Senate to vote on NATIONAL Right-To-Carry Reciprocity, Call Your Senator!

**DSM4Life** · 07-23-2009, 08:22 PM

I can't get rights to protect my future childrens well being or my spouse but you want me to call my senator to argue about being able to carry guns ? Umm yeah i think ill go masturbate instead.

Looks like "our" problems do effect you.

**eatrainrest** · 07-23-2009, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by TITANIUM

All he is trying to say, is reciprocity will make it safer for the law abiding sector.It will also make it easier for law enforcement to deal with not knowing the laws of other states.OK, here is a example, your drivers license is good in all U.S. states.That is reciprocity in itself.

in a perfect world this would be acceptable.. too bad too much scum to give a liberal right to carry.. even if you abide by that states legislation

**thegodfather** · 07-23-2009, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by eatrainrest

in a perfect world this would be acceptable.. too bad too much scum to give a liberal right to carry.. even if you abide by that states legislation

It is because the world is imperfect, and full of people who might want to do us harm, that LAW ABIDING CITIZENS should have their right to defend themselves no matter where they are within the United States.

VPChill, try to use an analogous situation to what you are saying. Say that 10 black people rob convenience stores. Should I conclude from that black people are too irresponsible to go into convenience stores because they might rob them, so now I will ban all black people from convenience stores? Of course not, that is an absurd argument. It is just as absurd to say that because of a few THOUSAND people who do irresponsible, criminal, and wreckless things, that we should penalize the MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of law abiding responsible gun owners in the United States.

You take a driving test because driving is a PRIVILEGE and NOT A RIGHT. Owning a firearm is a RIGHT, that is why the government should not require training to own firearms.

**kickinit** · 07-23-2009, 10:49 PM

It would be nice for this one to go threw.

**eatrainrest** · 07-23-2009, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

It is because the world is imperfect, and full of people who might want to do us harm, that LAW ABIDING CITIZENS should have their right to defend themselves no matter where they are within the United States.

VPChill, try to use an analogous situation to what you are saying. Say that 10 black people rob convenience stores. Should I conclude from that black people are too irresponsible to go into convenience stores because they might rob them, so now I will ban all black people from convenience stores? Of course not, that is an absurd argument. It is just as absurd to say that because of a few THOUSAND people who do irresponsible, criminal, and wreckless things, that we should penalize the MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of law abiding responsible gun owners in the United States.

You take a driving test because driving is a PRIVILEGE and NOT A RIGHT. Owning a firearm is a RIGHT, that is why the government should not require training to own firearms.

VPchills argument doesnt hold any ground here.. that example cites something obvious in which you can SEE.. which is race in this particular example. NONETHELSS, you cannot point out good vs. bad guy because race nor gender, etc play a factor in it. SO, what im trying to say is yea in a perfect world why not? those "responsible" people are still civilians and are not trained LAW ENFORCEMENT officials (which should be the ones to only carry off duty IMO). think about the accessibility of weapons you are allowing on the streets. "good guy" gets into an argument with a "bad guy" whom then pulls a gun out and shoots them. Who is to justify the shooting? this is ridiculous allowing citizens to carry a weapon. maybe we come from different parts of the country but i can tell you there is a growing gun issue around here and it is way to accessible.

**eatrainrest** · 07-23-2009, 11:19 PM

and a car's primary use is for transportation. point A-B. A gun's primary is to kill. YES, they both require responsiblity but two totally different extreme comparisons.

**MuscleScience** · 07-23-2009, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by eatrainrest

VPchills argument doesnt hold any ground here.. that example cites something obvious in which you can SEE.. which is race in this particular example. NONETHELSS, you cannot point out good vs. bad guy because race nor gender, etc play a factor in it. SO, what im trying to say is yea in a perfect world why not? those "responsible" people are still civilians and are not trained LAW ENFORCEMENT officials (which should be the ones to only carry off duty IMO). think about the accessibility of weapons you are allowing on the streets. "good guy" gets into an argument with a "bad guy" whom then pulls a gun out and shoots them. Who is to justify the shooting? this is ridiculous allowing citizens to carry a weapon. maybe we come from different parts of the country but i can tell you there is a growing gun issue around here and it is way to accessible.

