Age and firearms

[enjoynz]

Wrong on so many levels. Firearms are built for sport, protection, hunting, collecting (have you seen the designs on some firearms?) and several other reasons. To boil guns down to just killing would be like boiling knives down to just killing.

The thread is on Hand guns..........bit hard to shoot a deer with a hand gun JP, unless you are close.
If no one was allowed to carry handguns. You wouldn't need one to protect yourself from one, would you?
That what the police are surpose to do...protect us!

 

[Shishkabob]

fma, are you saying we should have some sort of remorse for criminals who intend to do harm to us?

 

[Shishkabob]

The thread is on Hand guns..........bit hard to shoot a deer with a hand gun JP, unless you are close.
If no one was allowed to carry handguns. You wouldn't need one to protect yourself from one, would you?
That what the police are surpose to do...protect us!

You don't take a knife to a gun fight, and you don't take a knife to a knife fight.


Fighting for your life isn't supposed to be fair. You don't want the other person to have a fair shot at winning. If they have a knife, you don't want them within a few feet of you, which is why guns exist... range. That's why cops have a multitude of different tools on their belt... baton, pepper spray, TASER, pistol.


Never fight fairly. Always use every single underhanded trick you can. Use every single tool that will gibe you an edge over the other person trying to hurt you.

 

[usafmedic45]

bit hard to shoot a deer with a hand gun JP, unless you are close.

Actually in several (most?) states- Indiana being one of them- you are allowed to hunt deer with handguns. Remember the useful range on some of the larger handguns is a couple hundred yards and the lethal range is over a mile for things like a .357 magnum or .44 magnum. The useful range is well within the range that most deer kills take place with (<100 yards according to one of my colleagues with the Department of Natural Resources....apparently the DNR did a study on this), even when people are using rifles or shotguns.

If no one was allowed to carry handguns. You wouldn't need one to protect yourself from one, would you?

Except that the only people carrying guns would be the criminals....good luck collecting all of them from everyone unless you turned the country into a totalitarian fascist state.

That what the police are surpose to do...protect us!

So I'm supposed to tell the burglar to wait and not to hurt me until the cops get there? That'll work, especially out in the rural area my parents live in where it can take the deputies 20+ minutes to arrive. Also, the cops in a lot of big cities ARE as crooked as the criminals (DC, Detroit....especially Detroit)....you really want to rely on them? You can't apply the mentality of a country with more sheep than people to a country with more gangbangers than sheep.

 

[fma08]

If I just tried with all means available to me to kill someone who was trying to hurt me or someone else (or steal property in some states), you think I really care if they bleed out on the floor? Once you've made the decision to kill that person, it really isn't something you should go back on. Besides, if I'm not legally obligated to help them and feel no moral obligation to risk infectious disease exposure while trying to aid someone who was committing a crime what impetus do I have to do so?

I don't know what incentive you would have, other than being a medical professional, and obviously if there was a risk for exposure, then you wouldn't be there. Also, my post was more so in general, not just to the assailant, my bad for not making that more clear.

fma, are you saying we should have some sort of remorse for criminals who intend to do harm to us?

Absolutely not. However, if the attacker was no longer a threat, (unconscious or incapacitated) he/she would be on my list of people to treat, along with the others that suffered injuries. I'd want him/her to stand trial for what they did. Letting them bleed out on the floor is giving them the easy way out IMO.

Thankfully I'm not that bad of a shot B)

(not saying any of you are, I have no idea of your shooting skills)

 

[fma08]

You don't take a knife to a gun fight, and you don't take a knife to a knife fight.


Fighting for your life isn't supposed to be fair. You don't want the other person to have a fair shot at winning. If they have a knife, you don't want them within a few feet of you, which is why guns exist... range. That's why cops have a multitude of different tools on their belt... baton, pepper spray, TASER, pistol.


Never fight fairly. Always use every single underhanded trick you can. Use every single tool that will gibe you an edge over the other person trying to hurt you.

