How do you feel about guns?

[Bengalzona]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

I'm curious why you wouldn't want a gun available for home defense that can kill someone? I disagree that a 9mm is just for killing humans. However, if that was its only purpose what's the problem. It protects the family.

Personally, I don't own any firearms. And don't intend to buy any. If I did, I'd probably want something with stopping power than something designed to do the most damage (such as a weapon where the bullets tumble). You can find some 9mms with decent stopping power. But, for what I would theoretically want, a shotgun would be best.

But, back to my comment, my point is about the power of words. Saying you want to kill someone can come back to haunt you, even if it isn't a specific person. Just a word to the wise.

[Interceptor]

Originally Posted by BengalsRocker

Good for you for acknowledging that.

People with uncontrollable or even pent up "snap" anger should not own firearms.

The potential could be disastrous.

I almost made a mistake when I was a teenager. My girlfriend at the time really screwed me over. Thank God I came to my senses(with my Bro's semi-automatic in hand).

If 911 dialing was available back when I was young I'm sure I would have been arrested.

After that incident I have distanced myself from guns.

Unfortunately there are so many people who don't realize what I did that day.

In Mexico, if you catch your wife in bed with someone else and you shoot one or both of them, you can get away with "heat of the moment". They seem to allow for jealous rage but only at that moment.

[Who2Dey]

I could live with or without them. Definitely need much stricter gun control laws. I imagine this whole tragedy wouldnt have happened if the mom owned a gun safe and didn't tell the mentally ill kid the combination. This is a safety and education issue imo.

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

Personally, I don't own any firearms. And don't intend to buy any. If I did, I'd probably want something with stopping power than something designed to do the most damage (such as a weapon where the bullets tumble). You can find some 9mms with decent stopping power. But, for what I would theoretically want, a shotgun would be best.

But, back to my comment, my point is about the power of words. Saying you want to kill someone can come back to haunt you, even if it isn't a specific person. Just a word to the wise.

I never said I wanted to kill someone. I said if someone tries to harm my family I'd do anything in my power to make sure it never happens again. Two totally different things.

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

Personally, I don't own any firearms. And don't intend to buy any. If I did, I'd probably want something with stopping power than something designed to do the most damage (such as a weapon where the bullets tumble). You can find some 9mms with decent stopping power. But, for what I would theoretically want, a shotgun would be best.

But, back to my comment, my point is about the power of words. Saying you want to kill someone can come back to haunt you, even if it isn't a specific person. Just a word to the wise.

Isn't one of the provisions of the castle doctrine that if a person believes there is an immediate threat to their life or serious harm to themselves or another that they have the right to use force including deadly force?

You can't just start blasting people without these things taking place, but if your life is in danger or another's the law is set up for this. Are you saying that isn't true?

[Ron Mexico]

No need for Automatic/Semi-Automatic firearms. Modern guns are tools of death. If it's illegal to kill someone, then why is it not illegal to purchase a semi-automatic handgun? Those things are meant for one thing.

[ICKYSHUFFLE]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

I never said I wanted to kill someone. I said if someone tries to harm my family I'd do anything in my power to make sure it never happens again. Two totally different things.

I completely agree with you on that.
A little advice I would give you or anyone that ends up in a situation where someone has broken into your house.
Locate the perp and take cover in a position where you can still see them and have a firing line that you feel safe enough that if a shot misses it won't go through a wall and hit a family member or a neighbor if you live in an apartment.
Shout to the invader to freeze, that you have a gun and will shoot if they come towards you. If they start coming towards you then I would feel you have the right to take them as a hostile threat and deal with them as such. A 2-3 round burst should be enough to take down a single threat.
A couple other tips is to have a flashlight atleast in hand if not mounted on the gun and to be able to navigate your house in complete darkness. It would be in your best interest to leave the flashlight off until you are ready to engage the invader to keep them from knowing your location. This will help you sneak up on the invader and you can temporarily blind them when you turn on your flashlight and shine it at them.

[Shake n Blake]

Originally Posted by Ron Mexico

No need for Automatic/Semi-Automatic firearms. Modern guns are tools of death. If it's illegal to kill someone, then why is it not illegal to purchase a semi-automatic handgun? Those things are meant for one thing.