Your assuming that guns are responsible for peoples actions. When in fact every crime a person commits should be based on the person solely, not the means they used to commit a crime. Just because as few bad apples go rotten those few should not be allowed to spoil the whole bunch. If a person commits a crime and uses a white van, that doesnt mean a law should be passed to outlaw all white vans because they are a Pedowagons. Rather the person who commits the crime should be punished for his actions, not his actions causing the punishment of others with white vans.

**eatrainrest** · 07-23-2009, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by MuscleScience

Your assuming that guns are responsible for peoples actions. When in fact every crime a person commits should be based on the person solely, not the means they used to commit a crime. Just because as few bad apples go rotten those few should not be allowed to spoil the whole bunch. If a person commits a crime and uses a white van, that doesnt mean a law should be passed to outlaw all white vans because they are a Pedowagons. Rather the person who commits the crime should be punished for his actions, not his actions causing the punishment of others with white vans.

"When in fact every crime a person commits should be based on the person solely, not the means they used to commit a crime."

I COULDNT agree more to that statement.. but who is to measure which apples are chich. good vs. who is rotten apples? Just because somebody passes a background check doesnt automatically make them a "good guy". fact is there will be people who will have access to these guns that shouldnt and will abuse it. alcohol related incidents will occur, road rage, you name it, and it will happen. also arent you from the midwest? take your life tempo and multiply that by 10 and thats how life is over here! lol... i just had to throw my .02 because hell, its been a while since i debated over some stupid shit.

**eatrainrest** · 07-23-2009, 11:32 PM

people are subjective individuals.. you just never know what bastards we could be

**MuscleScience** · 07-23-2009, 11:56 PM

Originally Posted by eatrainrest

"When in fact every crime a person commits should be based on the person solely, not the means they used to commit a crime."

I COULDNT agree more to that statement.. but who is to measure which apples are chich. good vs. who is rotten apples? Just because somebody passes a background check doesnt automatically make them a "good guy". fact is there will be people who will have access to these guns that shouldnt and will abuse it. alcohol related incidents will occur, road rage, you name it, and it will happen. also arent you from the midwest? take your life tempo and multiply that by 10 and thats how life is over here! lol... i just had to throw my .02 because hell, its been a while since i debated over some stupid shit.

Yeah I am a simple country boy that moved to the Big City that lives in an area that per capita is in the top five for violent crime. I feel like killing someone almost daily either with my bare hands or a gun or club or whatever my weapon of choice is but I dont. I have my CC license and never once have I had to pull it or have I got pissed in traffic and pulled it out on someone. I have had situations where having my CC made me feel a lot safer. The thing that seems to be forgotten in all this is that by definition a criminal is "a person guilty of a crime." That is to say if you outlawed guns to reduce the criminal element you in-fact took the otherwise law abiding citizen and forced them to make a choice as to either abide by the law or became a criminal themselves if they feel the need to protect themselves against other criminals. You can legally take the guns out of every law abiding citizens hands and all you are left with are the people who have guns that are either forced criminals by the law or are criminals otherwise. What does a criminal care about getting caught with a gun if he is in-fact already living outside of the law. It makes his job of being a criminal that much easier if he knows he is likely the only one that has a gun.

What I am trying to say is you cant take the gun out of a criminals hands by the law. You can only take the guns out of law abiding citizens hands. I sure as shit am not going to be unarmed and follow the law if it means that the criminal next to me has a gun that he purchased via the black market and I am left to defend my family, property or my own life with my bare hands. I am a fairly tough guy but I cant stop bullets....

**thegodfather** · 07-24-2009, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by eatrainrest

"When in fact every crime a person commits should be based on the person solely, not the means they used to commit a crime."

I COULDNT agree more to that statement.. but who is to measure which apples are chich. good vs. who is rotten apples? Just because somebody passes a background check doesnt automatically make them a "good guy". fact is there will be people who will have access to these guns that shouldnt and will abuse it. alcohol related incidents will occur, road rage, you name it, and it will happen. also arent you from the midwest? take your life tempo and multiply that by 10 and thats how life is over here! lol... i just had to throw my .02 because hell, its been a while since i debated over some stupid shit.

