But if I am taking my family to some 'possible trouble spots' I have it on me. I hope I will never have to use it, but I would rather use it than loose a loved one.
Just my two cents,
Travis Walthall |
Please don't take your family to trouble spots where they might get loose. Just seems like a bad idea all around. :) |
ROFL! OMG! |
|
|
|
01/19/2011 04:01:09 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by jazzpaintball:
It seems like this thread got a bit off topic....
I think the thread starter just wanted an overall census, not a brawl, lol.
Personally I do and don't carry. I never saw the point of carrying my sidearm when I go to costco or safeway. But if I am taking my family to some 'possible trouble spots' I have it on me. I hope I will never have to use it, but I would rather use it than loose a loved one.
Just my two cents,
Travis Walthall |
Please don't take your family to trouble spots where *you can loose them.* Just seems like a bad idea all around. :) |
I appreciate your concern, but I was not insinuating that I would take my family to a prostitute laden pier at 2 in the morning.....
Danger can be were you least expect it; just have to remember: An ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure - Benjamin Franklin
Message edited by author 2011-01-19 21:01:58. |
|
|
|
01/19/2011 04:03:50 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by jazzpaintball:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by jazzpaintball:
It seems like this thread got a bit off topic....
I think the thread starter just wanted an overall census, not a brawl, lol.
Personally I do and don't carry. I never saw the point of carrying my sidearm when I go to costco or safeway. But if I am taking my family to some 'possible trouble spots' I have it on me. I hope I will never have to use it, but I would rather use it than loose a loved one.
Just my two cents,
Travis Walthall |
Please don't take your family to trouble spots where *you can loose them.* Just seems like a bad idea all around. :) |
I appreciate your concern, but I was not insinuating that I would take my family to a prostitute laden pier at 2 in the morning.....
Danger can be were you least expect it; just have to remember: An ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure - Benjamin Franklin |
They were making fun of your grammar. You wrote "loose" and you meant LOSE. It's a common typing error, no biggie. |
|
|
|
01/19/2011 04:06:03 PM · #180 |
| Well, that, and taking a family to places you think you need a gun for protection. Probably best not to take them there to begin with. But I see the poster's point, I guess. Safeways are dangerous places and who'd have thought that? I'm sticking to Ralph's or Vons. |
|
|
|
01/19/2011 04:08:47 PM · #181 |
This doesn't happen at weddings in the US.
Gun Control
|
|
|
|
01/19/2011 04:12:25 PM · #182 |
Just thought I'd throw this out there for those of you that believe more guns automatically means more gun crime..
Kennesaw, where everyone is armed by law
25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'
|
|
|
|
01/19/2011 04:34:56 PM · #183 |
 Mick - I read with interest the article about Kenneshaw. It was heartwarming to note that some of the citizens, even that 10-year-old youngster, were practicing at the range.
Now, I would be really interested to know if you think that some sort of proficiency test should be required to handle a gun?
Not a loaded question, just a simple inquiry. |
|
|
|
01/19/2011 04:52:27 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Mick - I read with interest the article about Kenneshaw. It was heartwarming to note that some of the citizens, even that 10-year-old youngster, were practicing at the range.
Now, I would be really interested to know if you think that some sort of proficiency test should be required to handle a gun?
Not a loaded question, just a simple inquiry. |
Now that I can agree with. A gun is just as dangerous as a car. Thats why you have to have a licence to drive one. A proficiency exam with the intended weapon would be great. |
|
|
|
01/19/2011 04:53:53 PM · #185 |
I am trying to decide between the following for my carry.
Magnum Research Baby Dessert Eagle ($699)
Beretta PX4 ($550.00)
Taurus 809 ($555.00)
I own Beretta's and have experience with them. Anyone have any experience with any of these? |
|
|
|
01/19/2011 04:55:46 PM · #186 |
(I know, I am so ashamed of myself, but I really cannot resist...)
Does the Baby Dessert Eagle come with chocolate sauce?
(Sorry. I just couldn't help it. I'm sure it's a lovely weapon.) |
|
|
|
01/19/2011 04:59:16 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Well, that, and taking a family to places you think you need a gun for protection. Probably best not to take them there to begin with. But I see the poster's point, I guess. Safeways are dangerous places and who'd have thought that? I'm sticking to Ralph's or Vons. |
LOL, so much fail.
