• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Do you carry a gun, why and what is it?

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Panther505

Senior member
Oct 5, 2000
560
0
0
I was raised around may different firearms. I have carried concealed and still do. I have had to draw a firearm in 4 instances in 8 years of carrying one. All 4 instances were situations in which if I had not been armed the outcome would have been very different. Firearms (concealed or otherwise) are not in themselves evil. They possess no ill intent. The user is who possesss the intent. Education is the key. Teach people about guns so that they don't fear them in ignorance and you begin to cure the problem

Gun laws do nothing to stop those who wish to do harm, they only stop those of us who abide by them.

Skoorb- Looking at this I see that you haven't done any reseach on this lately have you. Last year the English and Aussies gave up close to 1 Million "personal" weapons to their respective gov't. Violent crime in both of these countries have gone up (by %400 in Australia). The authorities cannot understand why- the reason- because the criminal has nothing to fear any more. If the cops can catch them the citizens can't do anything to stop them either.. Remember a man with a gun is a citizen while a man without a gun is a subject.


That is my peace

Back to Lurk mode
 

Ulfwald

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
May 27, 2000
8,646
0
76
Guns are inanimate objects, they are tools. Someone has to be on the trigger to make it do the damage.

The trick is to have strong criminal control, swift sure punishment, and make sure that the public is aware that there are consequenses to wrongful actions.
 

DABANSHEE

Banned
Dec 8, 1999
2,355
0
0
&quot;English and Aussies gave up close to 1 Million &quot;personal&quot; weapons to their respective gov't. Violent crime in both of these countries have gone up (by %400 in Australia)&quot;

You're making things up Panther, I happen to live in Australia &amp; the simple fact is that violent crimes are down in all Australian states &amp; have been going down at a very low per-capita rate for donkies years. Now the NRA may say otherwise but they were the ones who were forced to apologise to the Australian tourist Commission when they threatened to sue the NRA unless they could come out with the facts.

You see we don't have local law enforcement regions in Australia, all our police forces are state based, plus there's only 6 Australian states (&amp; 2 mainland territories) so one just has to log onto the statistics dept of each of those 6 states to see that violent crimes have been relativelly static &amp; actually decreasing at a slow rate on a per-capita basis. Mind you when figures are so low, (there are only about 80 firearm deaths a year in Australia nationwide) it could take just one armed holdup going wrong for there to be a fluctuation of 5%. Now if you were to compare that with any region of the US with 19 million people you'd see that the odds of being a victim of a violent crime in the US are many, many times higher than Australia.

BTW 'personal' weapons have been illegal for Australians for donkeys years. It was Semi-Automatic rifles they mage illegal when they introduced those knee-jerk laws after that recessive went crazy with the Armalite in Tasmania. You really should find out the facts before posting next time, you know.

&quot;Dabanshee.... i won't even argue with your statistics. They are really immaterial to the question. Whether or not the need ever arises for a weapon, it is a Constitutionally guaranteed right in America to be able to possess and bear a weapon. Most folks will never &quot;need&quot; a flotation device either, but i'm glad that the they exist, and can be used to save lives, under the right conditions. If you don't feel comfortable with guns, fine, don't own one. If you feel strongly enough about the matter, lobby for the Constitution to be amended to suit your fancy when it comes to the gun issue. But at least be honest about it if you think that citizens should not have the right to bear arms. At least i would be able to respect you for actually being willing to say it straightforwardly, rather than using statistics in an attempt to enforce your wishes in a back door, weasel-like manner. Until and unless you are honest about your intentions, don't expect those of us who do own guns to take you seriously.&quot;

To be perfectly honest Gen, IMAO people who think they need firarms for self defence are just 'paraniods' with tickets on themselves &amp; an inflated opinion of their own importance that they really think they need a gun for self defence, either that or they are making an allowance for their small dicks, unless of course they actually have a position in life that increases their chances of being held up, like owning a liquor store in the South Bronx or being a drug dealer (they get held up more than just about anyone else). Because the simple fact is if you keep a gun for self defence its more likely that it will kill a friend relative through an accident or some compulsive/impulsive act of drunkenessor jealousy etc, than it will ever be needed to stop an intruder (the news program I saw said by a factor of 23 times, but even if it was by a factor of just 1 to 1 it would negate any reason for having a firearm for self defence unless you had a job that required it.)