I actually agree with you here. No one needs a fully automatic or semi auto assault rifle for home defense. The rifle used in the Newtown incident should be illegal.

I would also be ok with a ban on large caliber hand guns. No one needs a Clint Eastwood type handgun for personal defense. A .22 should be more than enough.

I just hope to never see this country fully ban ALL guns. We can't just take away freedoms every time some lunatic does something crazy. Drunk drivers easily kill more people than lunatics with guns, but alcohol is still legal. Regulation is fine, but we shouldn't go overboard. The less freedom we have, the more like China we become. Does anyone want that?

[ICKYSHUFFLE]

Originally Posted by Ron Mexico

No need for Automatic/Semi-Automatic firearms. Modern guns are tools of death. If it's illegal to kill someone, then why is it not illegal to purchase a semi-automatic handgun? Those things are meant for one thing.

So much FAIL in this post I don't know where to begin.
Let's just start with the "If it's illegal to kill someone, then why is it not illegal to purchase a semi-automatic handgun?"
A gun is just a inanimate object that would just sit there and rust away if nobody ever messed with it. A gun isn't going to jump up and start firing all on its own. A gun can only do what someone decides they want to do with it.
So your saying that since rope could be used for strangling, a knife for stabbing, a car for drunk driving deaths/mowing people down, machetes for hacking people, baseball bats for clubbing people, boots for stomping people, e.t.c., e.t.c., e.t.c. All these items and countless others have been used to kill people so let's ban those too?
It's illegal to speed so lets ban cars. It's illegal to drink and drive and leads to WAY MORE deaths a year than guns yet you don't ever hear a thing about banning alcohol.

On the subject of select fire(automatic) guns, there is already a ton of legislation that makes a "automatic" gun difficult to get. Besides the fact that such a gun is VERY expensive and only quite rich people can afford them, you have to be approved for a certain class of license to own a select fire gun. you also have to go through more extensive background checks than normal and pay a $200 tax. It is proven that owners of full auto weapons are some of the most level headed law abiding citizens in the country.
Also legally obtained full auto weapons are rarely used in any kind of crime.

And for the people that think just because a weapon is capable of full auto fire that it is much worse. First off if someone just squeezed a trigger and tried to empty a magazine the gun would more than likely go straight up in the air and crack the shooter in the face and be very inaccurate. Heck even just trying to fire a semi auto rapidly while keeping on target is a challenge for experienced shooters. Even Military rarely go full out, and usually use short squeezes to get 2-3 round burst for much better accuracy.

[ICKYSHUFFLE]

Originally Posted by Shake n Blake

I actually agree with you here. No one needs a fully automatic or semi auto assault rifle for home defense. The rifle used in the Newtown incident should be illegal.

I would also be ok with a ban on large caliber hand guns. No one needs a Clint Eastwood type handgun for personal defense. A .22 should be more than enough.

I just hope to never see this country fully ban ALL guns. We can't just take away freedoms every time some lunatic does something crazy. Drunk drivers easily kill more people than lunatics with guns, but alcohol is still legal. Regulation is fine, but we shouldn't go overboard. The less freedom we have, the more like China we become. Does anyone want that?

You are limiting you view on this to that you would only ever be confronted INSIDE your home and would not ever need to stop a threat outside of your house maybe at a reasonable distance.
And you say that people don't need "assault" rifles and that a .22 should be enough.
From this I take it that you aren't very familiar with the 97 assault weapons ban that sunsetted going on 5 years ago.
Under their definition of an 'assault" rifle, a .22 could be considered banned.
Their definition of it was a gun with a adjustable stock, threaded barrel, flash suppressor/hider, bayonet and/or lug, pistol grips, or high cap mags.
I couldn't have bought my .22 cal GSG-522 if that was still in effect because it has a pistol grip and a 22 round mag. And god help us if there was a collapsible stock on it!!!!