Von's is the exact same thing as Safeway.
Also, it would be nice to read the post. Costco and Safeway I Do Not carry. But i do carry in more "potential" crime areas. If you take your family to a zoo, most likely you are entering a higher degree of urban development. This means more poverty and more crime. So restricting my family to going to the Zoo, a major-league sports game, or to dinner on the water front at lets say Seattle seams quite 'closed-minded' just due to a chance of something bad happening.
All I am saying is that there is always a chance, and people should be prepared for the worst and expect the best.
I know someone will still argue with this and change my words around again, but it is what it is.
Travis Walthall |
|
|
|
01/19/2011 05:05:41 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by TonyT:
I am trying to decide between the following for my carry.
Magnum Research Baby Dessert Eagle ($699)
Beretta PX4 ($550.00)
Taurus 809 ($555.00)
I own Beretta's and have experience with them. Anyone have any experience with any of these? |
The PX4 is decent. Its a good solid hold without it being too oversized for carry.
The Dessert Eagle has a name behind it that, in my opinion, supersedes the actual firearm. You can get a much better quality for less cost.
the taurus is a good handgun, but they are built for the non-shooter. They make their stuff low end and are designed to wear out. They are not trash though and Taurus stands behind their weapons fixing them when they go bad for free (yes, when they go bad, not if they go bad). they are great, but if you are looking for dependability of when you have to pull it off your holster and you know it will shoot, I would stick with a Glock, Colt, Kimber, Beretta, and Smith & Wesson. (There are others, but I don't want to type for the next hour, lol).
I hope this helps,
Travis Walthall
Knowledge from being military, 15 years of personal use, and being a Cabela's Outfitter |
|
|
|
01/19/2011 05:15:25 PM · #189 |
I was being facetious about the Vons thing. I do know they're the same chain.
And it's probably a Desert Eagle.
The only gun I've handled is an issued 9 mm, so I really can't offer any advice. |
|
|
|
01/19/2011 05:20:26 PM · #190 |
When I fly I've noticed some people are very anxious to get off. I use to think they were smokers needing their next fix. However, they're just as likely to be paranoid gun owners suffering separation anxiety :-)
|
|
|
|
01/19/2011 11:37:44 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Mick - I read with interest the article about Kenneshaw. It was heartwarming to note that some of the citizens, even that 10-year-old youngster, were practicing at the range.
Now, I would be really interested to know if you think that some sort of proficiency test should be required to handle a gun?
Not a loaded question, just a simple inquiry. |
It may not be a loaded question, but it's a tricky one to answer nonetheless. However, I will give it a try. :)
In a perfect world, anyone that wants access to any type of dangerous object would be trained and certified to handle it safely. Unfortunately, that just isn't possible. There are just too many things that can be dangerous in the hands of a human being. Certainly guns can be dangerous, but a whole lot of other things can be just as dangerous if not more so. You wouldn't believe how dangerous a single gallon of gasoline can be. Are we to require training and certification for every person that buys gasoline? One pound of aluminum mixed with an oxidizer will make an explosion that has to be seen to be believed. Does that mean we should require a license before selling someone a lawn chair? Do you see what I'm getting at? Government in the US 'Nanny State' is already a bureaucratic nightmare. Do you honestly believe we need even more bureaucracy?
But let's say that all we care about is guns. Would proficiency testing ensure responsibly? Of course not. It would only mean they might know how to use guns responsibly, not that they will. So at best, it might result in a small number of fewer accidents. It wouldn't do a thing to prevent or even reduce gun-related violence. Sure accidents involving guns are bad, often horrible, but the number of accidents involving guns is actually quite low when you consider the number of guns that are out there. Here is an excerpt from a web page provided the National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action (Firearm Safety In America 2009)...
"The firearm accident death rate is at an all-time annual low, 0.2 per 100,000 population, down 94% since the all-time high in 1904. Since 1930, the annual number of such deaths has decreased 80%, to an all-time low, while the U.S. population has more than doubled and the number of firearms has quintupled. Among children, such deaths have decreased 90% since 1975. Today, the odds are more than a million to one, against a child in the U.S. dying in a firearm accident."
The real problem is the crimes committed with guns, and no form of certification or licensing is going to affect that. For that matter, according to the statistics, neither do gun control laws.