Rule #1: If you enter a fair fight, your tactics suck.

 

[usafmedic45]

Letting them bleed out on the floor is giving them the easy way out IMO.

I don't think for a lot of these lowlifes, going to an American prison for a couple of years is all that much of a punishment. Bleeding out can't be all that pleasant of an experience and I figure that if they die, they aren't going to be costing the taxpayers any money that way.

 

[fma08]

I don't think for a lot of these lowlifes, going to an American prison for a couple of years is all that much of a punishment. Bleeding out can't be all that pleasant of an experience and I figure that if they die, they aren't going to be costing the taxpayers any money that way.

Depends.

And I agree, something's seriously wrong when we are giving inmates on death row, a 20 year ride before execution and a last meal, etc. etc. Some of these liberties ought to be taken away and save us some money IMO. They are in jail to serve a punishment, not to live in an apartment.

 

[HotelCo]

If no one was allowed to carry handguns. You wouldn't need one to protect yourself from one, would you?

I'm sure the criminals will stop commiting crimes with firearms because it's illegal. [/QUOTE]

In the USA the police have no duty to protect an individual.
Take a look at this: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
(Also take a look at DeShaney v. Winnebago County and Warren v. DC)

No one but the Police should be allowed to carry hand guns, period!

*Trying really hard not to invoke Godwin's law.*

 

[enjoynz]

You don't take a knife to a gun fight, and you don't take a knife to a knife fight.


Fighting for your life isn't supposed to be fair. You don't want the other person to have a fair shot at winning. If they have a knife, you don't want them within a few feet of you, which is why guns exist... range. That's why cops have a multitude of different tools on their belt... baton, pepper spray, TASER, pistol.


Never fight fairly. Always use every single underhanded trick you can. Use every single tool that will gibe you an edge over the other person trying to hurt you.

Linuss...the point I'm trying to make is why fight at all. If like NZ, it was illegal to carry any form of weapon. Even a screwdriver on your person, to go out for the evening, for instance. Then you wouldn't have to have something to protect yourself.
I'm only one person and of course you have all had a lifetime of thinking about protection, as you know it in America.
What I think is not going to change the way any of you think.
I think it's sad that you have to go through the day,with a thought that you have to protect yourself, in that way!

You all will never agree with anything I say, as it's in your mind set.
But if all weapons were pulled from every person in the country, other then for use of Sport (includes hunting)or collections only. I wonder how that would react on the amount of GSW you'd be attending?

Enjoynz

 

[Mountain Res-Q]

The thread is on Hand guns..........bit hard to shoot a deer with a hand gun JP, unless you are close.
If no one was allowed to carry handguns. You wouldn't need one to protect yourself from one, would you?
That what the police are surpose to do...protect us!

I respectfully disagree. Maybe that is how it is in NZ, but that is not my reality. The primary purpose of handguns is defense, true. But just because hand guns are outlawed doesn't mean that the need to defend yourself goes away. If someone enters my house at night with a knife, with the intent to rob me (or worse - who really knows their motives), what do I do to defend myself? Pull out my own knife? I have no way of knowing what he has or what he wants. All I know is that he is in my home for illegal reasons and my family is at risk. Shoot to kill!!!

Yes, guns are WAY to easy to get a hold of in the US. But is guns were outlawed, then only outlaws would have guns. Look at other illegal items in the US, such as Drugs. You can outlaw them, but they are still everywhere. You outlaw guns, then good citizens will obey and be unarmed. Criminals will have the millions of unregistered and illegal guns in the US. You say that this is the police's issue? They are supposed to protect us? They are outgunned and outnumbered. In my area, if you call 911 the Deputies (who are undernumbered and have a huge area to cover) could take up to 45 minutes to respond; code 3. My house... ~15 minute response. Sorry, but if someone is in my house and threatening the safety of me or my faily, then I can't wait and hope that we all survive it with a passive approach without someone being severly wounded, raped, or killed.

