CMH and checking a gun

[HAOLE]

Let me make myself a touch clearer: incidents are going to keep happening, the world is crazy place, no doubt about it. The majority of the mass murders listed could have been prevented without any blood shed, just more paperwork.

Knives, baseball bat, poison, cars, bombs and a million other things would be used if they did not have a gun. A person that is going to kill will find away to do it no matter if they have a gun or not

Why respond to a problem with an answer, why not a solution? I'm not ruling out CCW, just trying to convey my opinion that it's an answer, and there may be better solution(s)

More paperwork has never solved a thing.

[Nate1647545505]

There's nothing profound or different to what you've said. People aren't neanderthals. The general understanding is that issues like this can become complex and have a huge impact on everyone's lives. We all know there is a "big picture". There's no simple solution and never will be for as long as humanity exists and cultures differ.

 

Then why have such a negative attitude?

[Nate1647545505]

Knives, baseball bat, poison, cars, bombs and a million other things would be used if they did not have a gun. A person that is going to kill will find away to do it no matter if they have a gun or not

 

More paperwork has never solved a thing.

 

What were the sources of the weapons used in the Columbine, U of Ten, Mall shootings? Wasn't anything class II or class III - what makes them unobtainable -- what can be applied in the same fashion.

[TheHaze]

Then why have such a negative attitude?

Is this really coming from the person who thinks Arabs are terrorists for simply, looking Arab?

 

I'm not negative. You've read text on a digital screen that does not convey human emotion or energy, so how did you establish that? I didn't even cuss this time.

 

It's rather a good thing that not everyone thinks the same or we'd be stuck in a cycle of liberalism.

 

(I used lots of smilies this time so it doesn't seem negative...)

[TheHaze]

I'm not quite sure what you're even arguing. It seems as if you've acknowledged owning firearms but disagree with some other aspect?

Just in case you missed this, because I still haven't even the foggiest idea where exactly you stand.

[Nate1647545505]

I own firearms, both a pistol and a few precision rifles. I'm active in civilian marksmanship and tactical training. I study ballistics and gunsmithing - all in the name of science to figure out what exactly makes an accurate firearm.

 

I punch paper, my food is store bought, I don't find any recreation in killing a defenseless animal in the name of "sport".

 

I keep the pistol loaded, at home, but don't carry it into the public domain.

 

I see CCW in the public domain as an answer, possibly apart of a solution, which consists of better involving gun owners, extensive background checks, etc. I don't mind jumping through hoops, nor do I mind paying more if it comes down to not having the funding to support such things.

 

I don't support banning of anything, but I don't support exclusive access.

[RangerTurbo]

Nate, I still love you man, but please indulge me here for a couple thoughts.

 

 

More paperwork.

 

Please explain how more paper work will stop or slow down crime involving guns? Criminals, by definition don't follow laws. They will still illegally obtain guns to commit crimes with.

 

I also know of a 'few' full auto rifles that weren't bought. It's actually quite simple to obtain them, if you can channel the right sources. Do I own them? Fuck no, I'm not that stupid.

 

 

 

ClassIII weapons and crime.

You are correlating cutting crime with cutting production of regular long guns and hand guns because that "seemed" to have worked for ClassIII weapons.

 

Here's the thing though. Cutting or eliminating the production of ClassIII or even modern day "assualt" weapons will do nothing. Before the 1994 AWB, I can't recall any time where "assault" weapons were used to commit mass crime/murders. During the AWB, crime didn't go down because of the ban, crime nationally was on a downward trend already. After the AWB sunset, crime didn't sky rocket, in fact, it stayed steady and dipped a couple times still.

 

The only high profile crime to use Assault weapons AFAIK was the L.A. Bank shoot out, where the only two deaths, were those of the bank robbers. Which these weapons were acquired during the AWB, ironic really.

 

Now I ask, since stats, facts, and history show those type of guns to not be the problem, then why is some access limited or virtually impossible for the people without "money"?

 

All the high profile crimes in the past 10 years have been done with easily obtainable hand guns, rifles, and shot guns.

 

This is where that "more paperwork" gets us. Im not saying you are advocating the banning of any weapon. However, your solution hasn't ever, nor will it in the future, solve anything. And the main reason is, the people who pass this "paperwork" usually don't know what the hell they are talking about anyhow.

 

I've NEVER seen a civilian use a .50 BMG to take down an airplane. Or tanker cars, or gas stations.

 

I could go on and on, but the simple fact is, it's not so simple to impose what you suggest.

 

Criminals will always obtain what is illegal. That's their definition in society.

[Nate1647545505]

I think anyone who has been around the gun community understands and is embarrassed that such an out of touch ban could be put into play. If you think I'm suggesting melting down some of my favorite guns, rest assured, I'm not.

 

Regarding the LA Bank shooting, unless your carry comes in a caliber that can pierce makeshift Kevlar and homemade SAPI plates - you'll be nothing more to the situation then another chalk outline. Men this crazy, deserve someone well trained on a long barrel.