Lets face it, with 95% of the people who keep a firearm for self defence its a ego trip, the're wanking off on their boys-toys, nothing more. I wonder how many practice drawing it out in front of the bedroom mirror.



 

Ulfwald

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
May 27, 2000
8,646
0
76
To be perfectly honest Gen, IMAO people who think they need firarms for self defence are just 'paraniods' with tickets on themselves &amp; an inflated opinion of their own importance that they really think they need a gun for self defence, either that or they are making an allowance for their small dicks, unless of course they actually have a position in life that increases their chances of being held up, like owning a liquor store in the South Bronx or being a drug dealer (they get held up more than just about anyone else). Because the simple fact is if you keep a gun for self defence its more likely that it will kill a friend relative through an accident or some compulsive/impulsive act of drunkenessor jealousy etc, than it will ever be needed to stop an intruder (the news program I saw said by a factor of 23 times, but even if it was by a factor of just 1 to 1 it would negate any reason for having a firearm for self defence unless you had a job that required it.)

Another victim of the liberal media.

Dabanshee, grow up, and learn to think for yourself. Do the research, and form your own opinion. Just don't listen to what the media tells you.

 

Underclocked

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,042
1
76
dabanshee, would that opinion carry over to women that carry defense (with an s) weapons? If so, how?
 

eia430

Senior member
Sep 7, 2000
369
0
0
Debanchee you said

&quot;its piss easy to knock it out of someones hand&quot; I congratulate you that you succeded. But if was &quot;piss easy&quot; as you described then that person was completely clueless on knife fighting. Had you tried that with me (I hold my knife on my trailing arm right hand, protected by my leading arm left hand) my leading hand would have intercepted then clinched your leg then while your leg was held for a half a second my knife would have cut your calf muscle or another viable open target. Having my knife protected by my leading arm makes it very hard to be dislodged. Clinching your limb first before a cut gives me an accurate controlled cut with minimum exposure to me. You can be the best hand to hand fighter in the world, but if you are against even just a competent knife fighter you'll come out dead or at the very least cut badly. Count your blessings, the next person with a knife might not be so clueless.
 

Panther505

Senior member
Oct 5, 2000
560
0
0
DABANSHEE
you said:


You see we don't have local law enforcement regions in Australia, all our police forces are state based, plus there's only 6 Australian states (&amp; 2 mainland territories) so one just has to log onto the statistics dept of each of those 6 states to see that violent crimes have been relativelly static &amp; actually decreasing at a slow rate on a per-capita basis. Mind you when figures are so low, (there are only about 80 firearm deaths a year in Australia nationwide) it could take just one armed holdup going wrong for there to be a fluctuation of 5%. Now if you were to compare that with any region of the US with 19 million people you'd see that the odds of being a victim of a violent crime in the US are many, many times higher than Australia.



IN an acticle I found by Dr. James B. Lawson lawbb@melbpc.org.au

As published in the Institute of Public Affairs &quot;Review&quot;
Volume 51, Number 4, December 1999

&quot;The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported a 3 per cent increase in murder for 1997 and an 11.5 per cent decrease for 1998, giving a total two-year decrease of 8.5per cent. 15 16 This is, however, within the normal range of annual fluctuations as shown by AIC figures over 20 years,1975-95.17 Armed robbery increases were 44 per cent and 20 per cent, for a total increase of 72 per cent. The AIC reported in May 1999 that total gun deaths had indeed decreased, but this was almost entirely due to a continuation of the trend of decreasing gun suicides.18&quot;


The Link is: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/ipareview.html


Looking at the above I am saying that the VIOLENT crimes- not necessarily crimes committed with guns have gone up. From the article above that seems to back that up. I may be wrong based on my assumption from what I've read but that is what perception is all about.