It's also true that the majority of American gun owners already do receive training and certification. Many get it from their parents and/or other family members as they're growing up. Responsible gun ownership is a long-standing tradition for millions of American families. Many others get it from serving in the military or from the jobs they choose, such as security personal and the numerous police agencies. The NRA and similar organizations have trained millions of Americans. The NRA alone has more then 62,000 certified instructors nationwide and they stay quite busy. And it's already true that in most states that allow concealed carry, some form of training certification is required before a permit will be issued.
Then there's the fact that the purchase and ownership of arms in America is a right protected by the constitution. It's not a privilege like driving a car on public roads.
Therefore, my answer is no, I do not think that proficiency testing, or any other form of licensing of guns, is a good idea.
|
|
|
|
01/20/2011 12:54:48 AM · #192 |
I was discussing the US gun control issue with a Swiss colleague and he shocked me when he said that all young males in Switzerland are required BY LAW to own and keep a weapon. I checked and it's true: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland. So, the pro-gun people are right - guns don't kill people, people kill people! The logic behind the Swiss law is similar to the US 2nd amendment (citizen militia etc) They are even required to keep ammunition at home in case they need to defend themselves on the way to a military facility when war or unrest occur. But, in Switzerland the homicide-by-gun rate is 1 killing or attempted killing per 250,000 people. The US rate is 75! So, Switzerland with at least 50% of households having weapons has a tiny fraction of the gun deaths that the US does, where gun owning households are estimated at less than 30%. Switzerland also has a very strong tradition of sporting gun ownership for target shooting, pest control and game hunting. (the government subsidises ammunition sales!)
So why is it so different in America? Everything I've read points to the following:
1. A lot of people in the US believe that guns resolve problems. From marital disputes to traffic incidents to drug turf wars. It's how the country was made. Even an acting-out teen sees guns as the answer. The Swiss see guns purely for sport, recreation and, in some desperate emergency, defence of the country NOT the individual.
2. The Swiss are highly-governed and accept a high level of central government involvement in their lives. (there are regular inspections of the home-held ammunition) It seems a lot of Americans are very distrustful of central government and have twisted the 2nd amendment to read that the right to bear arms is in part required in case the population need to defend themselves from their own government. American individualism has, strangely, created a large number of people who don't feel that the government is actually themselves.
3. The Swiss are historically pacifist. On a government and personal level they have made the decision that non-aggression is generally safer. The US, with it's 'might is right' policy has been at war or involved in wars almost continuously since the 1940s
4. Because all Swiss men have a period of national service in the army (or they used to) they are all trained in the use of firearms. I wonder what percentage of American gun owners have received training.
5. The US has a very fractured society with huge disparities in wealth, opportunity and education, yet poor and rich live in very close proximity. Switzerland is generally wealthy and has less of a divide and far fewer people on the 'margins' of society.
I read that there are an estimated 35 million guns (not sure if that's just handguns) in circulation in the US. As the pro-gun lobby say, it would be impossible to legislate these out of existence. Should you even try? I don't think there's any point until the large number (minority?) of people who feel their personal freedoms trump those of society at large can change their way of thinking. |
|
|
|
01/20/2011 02:55:19 AM · #193 |
@ray
Unfortunately for you America is and hopefully always will be, a place where personal freedom trumps those of society at large. Maybe you would be more comfortable living somewhere a little more oppressive. You could always move somewhere like that, it's a free world afterall, or is it? |
|
|
|
01/20/2011 03:05:46 AM · #194 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
@ray
Unfortunately for you America is and hopefully always will be, a place where personal freedom trumps those of society at large. Maybe you would be more comfortable living somewhere a little more oppressive. You could always move somewhere like that, it's a free world afterall, or is it? |
No, you're very wrong. Civilized countries have laws that stop personal freedoms damaging society. E.g. in US a speed limit applies even if you are a very competent driver. Your individual freedom to drive as fast as you like is trumped by the right that other road users have to expect safety.
And did you read my post? Would you call Switzerland or the other civilized democracies oppressive?