 

The interesting thing about the men involved, they were caught speeding with a bunch of well, questionable items in the car prior. Not even 100 days in jail, everything returned to them afterwords -- doesn't that make you think?

 

I'm not saying I'm cutting the ribbon that's going to end all criminal activity in the world, but I think there's a collection of things that can be done to help prevent and reduce the chances of civilians having to weigh the stigma of discharging their sidearm.

 

I have some hope, since we aren't walking around town in full kevlar, M4s, etc that although the system isn't 100% perfect, it can further be refined.

[RangerTurbo]

I think anyone who has been around the gun community understands and is embarrassed that such an out of touch ban could be put into play. If you think I'm suggesting melting down some of my favorite guns, rest assured, I'm not.[/b]Understand you there completely[/b]

 

Regarding the LA Bank shooting, unless your carry comes in a caliber that can pierce makeshift Kevlar and homemade SAPI plates - you'll be nothing more to the situation then another chalk outline. Men this crazy, deserve someone well trained on a long barrel.I see where your view is now. I also agree. But, civilian calibers exhist, albeit a strange caliber/gun to carry, are legal to do so. It's just that normal carry of such rifle/guns have and would bring unwanted, unwarranted suspect and harassment from the 'greater power'. It ends up being a double edge sword. A simple .308 could have taken either of them down in seconds. HOWEVER, the AWB kept the law enforcement, and every citizen from owning such usual weapons (in CA anyhow) capable of such power. Hell, a .50BMG would have ended their terror in seconds. Too bad such weapons weren't accessible except for in limited availability and variety for CA (which still exists due to their draconian law).

 

The interesting thing about the men involved, they were caught speeding with a bunch of well, questionable items in the car prior. Not even 100 days in jail, everything returned to them afterwords -- doesn't that make you think?And this could have very well been part of the 'new' laws and restrictions that have been imposed. If this is what you meant by 'more paperwork' then I see your point. But, what if this all happened before they were pulled over? No paperwork would have helped. We are just lucky (maybe unlucky) enough to see that hind sight really is 20/20, and that there truly WAS something that could have prevented what happened. Again, hindsight is 20/20.

 

I'm not saying I'm cutting the ribbon that's going to end all criminal activity in the world, but I think there's a collection of things that can be done to help prevent and reduce the chances of civilians having to weigh the stigma of discharging their sidearm. I don't see anything that can be imposed that doesn't further 'infringe' upon what we as citizens are not freely supposed to be 'infringed' upon in the first place. The reality is, no matter what the situation, there is always going to be the bad with the good. The consequence is, without the Leftist media, the whole "guns used in crimes" issue really wouldn't be anymore of an issue than everything else that gets swepped under the rug, just to fall-in behind the whole 'gun issue'.

 

If these new "paper work" laws/ordinances are setup to keep the criminals from obtaining weapons. We'll fall back on the reality that:

The law abiding will be hindered illegally.

The criminals will obtain whatever is focused on, illegallly.

 

I have some hope, since we aren't walking around town in full kevlar, M4s, etc that although the system isn't 100% perfect, it can further be refined.

The thing is. When the AWB sunset, all the leftist liberals predicted that the entire country in fact would be "walking around town in full kevlar, M4s, with children dying mercilessly and blood running down the streets". It hasn't happened. All that is a bunch of weak mind settled officials pushing their views upon the weak to adhere to their agenda. If all 20,000 gun laws were lifted, I I'd predict that nothing would change. As statistics have proven that some of the most important over turned bans and laws have NOT led to what the imposers believed WOULD happen.

 

 

 

2 characters

[Scotty2Hotty]

I don't think I ever want to comment on that cluster fuck being the "Hollywood shootout." That was an absolute joke that sent Law Enforcement agencies scrambling all over to make sure their officers aren't "outgunned." I don't know if I had ever laughed so hard, or been quite dumb founded when I saw what police departments were trying to do. They realized that they weren't adequetly arming their police officers with enough "weapon" to neutralize such a possible and quite powerful adversary. Not sure if that gave me any extra faith into the law enforcement community by watching and hearing that whole event. At the same time it was in California, where I believe it maybe illegal to let out a fart if you don't pass a SMOG check. I've watched a few of the shootout "shows" and when they analyzed everything from the shootout. It was down right funny, but again made a quite large police force look like a bunch of un-trained, citizens block patrol.

 

I wouldn't say limiting a certain "genre" of weapon should or would be the answer. I agree with the extra paper work, and background checks (Hell I wait for atleast 3 days everytime I buy firearms due to my military background, FBI has to give the OK) At the same time, I kinda wish everyone should have to go through the same scrupulous background check I go through everytime I purchase a firearm. A law abiding citizen should have no issues waiting an extra day to pop off rounds with his/her new firearm. This country will always have those nut jobs that, legally bought their firearms, and happened to blow a fuse upstairs, or whatever the case maybe. No amount of laws will protect that, for it's human nature. I see in certain cases the CCW would have deffinately put an end to many tragedies, but again hind sight being 20/20.