BTW in the area of the US that I live in I have talked to the police on many occasions on their opinion about handguns and concealed carry. Many officers in the North Carolina areas that I have lived in appreciate the persons that carry weapons. Reason being is that someone with a weapon and the knowledge of how to use it correctly usually keeps a cop from having to tell a family that one of their loved ones died in a armed robbery.

Finally concealed carry and/or owning a fire arm has nothing to with paranoids, penis size or ego. In the US is has to do with a right that was granted to the citizen by the Founding Fathers of this Country. I am only exercising my rights much the same as you are exercising your right to free speech. Since I respect your free speech regardless of if I like what you say I feel that you should respect my right to possess and carry a firearm- even if you don't like the fact that I do.

Thanks

Back to LurK MOde
 

Ulfwald

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
May 27, 2000
8,646
0
76
<applauding panther>

Well said Panther,

As you notice,dabanshee, we here in the US believe in the right of free speech, and will protect that right, even if we do not agree with what you say.

The second amendmant was put in place just in case our other 9 were trampled on by the government, or other individuals. that does not mean that whenever anyone p!sses you off you just &quot;cap'em&quot;. As I have said in many posts in this thread, a weapon is a last resort defensive weapon only.
 

chiwawa626

Lifer
Aug 15, 2000
12,013
0
0
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
THIS IS THE MOST REPLY&quot;S I HAVE SEEN ON A POST!!
 

TimberWolf

Senior member
Oct 11, 1999
516
0
0
To all:

Our Bill of Rights, and our especially the Second Amendment right were not &quot;granted to the citizen by the Founding Fathers of this Country&quot;, as Panther 505 stated in his post.

Nor are they &quot;granted&quot; by a benevolent government. They are not &quot;granted&quot; by the Supreme Court, or by any other governmental body.

The Founding Fathers, in regard to the first ten amendments known to us as The Bill of Rights, recognized that these Rights are inalienable. You are endowed with them from birth; and since no mortal entity has any authority to &quot;grant&quot; them to you, absolutely no one under our government has any authority, &quot;legal&quot; or otherwise, to take them away.

The authors of the Constitution were educated men. They engaged in extensive debate on the precise terms and language of every aspect of that document. They knew that, by even their own recorded history, past and present governments had used &quot;the advance of technology&quot; and &quot;public safety&quot; as excuses to disarm their citizens; and they meant to ensure that they were laying a foundation for a government that would not be corrupted by the lust for power of those elected to serve the People.
 

Ulfwald

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
May 27, 2000
8,646
0
76
timberWolf, You have said what I have been trying to say all along.

Basically, the bill of rights does not grant these, it re-affirms that all humans are born with them.
 

eia430

Senior member
Sep 7, 2000
369
0
0
Our constitution amendments and all have served us better than any other constitutin has served any other country. I for one am not willing to radicly change the documents and mentality that brought us where we are today. I am not a gun nut (meaning I am a practical user and don't own dozens, I own two) but guns have a place in my life and will remain so.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,748
6,763
126
As I recall it's &quot;We hold these truths to be self-evident...

...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any
Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on
such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.&quot;, which is the Declaration of Independence, not the Bill of Rights which are ammendments and can be ammended because they are ammendments, not unalienable rights.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Moonbeam... very good try.

But i think most would agree that the Bill of Rights defines what the &quot;liberty&quot; referred to in the Declaration is.

In theory, i suppose we could repeal any or all of the amendments of the Bill of Rights, should we want to. I don't see it happening, but again, we're talking theory. I think it would spell the practical end of the United States as a democracy if we did so however.

But then again, if we as the People were willing to sacrifice ANY of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, including the Second Amendment rights, i would say we were not worthy of any of them in the first place. Makes it kinda hard to assert your other rights if you don't have the right to arm yourself to keep and defend them, eh?
 

Panther505

Senior member
Oct 5, 2000
560
0
0
TimberWolf: The Constitution and the Declaration were written some 13 Years apart. The constitution and the Bill of Rights outline the process of government were the Declaration was specifically written to wake up England to the fact that the colonies were not going to continue to &quot;play nice&quot; with the mother country.

you said:
The Founding Fathers, in regard to the first ten amendments known to us as The Bill of Rights, recognized that these Rights are inalienable. You are endowed with them from birth; and since no mortal entity has any authority to &quot;grant&quot; them to you, absolutely no one under our government has any authority, &quot;legal&quot; or otherwise, to take them away.