Message edited by author 2011-01-20 08:07:30. |
|
|
|
01/20/2011 07:47:55 AM · #195 |
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
I was discussing the US gun control issue with a Swiss colleague and he shocked me when he said that all young males in Switzerland are required BY LAW to own and keep a weapon. I checked and it's true: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland. So, the pro-gun people are right - guns don't kill people, people kill people! The logic behind the Swiss law is similar to the US 2nd amendment (citizen militia etc) They are even required to keep ammunition at home in case they need to defend themselves on the way to a military facility when war or unrest occur. But, in Switzerland the homicide-by-gun rate is 1 killing or attempted killing per 250,000 people. The US rate is 75! So, Switzerland with at least 50% of households having weapons has a tiny fraction of the gun deaths that the US does, where gun owning households are estimated at less than 30%. Switzerland also has a very strong tradition of sporting gun ownership for target shooting, pest control and game hunting. (the government subsidises ammunition sales!)
So why is it so different in America? Everything I've read points to the following:
1. A lot of people in the US believe that guns resolve problems. From marital disputes to traffic incidents to drug turf wars. It's how the country was made. Even an acting-out teen sees guns as the answer. The Swiss see guns purely for sport, recreation and, in some desperate emergency, defence of the country NOT the individual.
2. The Swiss are highly-governed and accept a high level of central government involvement in their lives. (there are regular inspections of the home-held ammunition) It seems a lot of Americans are very distrustful of central government and have twisted the 2nd amendment to read that the right to bear arms is in part required in case the population need to defend themselves from their own government. American individualism has, strangely, created a large number of people who don't feel that the government is actually themselves.
3. The Swiss are historically pacifist. On a government and personal level they have made the decision that non-aggression is generally safer. The US, with it's 'might is right' policy has been at war or involved in wars almost continuously since the 1940s
4. Because all Swiss men have a period of national service in the army (or they used to) they are all trained in the use of firearms. I wonder what percentage of American gun owners have received training.
5. The US has a very fractured society with huge disparities in wealth, opportunity and education, yet poor and rich live in very close proximity. Switzerland is generally wealthy and has less of a divide and far fewer people on the 'margins' of society.
I read that there are an estimated 35 million guns (not sure if that's just handguns) in circulation in the US. As the pro-gun lobby say, it would be impossible to legislate these out of existence. Should you even try? I don't think there's any point until the large number (minority?) of people who feel their personal freedoms trump those of society at large can change their way of thinking. |
According to you, the Swiss are supposedly pacifist, however they have an army and weapons etc. hardly the stuff of pacifists. They are, or claim to be, neutral, not taking sides in armed conflicts. In some sense this is true, however, the Swiss did provide significant support to the Nazis during WWII, even if Swiss troops didn't fight alongside German troops. Don't just take my word for it, take a look at the 1996 report from the Swiss Parliament's own Bergier Commission if you want to see for yourself. |
|
|
|
01/20/2011 07:55:10 AM · #196 |
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
Originally posted by chazoe:
@ray
Unfortunately for you America is and hopefully always will be, a place where personal freedom trumps those of society at large. Maybe you would be more comfortable living somewhere a little more oppressive. You could always move somewhere like that, it's a free world afterall, or is it? |
No, you're very wrong. Civilized countries have laws that stop personal freedoms damaging society. E.g. in US a speed limit applies even if you are a very competent driver. Your individual freedom to drive as fast as you like is trumped by the right that other road users have to expect safety.
And did you read my post? Would you call Switzerland or the other civilized democracies oppressive? |
Maybe not oppressive in the fascist dictator sense, but most European governments certainly intrude into peoples' lives to a far greater degree than would be tolerated here. Such impositions by government are some of the rank high among the reasons the States sought independence for Britain.
|
|
|
|
01/20/2011 08:11:56 AM · #197 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
Originally posted by chazoe:
@ray
Unfortunately for you America is and hopefully always will be, a place where personal freedom trumps those of society at large. Maybe you would be more comfortable living somewhere a little more oppressive. You could always move somewhere like that, it's a free world afterall, or is it? |
No, you're very wrong. Civilized countries have laws that stop personal freedoms damaging society. E.g. in US a speed limit applies even if you are a very competent driver. Your individual freedom to drive as fast as you like is trumped by the right that other road users have to expect safety.
And did you read my post? Would you call Switzerland or the other civilized democracies oppressive? |
Maybe not oppressive in the fascist dictator sense, but most European governments certainly intrude into peoples' lives to a far greater degree than would be tolerated here. Such impositions by government are some of the rank high among the reasons the States sought independence for Britain. |
Spork, you are responding to my response to Chazoe's points, in themselves irrelevant to the question I first posed, which was, if you want to reply, 'why does Switzerland, with high levels of gun ownership, not have high levels of gun homicide?'