As I stated previously, you are working off of hypothetical and anecdotal situations. When the FACTS and STATISTICS prove your argument to be fallacious and unsubstantiated. 1.5million people in Florida have a license to CCW, and they have only revoked 169 of those permits because those people committed crimes. That is an astoundingly LOW number, less than 1%. Florida instituted its Shall Issue CCW in 1986, and there were arguments that it would turn into the "Wild Wild West" and that people would be shooting each other over simple arguments. Additionally, people have argued that "everyone will be carrying around a gun," when in fact in the 38 states which have "Shall Issue" CCW permits, the statistics show that only about 1-2% of the population choose to obtain a CCW permit, meaning that the majority of the people in those states choose NOT to carry, dispelling the argument that "EVERYONE" will be carrying a gun. This has been the argument in every state that has considered and then implemented CCW. And every time it has been proven to be false hype and propaganda by Brady Campaign zealots. In every single state that has implemented Shall Issue CCW, their violent crime rates have DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY from the rates prior to allowing Shall Issue CCW. Additionally, localities with STRICT gun control, for instance Washington D.C., have had staggering violent crime rates, far above the national average.

Police officers should be the only ones to carry firearms off duty? Why is that, are they the anointed and the only people in the country who have the right to defend their lives? The police cannot be everywhere at every moment of the day. It takes SECONDS for someone to kill you, and MINUTES for the Police to respond to a call. A firearm remains the most efficient means to defend ones self from attack. Additionally, it gives the smallest and most frail women and elderly people an equalizer with which to defend themselves from attackers who would otherwise overpower them. That is why the gun is called the great equalizer, it gives anyone the ability to defend their lives regardless of their size and strength.

What happened after England instituted a TOTAL BAN on firearms? 3 years post-ban, violent crime rose 60%, and knife related crimes SOARED!...There is a phenomena in England known as "feral teens," basically teenagers who go around assaulting and terrorizing citizens. What recourse do the citizens in England have against these attackers? They can get on their phones and call the police, if they're lucky.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, as I said previously, estimates that EVERY YEAR guns save between 1.5 - 2 million lives per year, and often without a single shot being fired. Liberals often say that things are "worth it if they save even one life." Well guns certainly pass that litmus test, they save MILLIONS of lives every year. In an "ideal world" guns might not exist at all, but in this world they do, and that means that criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get them, regardless of a total ban on guns or not. Criminals in England can still get guns, the only people who cannot get them are law abiding tax paying citizens. These laws most often have the unintended consequences of hurting the people they were designed to 'protect.'

Look at areas in the country which are labeled "GUN FREE ZONES," such as certain shopping malls and college campus's. Criminals have admitted that they targeted certain areas specifically because they were gun free zones and knew that the people in them would obey the law and not carry a firearm there. An armed citizenry is a deterrent to criminals. Texas has not had an ATM robbery in some years now, and that is because there is a relative likelihood that the citizen they want to rob may put up armed resistance. States with the most strict gun control have violent crime rates above the national average, in these places criminals know that the citizens will obey the laws, while they will not.

I will say this again. The 2nd Amendment is NOT ABOUT hunting and sportsmen. The 2nd Amendment was designed as the citizens last resort against tyranny, and as a means for people to defend themselves. Look at any country throughout history that has been despotic and oppressive, and you will see that prior to them becoming this way they outlawed personal ownership of weapons.

**vpchill** · 07-24-2009, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

I certainly was not trying to insult your intelligence. However, you made several claims which are unsubstantiated by the available data. So, I would appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions as to my own personal experiences, I have been involved with and seen things I would not like any other person to see. However, when arguing a point, I prefer to use facts and statistics which are more or less irrefutable, than to use straw man arguments which have no quantifiable way of being measured.

When you speak from personal experience, we call these things anecdotes. They are more or less useless for the sake of argument, because there is no way to eliminate the many confounding variables which could be effecting your opinion. Statistics are more relevant when discussing national problems, because they account for regional differences.

You want an original statement from me? I concealed&carried on a daily basis when I was in college. Having that tool at my disposable should something threaten my life made me feel much safer. In fact, I almost had to draw my weapon on a person who I thought was going to attempt to rob me. So I am quite apprehensive when bleeding heart liberals want to make ME less safe, or make my FAMILY less safe, and limit MY right to defend myself and my family because their misguided opinions and fear mongering scare people into thinking an INANIMATE OBJECT like a gun is responsible for all the evil in the world.