Well I don't think that this is completely correct and rather then reseach first as I should I will just shoot from the Hip- I think that any of the amendments in the Constitution can be repealed to include the first 10 in the Bill of rights though I don't think that we would ever see that.

Part of the reason I feel that gun control is such an issue with gov't is the way that part of Moonbeams quote can be preceived:
&quot; That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any
Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it , and to institute New Goverment, laying its foundation on
such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their Safety and Happiness&quot;

It is the phrase in Bold that scares the politicians the most. As the Fore Fathers leave that statement open. Elections or Revolutions.


Glenn1- That is the utmost reason that an armed population is paramount to our type of government. Once the right to bear arms is gone then we cannot stop the gov't from removing any other rights

Points to Ponder- Hitler and Stalin both used Gun Control to disarm the public before they implemented their atrocities.


Lurk Mode on
 

BeHeMOTH

Senior member
Nov 9, 1999
547
0
0
Well I'd have to say the US would be the last country invaded, due to the fact that we could arm ever man and woman in hours if needed. With a little humor I carry a gun just incase the King wants his land back :)
 

brassmonkey7

Banned
Oct 5, 2000
158
0
0
I carry a makarov 9x18 but have many other guns, an sks, and ak47, remington 270, a bullpup, winchester 30-30, ruger snubnose .357 mag and a ruger six inch .357.....however i'm looking to get a para ordenance 45 or a taurus 45
 

TimberWolf

Senior member
Oct 11, 1999
516
0
0
Moonbeam:

The quote, if from memory, is excellent.

However, The Bill of Rights was drafted by James Madison to assuage the Anti-Federalist concerns that the fundamental principals that secure the promise of 'Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness' must be clearly stated. The Federalist's felt that these same principals were, and would be, rather obvious to anyone; and so felt that it was not necessary to define them.

Score one for prudence.

Interesting to note that, in the roughly two thousand documents presented by various parties for discussion and debate on the pending ratification of these first ten amendments, none challenge or attempt to alter the concept of an individual Right to bear arms.

And it's &quot;Inalienable&quot;, with an &quot;I&quot;, which means &quot;impossible to take away&quot;.
 

Ulfwald

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
May 27, 2000
8,646
0
76
What I don't get is that many states are beginning to restrict gun privileges, How come someone has not challenged them before the US supreme court? What part of &quot;shall not be infringed&quot; do these idiot lawmakers not understand?
 

Phalkon

Banned
Aug 20, 2000
233
0
0
Some sort of .22 rifle with a nice military scope on it. I love it. I don't carry it around unless I'm heading to the range. Why? So I can shoot at paper targets! MUHAAHHAA!!!

For an every day peice, I carry around my discontinued Covert SuperSoaker 10, .1 gauge, light, low-range, shirt peircer. Takes H20 ammo, supports about 400 rounds of ammunition before emptied clip and expandable clips are available too. Why? So I can get people wet without them knowing! HAHHAA! :)
 

Ulfwald

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
May 27, 2000
8,646
0
76
Looks as if this debate was won by the 2nd Amendmant Advocate crowd.

All in favor of keeping our rights as they should be say: AYE!
 

TimberWolf

Senior member
Oct 11, 1999
516
0
0
Tripleshot:

The Supreme Court didn't &quot;decide&quot; anything - That article is Dan Small's (an attorney providing commentary for MSN) opinion on &quot;what it means&quot;.

Since the trial lawyers view suing gun manufacturers as the next big windfall (for them) after suing the tobacco companies - some firms raked in more than a Billion dollars - Don't expect any favorable or neutral commentary from that quarter.

Despite decisions from circuit and appelate courts to the contrary, this was the last Supreme Court decision that made specific reference to the Second Amendment:

United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990).
This case involved the meaning of the term &quot;the people&quot; in the Fourth Amendment. The Court unanimously held that the term &quot;the people&quot; in the Second Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that &quot;the people&quot; means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States.

This case thus resolves any doubt that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right.