 

At the same spectrum, but shifting away from the real point here I guess (I have ADD I think) most real gun crimes are not commited with weapons that we GUN CREW and responsible gun owners tend to buy. If you looked at the most popular weapons that crimes were commited by, the first 5 I believe were all basically a Raven .25ACP/Cobra .25ACP style firearm. Example http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/LAW/11/14/gun.trial/story.gun.jpg

This weapon is something I don't see too many gun enthusiasts buying, for it is like a car nut buying a honda civic wagon to take to a car show. Most firearms being utilized in crimes are not the "assault" style of firearm all the left-wing fruit pies think are evil, but are cheap, small caliber, "throw-away" style weapons. The weapons of choice are always quite cheap, plentiful, and easy to obtain. I believe the Mossberg 500 shotgun is in the same boat as all the .25ACP pistols aswell. Again, you won't see most going out and obtaining a Class III license and pay even more for such weapons.

 

True, that there are the exceptions, which who may honestly know how many there are. Mother Russia had one hell of a garage sale after her iron curtain fell some 18 years ago. There's plenty out there with working knowledge of firearms, inner workings, and the equipment to do such work in making a weapon fully automatic. Granted, these would be those rare and very few cases, but the semi-auto civilian sector legal weapons would and will get tossed into that salad of suck. The Hollywood thing was a rare case, and if not for that case, I don't think most law enforcement agencies could've even dreamed of that kind of possible scenario.

 

I know that most citizens don't need a 30 mag capable, adjustable stock, multiple round firing rifle, but it is nice to have just in case. That whole Katrina cluster, after hearing stories of that, shocked me. That in America, people honestly would be that savage and 3rd world country like to loot, kill, and do such acts. I think anyone of those citizens would have loved to have an AR15 or one of Kalashnikov's peasant rifles to take on an overwhealming number of looters. Hell I know I would.

 

 

I got off track again...........................

 

 

Yeah, more background check, and waiting period.

 

 

And............................

 

 

 

Remember SPORTS, Slap Pull Observe Release Tap Squeeze.

[Tractor]

In the past few months I've had 2 guys in cars draw fire arms on me while driving down I-71. I'm kinda hoping that that sort of thing stops soon or I'm gonna spin the next guy out and keep on driving. Both times it was the hot head zig zagging up through traffic really fast during the day. The one I watched coming for a few minutes while he caught up and I got in the way (not in a dangerous manner he just wanted in my spot and swerved at me and I stood my ground) next thing I know he's waiving a pistol around.

The other one they guy was pointing a damn pistol at me because he almost hit me after he tried to cut across 2 lanes in front of a semi. I hope these guys robbed banks or something because if people are seriously driving around with guns and waving them at people that sucks.

 

Evan

[Tractor]

For those who carry what are you gonna do about criminals who want to rob you and the rest of the family when we get to the point that enough people carry that criminals will also carry as a norm?

 

If I wanted to rob someone in a place where most people I run into would be carrying weapons I think I'd just shoot first then steal their stuff. I'm not giving you a chance to draw your weapon I"m just blasting the lot of you and counting my booty.

 

The reason I ask is that by honest people carrying weapons it kind of starts to make criminals more dangerous for those of us who see no need to carry any.

Of course the same problem arises out of a total gun ban as well which would be completely pointless.

 

Evan

[RangerTurbo]

If I wanted to rob someone in a place where most people I run into would be carrying weapons I think I'd just shoot first then steal their stuff. I'm not giving you a chance to draw your weapon I"m just blasting the lot of you and counting my booty.

This is all assuming that if everyone in the room, or even half of them, were armed, that no one would pull their gun and fire back before you could take out more than one or two people. You're not going to one-shot-one-kill every person in there before someone else pops you.

 

 

The reason I ask is that by honest people carrying weapons it kind of starts to make criminals more dangerous for those of us who see no need to carry any.

You see what you did there, right?

If you see no need to carry, why are you so worried about if the criminals carry? You see no need, right?

Besides, if Honest people CC'd, and it was known that a vast majority did. How's this make the bad guy more dangrous to you? If the guy is going to try to pop 1 person, regardless if they are armed or not, then it's not the criminal that gets more dangerous for you, but you that make the situation more dangerous because you "felt no need" to carry.

[Tractor]

well if I was in a room full of people with weapons I don't think I'd draw and attempt to rob one guy. I think I'd just wait somewhere alone and get the small easy target. Not to many robbers attempt to rob and are betting they will fail.

 

Evan

[Scotty2Hotty]

well if I was in a room full of people with weapons I don't think I'd draw and attempt to rob one guy. I think I'd just wait somewhere alone and get the small easy target. Not to many robbers attempt to rob and are betting they will fail.

 

Evan

Highly doubt your average high school drop out theif, will take any threats, consequences or anything into consideration. If that were the case, there would be far less crime. I highly doubt most criminals even know that one can legally carry in the state of Ohio.