[Shake n Blake]

Originally Posted by ICKYSHUFFLE

You are limiting you view on this to that you would only ever be confronted INSIDE your home and would not ever need to stop a threat outside of your house maybe at a reasonable distance.
And you say that people don't need "assault" rifles and that a .22 should be enough.
From this I take it that you aren't very familiar with the 97 assault weapons ban that sunsetted going on 5 years ago.
Under their definition of an 'assault" rifle, a .22 could be considered banned.
Their definition of it was a gun with a adjustable stock, threaded barrel, flash suppressor/hider, bayonet and/or lug, pistol grips, or high cap mags.
I couldn't have bought my .22 cal GSG-522 if that was still in effect because it has a pistol grip and a 22 round mag. And god help us if there was a collapsible stock on it!!!!

I was talking about little .22 pistols.

As for assault rifles, can you name a common scenario where you would need to shoot someone from 25+ yards away to defend yourself? If you have time to fish an assault rifle out of your truck, you probably have time to get away from your attacker. I see no need for an semi auto assault rifle, period.

Btw, I don't see why you would need 22 round clips for personal defense unless you're a terrible shot or you think you're going to be attacked by a motorcycle gang.

[Bengalzona]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

I never said I wanted to kill someone. I said if someone tries to harm my family I'd do anything in my power to make sure it never happens again. Two totally different things.

Here's the conversation:

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

Disagree with this. But...

If someone broke into your home to harm you snd your family, I bet you'd wish you had something reliable to indeed kill the person.

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

So, rather than stopping someone who has broken into your home or incapacitating them, you would rather kill them?

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

I'm not going to play patty cake with them. If someone breaks into my house and tries to harm my family what do you think?

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

I think that if that situation ever happens and goes down that way, you'll probably be headed off to jail for having declared your intent was to kill someone and not just to stop them.

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

Isn't one of the provisions of the castle doctrine that if a person believes there is an immediate threat to their life or serious harm to themselves or another that they have the right to use force including deadly force?

You can't just start blasting people without these things taking place, but if your life is in danger or another's the law is set up for this. Are you saying that isn't true?

I'm saying that if you say you are going to kill someone if they break into your house and then do so when someone tries, you'll have legal obligations. The operative word here is kill. If you say that you will shoot someone if they try and enter your home and then do so, it is a different story. It is called intent. When you throw the "kill" word around loosely, it is an issue.

[pennsyltuckian]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

I'm saying that if you say you are going to kill someone if they break into your house and then do so when someone tries, you'll have legal obligations. The operative word here is kill. If you say that you will shoot someone if they try and enter your home and then do so, it is a different story. It is called intent. When you throw the "kill" word around loosely, it is an issue.

You obviously don't know the castle law. It all depends on the state the individual is in. Regardless of his statements, if he is in a state were deadly force is allowed inside of his own home, he has legal right to kill an intruder intentionally. I know someone in AZ and from what they tell me you are right in your state, just not all states. Even outside of his home, the laws vary by state.

[Bengalzona]

Originally Posted by pennsyltuckian

You obviously don't know the castle law. It all depends on the state the individual is in. Regardless of his statements, if he is in a state were deadly force is allowed inside of his own home, he has legal right to kill an intruder intentionally. I know someone in AZ and from what they tell me you are right in your state, just not all states. Even outside of his home, the laws vary by state.

Ah. I see. Thanks for the info. They didn't have that in OH when I lived there.

I still have a problem with people throwing the kill word around... particularly when the profess to be Christian.

[THEBURG]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

Disagree with this. But...

If someone broke into your home to harm you snd your family, I bet you'd wish you had something reliable to indeed kill the person.

There is more innocent people killed with hand guns, then there is home intruders, the second amendment needs to be amended.

[Samhain]

I'm not big on gun control. The idea of a few people crapping the bed forcing the rest of the nation to wear diapers has never sat well with me. I'm not into guns. I don't own one. I don't intend to. It also seems like a bad idea to me to have a government sponsored gun seizure. The results of that kind of action would be really ugly. In reality, I really doubt that it's possible to control guns in any way beyond limiting their sale to the public. Even in that case, you're still dealing with tons of existing guns out there.

The other side, for me, is people who seem to think MORE guns is the answer. That's a totally ignorant stance in my view. We are not an overly civil society anymore. People in this country lose their cool at the drop of a hat. Live and let live is not exactly our mantra. It's more about winning and feeding the already overinflated egos of countless sad losers who seem to think they are owed something by everyone.