In the end, all emergency services (from LE to EMS to Fire) are there to help the public, not be our only resource for staying safe and alive. It is like if an electric blanket in my home cathces on fire. Do I grab the extiguisher nearby and put out the fire while someone calls the FD? Or do evacuate the house and wait for the FD (with their 10-15 minute response time) to show up while my house becomes engulfed in flames? I am not saying that you carry a gun so that you can listen in to your scanner and help LE protect and serve... but it is your right (and resposibility) to protect yourself. If that means that you desire to legally and safely carry a gun... then so be it. If you can not moraly or ethicly do so... okay, I pass no judgements either way, as long as your desision doesn't affect me adversly.

I would have no objection to outlawing guns, as long as crime (and criminals with guns) did not exist... but I live in reality. For the record, I have no guns, but would consider them due to the area in which I live and my SAR work. I do carry a pocket buck knife on me everywhere I go for a variety of reasons (first reason is that I am a mountian redneck and last on the list is defense), and would use it if needed for self defense. I also carry pepper spray on SAR train/calls involving my dog, as I have been rushed by strays before. I also carry pepper spray at work at the snow park becasuse of the absense of LE in that area and the sketchy customers... but have never used it yet. :glare:

 

[usafmedic45]

Depends.

And I agree, something's seriously wrong when we are giving inmates on death row, a 20 year ride before execution and a last meal, etc. etc. Some of these liberties ought to be taken away and save us some money IMO. They are in jail to serve a punishment, not to live in an apartment.

I agree 100%. It should be more like S-21 and less like Club Med.

I don't think bleeding out would be the most painful way to go (burning alive wins that one....another reason we should burn people at the stake as a method of execution...that and the Catholic Church would demonstrate great hypocrisy if they object to it) but it can't be fun laying on the floor having your life ebb away and knowing that someone is standing there, able to help but refusing to. I think that is a pretty good punishment for crimes worthy of getting shot over and a comparatively really cheap one at that.

 

[JPINFV]

The thread is on Hand guns..........bit hard to shoot a deer with a hand gun JP, unless you are close.
If no one was allowed to carry handguns. You wouldn't need one to protect yourself from one, would you?
That what the police are surpose to do...protect us!

...because criminals already don't have a long history of ignoring gun laws? Also, in the US, there is plenty of case law saying that the police have a general duty to protect the public and not any specific duty or liability to protect any single person. There are several cases of people knowing a violent person is coming after them (ex-spouses, etc with restraining orders), calling the police for protection, and the police telling them to call back when the person arrives. The police have absolutely zero duty to protect you.

 

[usafmedic45]

*Trying really hard not to invoke Godwin's law.*

Same here...I was actually going to post the exact quote to that echoes EnjoyNZ's sentiment. :lol:

 

[usafmedic45]

Linuss...the point I'm trying to make is why fight at all.

Because it's human nature? Please tell me you're not actually going to buy what you just said.

If like NZ, it was illegal to carry any form of weapon. Even a screwdriver on your person, to go out for the evening, for instance. Then you wouldn't have to have something to protect yourself.

....except against fists, feet and whatever is within easy reach when the assault commences.

 

[Shishkabob]

Linuss...the point I'm trying to make is why fight at all.

Because only I have any sort of say as to what kind of danger I put myself in. If anyone else threatens my life, you bet your booty I'll fight it.

You all will never agree with anything I say, as it's in your mind set.
But if all weapons were pulled from every person in the country, other then for use of Sport (includes hunting)or collections only. I wonder how that would react on the amount of GSW you'd be attending?

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean people won't use it, or do it. RPGs are illegal. Bet I could find one on the black market with the right connections. When assault rifles were illegal, they were still used in crimes.


All any weapon ban ever does is keep the law abiding citizens from having access to it.

 

[spisco85]

No one but the Police should be allowed to carry hand guns, period!
Know matter what country you live in!

Enjoynz

Wow. How many police does New Zealand have? Enough to guard every alley in every city, or the lone desolate roads between towns were criminals have been known to act as police officers and pull over their victims?