What do these laws do? They DO NOT stop criminals from carrying guns across state lines concealed on their persons, that is why they are by definition a CRIMINAL. ALL that legislation does is prevent LAW ABIDING CITIZENS from being able to protect themselves from the criminals who break the laws. It penalizes the good guys, and rewards the bad guys. Concluding that we need more gun control is so illogical that it boggles my mind how anyone can hold this belief. Especially when the NUMBERS, which you seem unconcerned with, indicate DRASTIC decreases in violent crime in states that have instituted CONCEAL AND CARRY.

Ok, Mark this down. For the 1st time I will agree with you.
yet this is my opinion so for you to shoot that down, how can I respect yours?
Now, I totally agree none of this stops the criminal element. Yet, I can deal with the fact of criminals having illegal guns (?? Allow me to explain)
I know that if John and his Homies are strapped, 9 times out of 10 they cant shoot and will only fire if threatened by local enemies or the like.
Yet if Mike smith is carrying legally and has NO training and gets scared or overreacts this can lead to irreversible damage.
I can anticipate what the criminal will do, I cannot anticipate what a legal gun owner with no gun training will do when confronted with a harsh situation.
Thats why I feel there should be more training involved for people to carry legally. The criminal (Most times) is carrying his weapon on a day by need basis given those particular circumstances.
Once again, this is my opinion.
I own NO guns. I have yet to fear another human being. Now at one point I owned many, due to my lifestyle and my surroundings. I feel more shouldbe focused on proper qualifications and training. Even cops have to train to use their weapon, why not Mike Smith the average cictizen?

**Matt** · 07-24-2009, 06:39 AM

You guy's in the US are so so lucky, its your right to carry arms dont ever let them take that away from you...

**Matt** · 07-24-2009, 06:44 AM

However i do agree with vp, in Britain the police carry guns and over the years have killed innocent people, they are highly trained. So if they can make mistakes then what chance do people have who havnt recieved any training...

**vpchill** · 07-24-2009, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by MAD MATT

However i do agree with vp, in Britain the police carry guns and over the years have killed innocent people, they are highly trained. So if they can make mistakes then what chance do people have who havnt recieved any training...

This is all Im saying.. I was a criminal and I even took time to get trained on how to properly handle a gun.

In a perfect world, I feel the guns should be taken OUT of the criminals hands and Those who are qualified and trained should be allowed to carry legally.

**paulzane** · 07-24-2009, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by vpchill

This is all Im saying.. I was a criminal and I even took time to get trained on how to properly handle a gun.

In a perfect world, I feel the guns should be taken OUT of the criminals hands and Those who are qualified and trained should be allowed to carry legally.

MADMATT is a crim as well and will be in Strangeways soon for his free Xmas dinner

**Matt** · 07-24-2009, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by paulzane

MADMATT is a crim as well and will be in Strangeways soon for his free Xmas dinner

Xmas dinner in jail is the best lol, i cant wait

**paulzane** · 07-24-2009, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by MAD MATT

Xmas dinner in jail is the best lol, i cant wait

Let's hope you are a free man!!

**PistolPete33** · 07-24-2009, 08:03 AM

It really sucks that this bill didn't go thru. It's total B.S. and we are protected by the 2nd Ammendment yet somehow the states got involved and it's now only a right in your own state. If you are a queer and get married in a state that allows gay marriage and you move to a state that doesn't allow it they honor your married status. Marriage is NOT mentioned ANYWHERE in the Constitution yet it is accepted nation-wide.

If you get a drivers license in your home state you can drive anywhere in the U.S. without issue. More people die from auto accidents every year than firearms related deaths. Even more drunk driving deaths than firearms deaths a year. So, why not ban cars and fewer people will die?

I hate this liberal government!!!

**eatrainrest** · 07-24-2009, 08:07 AM

letss just all have duel and see who wins

**vpchill** · 07-24-2009, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by eatrainrest

letss just all have duel and see who wins

That wouldnt be fair, Id win.

**Iron_Pig** · 07-24-2009, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by vpchill

That wouldnt be fair, Id win.

No drive by's VP

**vpchill** · 07-24-2009, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by Iron_Pig

No drive by's VP

lmaoooo. Thats not fare.