Pacifist/Neutral/Non-aggressive you can nitpick on the words I use - will you concede that the Swiss are not as warlike as the US?
I'm not saying you're wrong about government impositions but can you give a couple of examples of the greater freedoms enjoyed in the US compared to say, the UK where I live.
Message edited by author 2011-01-20 14:38:25. |
|
|
|
01/20/2011 08:37:41 AM · #198 |
Originally posted by Mick:
Certainly guns can be dangerous, but a whole lot of other things can be just as dangerous if not more so ... One pound of aluminum mixed with an oxidizer will make an explosion that has to be seen to be believed. Does that mean we should require a license before selling someone a lawn chair? Do you see what I'm getting at?
The real problem is the crimes committed with guns, and no form of certification or licensing is going to affect that. For that matter, according to the statistics, neither do gun control laws. |
I see what you're getting at -- mixing apples and oranges. Aluminum lawn chairs do not explode -- finely powdered aluminum mixed with an oxidizer will ... that is a product not readily available.
I don't have the statistics at hand, but I'm pretty sure their are more gun fatalities from accident and suicide than from felonious homocide, so I don't think it's quite right to characterize THE problem with guns as crimes committed with guns, unless you consider suicide and failure to properly secure guns as "crimes," which they may be technically, but, I strongly suspect, not in the way you refer to "crimes committed with guns." |
|
|
|
01/20/2011 09:25:12 AM · #199 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Mick:
Certainly guns can be dangerous, but a whole lot of other things can be just as dangerous if not more so ... One pound of aluminum mixed with an oxidizer will make an explosion that has to be seen to be believed. Does that mean we should require a license before selling someone a lawn chair? Do you see what I'm getting at?
The real problem is the crimes committed with guns, and no form of certification or licensing is going to affect that. For that matter, according to the statistics, neither do gun control laws. |
I see what you're getting at -- mixing apples and oranges. Aluminum lawn chairs do not explode -- finely powdered aluminum mixed with an oxidizer will ... that is a product not readily available.
I don't have the statistics at hand, but I'm pretty sure their are more gun fatalities from accident and suicide than from felonious homocide, so I don't think it's quite right to characterize THE problem with guns as crimes committed with guns, unless you consider suicide and failure to properly secure guns as "crimes," which they may be technically, but, I strongly suspect, not in the way you refer to "crimes committed with guns." |
General, how much difference is there really? Aluminum is easy enough to grind into a powder, but watch out for any sparks, as it doesn't need an oxidizer to burn rapidly when sufficiently finely ground.
The biggest issue is using something that won't clog up to grind the aluminum up, think super fine cheese-grater.
And, just for grins, if you'd rather not have to grind your own, you do know you can easily buy 3micron black aluminum right? It's a bit restricted, but really, if you're willing to work just a little you can purchase it easily enough.. Oh, and should that not do it for you, give Tannerite a try...
|
|
|
|
01/20/2011 09:50:33 AM · #200 |
Anyone committed to committing violence against others will find a way to do so. Do you plan to ban fertilizer, and put Con-Agra out of business? You can die from drinking too much water. There are few analogies which are relevant, because except for guns (and possibly tobacco), no other consumer product has the explicit and sole purpose of killing someone or something else; "shooting sports" -- like fencing and archery -- are just formalized ways to practice the art of death-dealing.
I'm interested in finding reasonable ways to limit the easy access to guns by those clearly unqualified, those who demonstrate a lack of capacity to use the weapon safely and legally.
ΓΆ€ΒΆ Does the NRA want criminals to be able to buy guns?
ΓΆ€ΒΆ Does the NRA want people with a history of unstable mental illness to be able to buy guns?
ΓΆ€ΒΆ Does the NRA want children (you pick the cut-off age) to be able to buy guns?
ΓΆ€ΒΆ Does the NRA want people associated with terrorist organizations to be able to buy guns?
ΓΆ€ΒΆ Does the NRA want people who would sell guns to any of the above to be able to buy guns?
If the answer to any of these is no, I await your suggestion as to how to accomplish such a condition.
If the answer to all of them is yes, you'll understand why I'd then consider the NRA an extremist organization, and a danger to a free and safe democratic society. |
|