Police respond and provide a presence. Case in point. My street had just about every car that was in the drive way entered and searched through by some punks just the other night. Where were the police?

The police can only do so much. Connecticut has had a large increase in home invasions over the last couple years that the state has made it a felony. Now do you think the criminal is going to say "Oh well its a felony now, I won't do it"?

I admire states like Florida that have the Castle law. Connecticut is in the process of getting one finished and on the books.

 

[Fir Na Au Saol]

Semantics; What you say versus what you actually do...

There's only one way to stop a threat when using deadly force. You use deadly force to stop a threat by killing them. You use less lethal force when trying to stop a force without trying to kill them. Both 'stop the threat,' but there's only one option when using a firearm.

Shooting someone with a firearm is deadly force regardless of where you're aiming or what you hit. But what you TELL the police, DA, Jury is that you "were in fear for your life and acted to stop the threat." You never actually SAY you were shooting to kill even if you were aiming right between the orc's eyes and had no intention other than killing it.

As far as "only one option" that's not necessarily the case. If you draw and the bad guy surrenders or runs, you have just successfully defended yourself with a gun. Killing is not the only option, but you'd better be ready to deal with killing when you make the decision to go armed.

Any handgun that the average person can reasonably carry concealed is NOT going to be a +20 wand of death. You have to aim for the most vital parts of the CNS and CVS and keep pulling the trigger until the threat drops. Doing that often means inflicting lethal wounds, but not always.

Likewise only the Lone Ranger's special effects crew is accurate enough to shoot the bad guy's gun out of his hand or shoot him in the leg or some other rapidly moving, relatively small part of his anatomy.

If you think you can carry and gun for protection and "shoot to wound" you should not carry a gun. Get a TASER of pepper spray.

 

[Seaglass]

Linuss...the point I'm trying to make is why fight at all. If like NZ, it was illegal to carry any form of weapon. Even a screwdriver on your person, to go out for the evening, for instance. Then you wouldn't have to have something to protect yourself.

Why fight at all? Because maybe I don't want to be beaten, raped, or murdered.

People aren't made equal in terms of physical size and strength. I'm a pretty average girl, so your average guy doesn't need a weapon to overpower me. Let alone an average rabid coyote... all the unarmed martial arts training in the world won't help me there.

 

[Mountain Res-Q]

I would like to point out that this thread was on carry a gun, not owning. The right to own is country/state dependant and will not change no matter how much you argue it. The right to carry (either in general or on the job) is the question.

In my area (I don't know how it works elsewere), you must have a CCW permit that is issued by the county Sheriff. The Sheriff must determine wheater or not there is a valid reason for you to carry. Therefore, in a county of 60,000, only 800 or so have a permit (as of last year). These are mostly off-duty deputies, police, CHP, and corrections officers. I know of many people in the county who own guns either for protection or for work (cattle ranches and such); but they keep these weapons in their homes and on their property. If they are transported elsewhere, it is done in compliance with teh law (unload and lock away in a place that is not accessible to the driver - locked box in the truck or such). It is not like these people are toting a side arm 24/7 where ever they go. They have a reason to own and do so legally. And those 800 that do carry should do so legally as it is deamed safe and neccissary by the Sheriff. Anyone else who owns and/or carrys is doing so illegally... and those are the ones I fear. These may be few in my rural area, but they do exist and criminals without guns with every bite the ability to inflict bodily harm also exist.

A good case of a reason to own: A new neighbor moved in from the bay area and thought, "We are in the mountians now, my dog can roam free." The dog was agressive. Anothr neighbor has a chicken and mule farm (I know odd combo) and when the dog attacked his chikcens, he took his rifle and killed the pet. Up to that point, the law dd nothing to protect the neighborhood (despite numerous complaints) and if I had a gun... I would have done likewise when that do rushed us on the deck one day when we were eating dinner. If it had been a human coming to attack, why not use the same stance to defend self, family, and property?