**MuscleScience** · 07-24-2009, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by vpchill

Ok, Mark this down. For the 1st time I will agree with you.
yet this is my opinion so for you to shoot that down, how can I respect yours?
Now, I totally agree none of this stops the criminal element. Yet, I can deal with the fact of criminals having illegal guns (?? Allow me to explain)
I know that if John and his Homies are strapped, 9 times out of 10 they cant shoot and will only fire if threatened by local enemies or the like.
Yet if Mike smith is carrying legally and has NO training and gets scared or overreacts this can lead to irreversible damage.
I can anticipate what the criminal will do, I cannot anticipate what a legal gun owner with no gun training will do when confronted with a harsh situation.
Thats why I feel there should be more training involved for people to carry legally. The criminal (Most times) is carrying his weapon on a day by need basis given those particular circumstances.
Once again, this is my opinion.
I own NO guns. I have yet to fear another human being. Now at one point I owned many, due to my lifestyle and my surroundings. I feel more shouldbe focused on proper qualifications and training. Even cops have to train to use their weapon, why not Mike Smith the average cictizen?

I respectfully disagree, I still dont want to get shot at by someone regardless if they are a marksmen or not. I dont want that one magic bullet hitting me or the stray bullet hitting a bystander. I had to go through a fairly rigorous training process to obtain my CCW. Granted it could always be more, but I had to first have a hunters safety course, which was very rigorous. My state is not even that strict relative to others as far as training goes. And the fact that most CCW holders are life long users of guns anyway and gun hobbiest who know how to properly use a firearm and what situations to use them in is better than any training one could ever receive from the state.

**Flagg** · 07-24-2009, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

I certainly was not trying to insult your intelligence. However, you made several claims which are unsubstantiated by the available data. So, I would appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions as to my own personal experiences, I have been involved with and seen things I would not like any other person to see. However, when arguing a point, I prefer to use facts and statistics which are more or less irrefutable, than to use straw man arguments which have no quantifiable way of being measured.

When you speak from personal experience, we call these things anecdotes. They are more or less useless for the sake of argument, because there is no way to eliminate the many confounding variables which could be effecting your opinion. Statistics are more relevant when discussing national problems, because they account for regional differences.

You want an original statement from me? I concealed&carried on a daily basis when I was in college. Having that tool at my disposable should something threaten my life made me feel much safer. In fact, I almost had to draw my weapon on a person who I thought was going to attempt to rob me. So I am quite apprehensive when bleeding heart liberals want to make ME less safe, or make my FAMILY less safe, and limit MY right to defend myself and my family because their misguided opinions and fear mongering scare people into thinking an INANIMATE OBJECT like a gun is responsible for all the evil in the world.

What do these laws do? They DO NOT stop criminals from carrying guns across state lines concealed on their persons, that is why they are by definition a CRIMINAL. ALL that legislation does is prevent LAW ABIDING CITIZENS from being able to protect themselves from the criminals who break the laws. It penalizes the good guys, and rewards the bad guys. Concluding that we need more gun control is so illogical that it boggles my mind how anyone can hold this belief. Especially when the NUMBERS, which you seem unconcerned with, indicate DRASTIC decreases in violent crime in states that have instituted CONCEAL AND CARRY.

Can I just ask what you thought was going to endanger your life when you was at college? I mean, I don't carry any weapons with me at Uni and I never feel like my life is going to be threatened. My Uni has been around since 1862 and no one yet to date has ever been murdered.

**TITANIUM** · 07-24-2009, 09:50 AM

I respect the views and opinions of others.It's been taught in our schools, and even collages, that firearms are bad.There are some of you who understand our constitutional rights.Then there are those of you that are basically scared of them.That is what mainstream media has taught you.Then, there is those of you who hate guns period.And think if we didn't have them, that society would be safer.Example, the police have a right to protect themselves and others, buy civilians don't? There is no argument or opinion that will change the facts and statistics.States that have CCW laws have lower crime rates.It's people that are misusing them that need to be punished.Now, for those of you that don't no the federal law,every time a firearm is bought,anywhere, they go through NICS.The ATF oversees and NICS run a current background checks.Nics is a part of the FBI, actually, that is who they are.I've seen things that no man should see.And anyone else that has served in the military or law enforcement believes in this right.Why?From a overbearing, and tyrannical government.Once they take away constitutional rights, and civil liberties,then we are not a governed nation, but a ruled nation.

