FINALLY!!!! a good decision

Page 2 of 6  
We already had this conversation Miles and I think that Roy was involved as well. I said that part of obtaining a gun permit should be proof that you
have a secure place for each gun that is owned and you complained about that saying that as long as it is in your house, that is all that should be required.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
"miles" < snipped-for-privacy@nopers.com> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Not exactly. I don't go to the extremes you do but I also don't think guns should be left out anywhere in a house especially if kids are in the house.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Find the number of incidents where a gun in the home caused injury or death, and find the number of homes with a gun in them. I'm betting the number of incidents is less than 1% of the number of homes with guns. I've made the claim twice. If you wish to disagree, I encourage you to find proof. I can tell you for a fact that in this county, that "1%" guess is high, its probably lower. If you were to go with number of guns owned by private citizens (legally) compared to number of incidents, the percentage would be even lower.

It certainly is. Its a small town when: You've worked on the vehicles of the two local police Chiefs, taken the civil service exam with one of them, gone to church at the same place the Sheriff goes, and have a direct line to the comm center, a County Commissioner, and one of the police Cheifs. What that all means is, my name actually means something when a Representitive comes to town.
By the way, my Representitive to Harrisburg, who is pro Second Amendment, is a Democrat.
--
Max

Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Central registries are the first step to future confiscation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Now this is just being silly. A gun is a weapon any way you want to spin it and as Max said, it can project way past your property line. If you are going to own something that's primary purpose is to kill, then you should damn well know how to use it and use it properly.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah check this old story out. It was shortly after Colombine shooting. The loonies wanted all guns banned and now most schools bann the wearing of trench coats:
---------------- Sunday, 28 November, 1999, 18:44 GMT
A naked man burst into St Andrew's Roman Catholic Church in Thornton Heath, south London during a Sunday morning Mass, and attacked members of the congregation with a samurai sword.
One man suffered severe hand and face injuries, and 10 other people were hurt in the attack and the panic that followed.
Police said the casualties ranged in age from 16 to 78 and included four men and seven women, drawn from the white, black and Asian communities.
The man was overpowered by members of the congregation, including an off-duty policeman, who used an organ pipe and a large crucifix.
Police said they arrested a 26-year-old local man and were questioning him at Croydon police station.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/540387.stm

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chris Thompson wrote:

I agree. Like I said I have no desire to take guns away, I own one. But I do not think if everyone in the USA owned a few guns that violent crime would be reduced. People would think twice about breaking into a home and stealing your goods, but violent crimes that are not pre-meditated may rise. These days it seems that people settle disagreements through violent means.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Another gun kooky american...

Theives will NEVER know which house does or doesn't,
Maybe they will break in for the gun over anything else ? ? ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bullshit. In 20 years, we've had 2-3 serial robberies in town. None came near my house, despite the immediate neighbors being hit, and my back door being unlocked. Most people know I have some decent stuff, including a bunch of tools and audio video equipment.
They also know I have a 30.06. Same with a buddy of mine that lives a block away. So how is it that we both have neighbors that got robbed, but we didn't?
One thief admitted he knew which house not to bother. The other... well, I suppose it could be coincidence.
--
Max

Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Outlawing guns simply does not work but creating gun control laws focusing on gun responsibility can.

Only an idiot or someone desperate would target a house where people were home so for the average criminal, gun ownership means nothing as nobody would be home to use it anyway. As for the desperate ones, they will simply carry a gun of their own and use it first if possible and in that case, gun ownership increases the level of violence.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

These laws already exist Tom. I don't know about where you live, but I know where I do, when I buy a fire arm, the info (make, model, sn, et all) is recorded and reported. If said fire arm is stolen or lost and some one gets killed with it, it is MY ass on the line (assuming I did not report it lost or stolen). So, this being the case, as I know it to be in numerous but not all states, what more do you think or feel could be done?

So, you are saying that my home would not/could not be targeted or hit when some one is home? How is some one to know if some one is or not, unless they are casing it? When I leave to go to work, my wife and step son are home, we only have one vehicle, which I have, she likes to keep the drapes closed. SO, at 645am when I leave, there is no vehicle in the car port and you are not casing it, do you know if anyone is here or not, so you can "think" about hitting it?
Some meth head is feening for a hit, gets confused at midnight and breaks into the wrong house, your house because it is near a meth house. Opps sorry, didn't mean to kill you Mr. and Mrs. wrong person, I though this was a meth house.
Tom, you really amaze me with some of the shit you say at times. A petty thug will not LIKELY hit an occupied house, but that doesn't mean it doesn't and can't happen. It does..

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:52:24 -0700, "azwiley1"

A problem we have in my neck of the woods is home invasion. They tend to come in shooting. I lived in a neighborhood about 20 years ago where it happened to my neighbor one evening when the owner was obviously home watching TV. My neighbor won the gunfight and survived to go thru hell for a while. Meanwhile, I put my own home up for sale to get the hell out and had it happen to me before I could get out - not exchange of gunfire in my case as they got the drop on me. A couple of weeks later, burglars took the rest of what I owned making the moving van unnecessary. Nowadays, I keep most of the firepower in the safe. Around the house, I keep a 12ga persuader and a G23 with 3 mags close by. The G23 goes where I go. If I see them coming, they better hope the dogs get them first - they aren't too aggressive unless you push them..
Lugnut
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Then again, unless you keep your gun on your lap at all times, you will probably get killed before you ever get to use it.

Which points out that had you had the gun available, someone may have been killed and that someone could have been you which further proves my point that gun ownership does NOT reduce crime.