To make it worse, I fear the situation will only deteriorate in time. Kids aren't raised (not as much anyway) to be courteous. They get trophies for last place. They spend their days on the Xbox participating in simulated slaughter and talking crap to strangers online.

I DO NOT want more guns. Too many hotheads, too many bad drivers, too much stored up anger. Absolute last thing this country needs. Way too thin skinned.

[J24]

Originally Posted by Shake n Blake

I was talking about little .22 pistols.

As for assault rifles, can you name a common scenario where you would need to shoot someone from 25+ yards away to defend yourself? If you have time to fish an assault rifle out of your truck, you probably have time to get away from your attacker. I see no need for an semi auto assault rifle, period.

Btw, I don't see why you would need 22 round clips for personal defense unless you're a terrible shot or you think you're going to be attacked by a motorcycle gang.

Riot scerinos, natraul disasters, and any other scernio that creates big mobs.

[Sher Khan]

Amending the Constitution is a slippery slope. It exists today, only because it hasn't been constantly rewritten by every half witted politician who came along in the past.

[Shake n Blake]

Originally Posted by J24

Riot scerinos, natraul disasters, and any other scernio that creates big mobs.

I said to name a common scenario. I've only seen one riot in Cincinnati (over the Timothy Thomas shooting) and all they did was loot stores downtown. Now if you plan on going to deveroe's during a once-every-hundred-years riot, I suppose you might need a good firearm. I think most rational people would just stay at home that day.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Shake n Blake

I would also be ok with a ban on large caliber hand guns. No one needs a Clint Eastwood type handgun for personal defense. A .22 should be more than enough.

My father hunts with a .44 magnum revolver. He has a stint that runs through his shoulder, so he can't fire a long gun. But he can't take deer down with a .22. There is a purpose for large caliber hand guns.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by ICKYSHUFFLE

So your saying that since rope could be used for strangling, a knife for stabbing, a car for drunk driving deaths/mowing people down, machetes for hacking people, baseball bats for clubbing people, boots for stomping people, e.t.c., e.t.c., e.t.c. All these items and countless others have been used to kill people so let's ban those too?
It's illegal to speed so lets ban cars. It's illegal to drink and drive and leads to WAY MORE deaths a year than guns yet you don't ever hear a thing about banning alcohol.

Here's where this fails. None of those things are designed to kill human beings. They can be used to do so, yes, but that is not their intended purpose. There are firearms out there that are designed as tools for nothing more than to kill people. So, ifi using them as they are intended in their design, you are committing an illegal act. Everything you mentioned, if used as intended, does not result in an illegal act.

[Helldog]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

Here's where this fails. None of those things are designed to kill human beings. They can be used to do so, yes, but that is not their intended purpose. There are firearms out there that are designed as tools for nothing more than to kill people. So, ifi using them as they are intended in their design, you are committing an illegal act. Everything you mentioned, if used as intended, does not result in an illegal act.

And guns aren't ?

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Whodey23

And guns aren't ?

There are firearms designed for the purpose of killing humans. If used as intended, that is what they do, which is an illegal act for a civilian. Which is what I stated in my post. Nice of you to ignore that.

[Robbie Sharp]

The REAL problem here, imo; is with the increased security in school and other public places, how does one deranged idiot carry a virtual arsenal into the school without him being detected? When I went to school, many people had a deer rifle in the old gun rack; yet with NO security whatsoever, it would have been near impossible to just walk into the school packing a rifle without somebody noticing. Gun control is the easiest scapegoat people can find, but it's neither the problem nor the solution to this particular tragedy. The real problem here started in the home. Kids don't respect life, liberty , or property today, and it all started when somebody decided busting a kid's arse was cruel and unusual punishment, and damaged their little psyches. What that did was plant the seed of no fear and respect of anyone or anything and it inevitably grows into a sense of invincibility which too often ends up badly for everyone as evidenced here. The country wages a war on drugs, yet decides the solution to every "bad' child is to give them drugs at an early age rather than make them mind? There's your problem,imo.

[Helldog]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

There are firearms designed for the purpose of killing humans. If used as intended, that is what they do, which is an illegal act for a civilian. Which is what I stated in my post. Nice of you to ignore that.

If firearms are use as intended, it's not an illegal act at all.

They're not intented to buy and go kill people illegally.