**Flagg** · 07-24-2009, 09:56 AM

One other thing. Some of you seem to think that it's your right to own a gun in the event of a revolution or you need to defend yourself from the Government.

Can I just ask, how in todays age, would it even be remotely possible to launch a revolution? So what, a load of civilians have some shotguns and rifles...what is that going to do against the might of the military and all its tech, should the masses decide its time for a revolution? What will your right to bare arms do in the face of being bombed to shit from high altitudes? Prehaps there should be an update in the constitution about having the right to own an F 14 Tomcat?

Im not saying you should have no rights to own guns, but I do think there are some slightly paranoid reasonings behind thinking you need to own a gun, and I agree that prehaps there should be some sort of training required to own a gun.

**TITANIUM** · 07-24-2009, 10:39 AM

www.oathkeepers.org

**Flagg** · 07-24-2009, 10:55 AM

That link is all well and good, but if your Government really wanted to sieze your country with military force, there is not much anyone could do wether they owned a gun or not.

**Mooseman33** · 07-24-2009, 10:59 AM

ever see "red dawn"......

if they could do it, so can we........................lol....

however, if u take the virginia tech shooting for example, the way that went down, if one student had a gun,and was trained and willing to use, there would have been a different outcome.

**TITANIUM** · 07-24-2009, 11:13 AM

Yes, it would of had a very different outcome.

**thegodfather** · 07-24-2009, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Flagg

One other thing. Some of you seem to think that it's your right to own a gun in the event of a revolution or you need to defend yourself from the Government.

Can I just ask, how in todays age, would it even be remotely possible to launch a revolution? So what, a load of civilians have some shotguns and rifles...what is that going to do against the might of the military and all its tech, should the masses decide its time for a revolution? What will your right to bare arms do in the face of being bombed to shit from high altitudes? Prehaps there should be an update in the constitution about having the right to own an F 14 Tomcat?

Im not saying you should have no rights to own guns, but I do think there are some slightly paranoid reasonings behind thinking you need to own a gun, and I agree that prehaps there should be some sort of training required to own a gun.

My university is smack dab in the middle of the worst section in Philadelphia....Several students were shot these past 2 semesters, there were 5 home invasions, and numerous robberies in the streets, walking to class, walking back to your house. A friend of mine had someone killed outside of his dorm room last semester. Bums and derelicts frequently come onto campus to hassle people for change, sometimes if you dont give them any, they pull out a weapon and rob you.

**Flagg** · 07-24-2009, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

My university is smack dab in the middle of the worst section in Philadelphia....Several students were shot these past 2 semesters, there were 5 home invasions, and numerous robberies in the streets, walking to class, walking back to your house. A friend of mine had someone killed outside of his dorm room last semester. Bums and derelicts frequently come onto campus to hassle people for change, sometimes if you dont give them any, they pull out a weapon and rob you.

Well I have to admit, the area im in is relatively quiet. Might be a bit different if I was going to London Imperial or something like that. I think the worst crime we've had on Campus is petty theft, things like bikes stolen, etc.

**MuscleScience** · 07-24-2009, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

My university is smack dab in the middle of the worst section in Philadelphia....Several students were shot these past 2 semesters, there were 5 home invasions, and numerous robberies in the streets, walking to class, walking back to your house. A friend of mine had someone killed outside of his dorm room last semester. Bums and derelicts frequently come onto campus to hassle people for change, sometimes if you dont give them any, they pull out a weapon and rob you.

My Alma Mater is in the absolute worst part of town. Crime was so bad in the mid to late 90's with shootings around campus, kidnapped students, female students frequently being raped, mugging ect. That the University lobbied the city to build a police station on Campus. Eventually a old building was knocked down that was owned by the U and a huge police substation was built. Only problem was that the cops are still so preoccupied with policing the surrounding neigborhoods that you rarely see a cop on campus. The University has now resorted to buying property up in and effort to create a buffer from the community and the University.