I can only hope that where you live now makes worrying about such things unnecessary.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 02:25:09 -0400, TBone wrote:

here ya go Tom.
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/crime_rate_plummets.htm
<from website> Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia Crime Rate Plummets
The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.
And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.
With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?
The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.
The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish. </website>
Now surely if what you say is true and that gun ownership increases the danger and level of violence in the event of a crime, then surely the most dangerous place in the WORLD would be Kennesaw GA.
here ya go again.
In March 1982, responding to the passage of a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois, and the fawning media coverage that accompanied it, the city council of Kennesaw, Georgia, decided to make a statement of its own. With exceptions duly made for convicted felons, the disabled, and those with religious objections, the council passed (unanimously) an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v46/ai_15729634
Twelve years after it began, Kennesaw's experiment in crime control does not present itself as an easy way to arrest the killing in America's streets. It does, however, suggest where the problem doesn't lie. As Mayor Stephenson told a national gun rally in Kennesaw a few years back, "We're the town that proves more guns doesn't have to mean more crime."
the above is quoted out of a web page...now its more like 15 years.
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Kennesaw&state=GA
the above website lists both the national crime rates along with those of Kennesaw's...
Looks to me that gun ownership detours crime in Kennesaw why wouldn't it some where else????
--
____________________________________________
Chris
05 CTD
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 02:25:09 -0400, "TBone"

Just proves I was lucky. Others confronted in that crime spree were shot without provocation. I suppose it depended on how high they were at the time.

I now live in a heavily wooded rural setting perceived to be "safe". My "friends" are always close and the dogs alert. I have developed considerable self defense skills with firearms as part of my job since my last encounter at home. At my age, I have less to lose then some young thug and will quite willing take as many of them as possible with me if confronted in my home. All they have to do is leave me alone and no harm done to anyone. I don't dwell on the problem, but I remain aware of my surroundings and refuse to be a willing victim. I think I have that right.
Lugnut
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not a thing but not every state is like that.

And how would they lnow if you or your wife even had a gun? The answer is that they wouldn't so what exactly is your point. If I am going to rob a house and guns are easy to get, then I'm damn sure going to make sure that I have one of my own and will have it ready when I break in and if I were to see either you or anyone else with one or looking like they are trying to get on, I would shoot first and steal later.

LOL, I think that they would know the difference and there would be no need to break into a meth house as they are always open and have pleanty of people around them and even if they did, why would they kill anyone???????? And if they were that desperate for a hit then do you really think that they will come in unarmed and try and kill you bare handed, LOL? At least get real with your examples.

So what if it does. Are you going to shoot them? Then you become the criminal, especially if this thug has friends because no it is up to you to prove that your life was in danger and if this thug was unarmed.... And if the thug is armed and sees a gun, do you not think that he will shoot you first. I am not saying that people should not have guns but thinking that gun ownership will prevent crimes is just pure ignorance.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are correct Tom, they wouldn't know, FYI she does, Remington 12ga loaded with 16 shot. I was using your statement above about how only an idiot or some one desperate would target an occupied house. You did not say they would only go for unarmmed occupied houses or armed un-occupied houses, just re-read what YOU said, and don't pull a Snojob and back out of it. My point was very simple, How do "you" know if a house is occupied or not unless you are casing it? You don't, SO how can you say that only an idiot or some one desperate would target a house were some one was home.

You think? When is the last time you have had to deal with a meth head feening for a fix? When is the last time that you had the misforetuen of living next to a meth house because your landlord is a slum lord and does not verifiy "who" is renting too? So you are saying based off your vast (lack of) knowledge that a dope head feening for his next fix would not and could not do something desperate and/or stupid to the "wrong" house? Get a clue and go spend some time where this shit happens. Hell go visit me and I would be more then happy to have some one put you up in Fry town, Meth heaven for Sierra Vista, AZ and you might learn something.
I am very real with my examples Tom. Per your start to this exchange between you and I, it is not a discussion as to wether a gun is had or not had, it is about how any one criminal other then some one that is an idiot or desperate would not target a house that is occupied.

You're DAMN right if someone breaks into my house I am going to shoot them!! Why the fuck would you feel other wise? You're right, it is not up to me to prove "he" was armed and that my life or that of my family was in danger. It is up to the "state pros" to prove that my life and/or that of my families WASN"T.
Let see, a thug breaks a window or door to get into my house, weapon in hand. I am in bed, pistol very near by (with in arms reach from laying in bed) and loaded as it always is, you HONESTLY think that I can not reach my pistol and be at ready to protect me and my family? You honestly think that I would not be awoken by noises and such around my house that are out of the norm? Damn man, are you that dense?
BTW, unlike a gun toting "thug" I am tried to engage a target and shoot for a kill. I am trained to do so under pressure, under extreme circumstances, and do it calmly and effectively. A feening dope head and/or your "common" thug most likely will not be able to do the same, so who do you think will come out alive if it came to it?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

We have countless gun laws already with more passed every year and yet you think its not enough? We don't need any more laws. Whats needed is enforcement of the ones we already have.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Where did I say that MORE laws were needed? All I said was that they need to be directed toward responsibility of ownership rather than just restricting it. The problem with enforcing them is that it requires personnel and money and that equates to higher taxes.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
"miles" < snipped-for-privacy@nopers.com> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

You said "but creating gun control laws". Tell me how you can create gun control laws without having any new laws?
Our taxes are already too high. The problem is our government has always been extremely wasteful and inefficient at all levels with just about anything they do.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.