**PistolPete33** · 07-24-2009, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by eatrainrest

letss just all have duel and see who wins

My money is on me!!! I'm a Master USPSA shooter so I'm sure my draw etc. will put me on top... HAHA

Pete

**kickinit** · 07-24-2009, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by eatrainrest

VPchills argument doesnt hold any ground here.. that example cites something obvious in which you can SEE.. which is race in this particular example. NONETHELSS, you cannot point out good vs. bad guy because race nor gender, etc play a factor in it. SO, what im trying to say is yea in a perfect world why not? those "responsible" people are still civilians and are not trained LAW ENFORCEMENT officials (which should be the ones to only carry off duty IMO). think about the accessibility of weapons you are allowing on the streets. "good guy" gets into an argument with a "bad guy" whom then pulls a gun out and shoots them. Who is to justify the shooting? this is ridiculous allowing citizens to carry a weapon. maybe we come from different parts of the country but i can tell you there is a growing gun issue around here and it is way to accessible.

AND how many times has your example EVER happened? You pull your weapon any any matter then LIFE threating your AUTOMATICALLY at fault. It's a great responsibility to carry as I do as well. It's not responsible if a criminal comes up to your window of your car or at the bank and blows ur head off with no way to defend yourself.

**kickinit** · 07-24-2009, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by eatrainrest

"When in fact every crime a person commits should be based on the person solely, not the means they used to commit a crime."

I COULDNT agree more to that statement.. but who is to measure which apples are chich. good vs. who is rotten apples? Just because somebody passes a background check doesnt automatically make them a "good guy". fact is there will be people who will have access to these guns that shouldnt and will abuse it. alcohol related incidents will occur, road rage, you name it, and it will happen. also arent you from the midwest? take your life tempo and multiply that by 10 and thats how life is over here! lol... i just had to throw my .02 because hell, its been a while since i debated over some stupid shit.

haha but a criminal can go buy them out the back of a car with no ANYTHING, but no, lets not try and stop that. Lets stop the NON-convicts from protection themselves because in your head you can go home and thing you have made a difference when in fact you have, but not in a GOOD way.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefe...g/blogger.html

**Mooseman33** · 07-24-2009, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by kickinit

AND how many times has your example EVER happened? You pull your weapon any any matter then LIFE threating your AUTOMATICALLY at fault. It's a great responsibility to carry as I do as well. It's not responsible if a criminal comes up to your window of your car or at the bank and blows ur head off with no way to defend yourself.

thats not correct about being at fault if ur life is not threatend.
u can also pull if u are trying to stop a forcible felony(rape, someone else life in threat).
stat, every time a cop shoots, 7 out of 10 miss....and that is a cop who shoots often(or should), imagine the percentage if the person was not trained..where do u think them bullets go.....innocent people...
i am not military, however have taken a bunch of shooting classes involving moving targets, and it is not easy...

**Hunter** · 07-24-2009, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by mooseman33

thats not correct about being at fault if ur life is not threatend.
u can also pull if u are trying to stop a forcible felony(rape, someone else life in threat).
stat, every time a cop shoots, 7 out of 10 miss....and that is a cop who shoots often(or should), imagine the percentage if the person was not trained..where do u think them bullets go.....innocent people...
i am not military, however have taken a bunch of shooting classes involving moving targets, and it is not easy...

Cops always(well almost) fire in bursts or at moving cars. A person who carries a concealed weapon its going to be very close. I have my concealed weapons permit along with a loaded shotgun in the bedroom. Am I paranoid? not at all. I live in the country near a nice small town yet my garage(unattached) was broken into. I have had to draw my firearm once and it changed the scenerio to my favor, even though I didnt have to fire. Firearms are the best way of protecting ones property, family and self.

**PistolPete33** · 07-24-2009, 05:18 PM

As far as cops being "trained" etc it's total B.S. Like I mentioned before I'm a master pistol shooter and I've shoot matches and set up practices all the time. Over the past 10 years I've shot with dozens and dozens of cops and I can honestly say they are typically the most unsafe and lowest quality shooters. Ask any pro shooter and they will agree with this statement. I'm not saying all cops are bad shooters but "MOST" of them see a firearm as a tool and they don't typically practice with it.

As an American we have the right to self defense and if owning/carrying a firearms increases my chances of survival in a self defense situation then how can you be against that? Most firearms are used for self defense. The problem is the media never reports these stories because they NEVER want to show firearms in a positive view.

When you are in a situation you call the police. Why? Because they have guns. So, owning one yourself you avoid the waiting time for them to arrive in which you will prob. already be dead.

A firearm is the great equalizer.

Pete