Revolvers for Everyone!

  • Thread starter Thread starter TinaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
  1. You can’t regulate what you’ve outlawed. If guns are legal, the government can outlaw only those that would have no purpose other than murder, and we can strict regulation (such as permits). If guns are illegal, there would be no permits, and it would be just as hard (or easy, depending on the situation) for me to get a hunting rifle as it would be for me to get a heavy assault rifle.
A few points here: permits to purchase/own guns are too strict a measure and can be rife with problems. If someone is being stalked what good would waiting serveral days if not weeks to buy a gun? It only keeps the potential victim unarmed.

Unless I am forgeting something, there is no such thing as a “Heavy” Assault Rifle; it’s just an assault rifle. DO you realize that most hunting rifles are more powerful than assualt rifles?
Actually, the only reason I can think of FOR gun control is discouraging revolt…
That is the whole point of the Second Amendment. If our government turns into tyranny, then that is our way to counter it. Think of it as the last Check-and-Balance on the government.
 
I am not familiar with guns, sorry. I meant something like an AK-47, or one of those things with exploding bullet doodads. 🙂

For the stalking scenario: would that person be properly trained in the time they need it? If you don’t know how to defend yourself when a stalker appears, you’re probably not coming out unscathed.
 
I am not familiar with guns, sorry. I meant something like an AK-47, or one of those things with exploding bullet doodads. 🙂

For the stalking scenario: would that person be properly trained in the time they need it? If you don’t know how to defend yourself when a stalker appears, you’re probably not coming out unscathed.
Exploding bullets?

They type of bullet normally has very little to do with the type of gun.

“exploding” bullets are normally found in much larger calliber weapons .50 Cal. and up. They are extremely expensive and very hard to get. HE rounds are normally used against hardened targets and have absolutely no value in robberies or other personal crimes.

You will have a very hard time finding a .30 caliber round that explodes. (AKs normally take a 7.62 x39 (.30 caliber) round. So I wouldn’t worry about an AK with exploding bullets.

But what concerns you with an AK-47 other than marginal accuracy?
 
Jesus said, “Those who take up the revolver shall die by the revolver,” or something similar.
 
I am not familiar with guns, sorry. I meant something like an AK-47, or one of those things with exploding bullet doodads. 🙂

For the stalking scenario: would that person be properly trained in the time they need it? If you don’t know how to defend yourself when a stalker appears, you’re probably not coming out unscathed.
An AK47 is an assualt rifle and isn’t as powerful as a deer rifle.

Re: stalking: a few hours at the range recieving gun safety and shooting time would make one proficient enough, though they should regularly go to the range to improve. You got to figure if they are going to have to shoot, it’ll most likely be <15 ft distance; alot of the times they just jab the gun into the assailant b/c the are so close then pull the trigger.
 
Jesus said, “Those who take up the revolver shall die by the revolver,” or something similar.
Mathew 10:34 Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.

Mathew 26:52 Then Jesus saith to him: "Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Luke 22:36 But they said: "Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword.

When one takes up arms they must do so knowing that failure to do so would lead to a fate worse than death. (of course this does not apply to the recreational and educational use of weapons)
 
Just remember that virtually every civilian massacre (i.e. school shooting such as Virginia Tech, Columbine; people going ‘postal’, etc.) could have been stopped if just a few “good guys” (or gals) had been packing and knew how to properly handle a gun.

Also remember that criminals, regardless of the law, are always going to be able to find weapons (think about it, if you are a murderer, a rapist, a robber, etc., is tacking on illegal weapons possession really going to scare you?). All gun bans (obviously, people who want to purchase a gun should go through criminal and psychological background checks, but then again, maybe the same restrictions should be implemented for people who go to get a driver’s license or renew one) do is prevent law-abiding citizens from getting guns and leaving them at the mercy of armed criminals.

Can anyone find statistics that show a loosening of gun laws leads to an upsurge in violent crimes?
Jesus said, “Those who take up the revolver shall die by the revolver,” or something similar.
My understanding is that the Catholic Church allows, even requires under certain circumstance, the use of force to defend self, other people (it is required to look after those under one’s care and protect them) and even one’s property.

Open-carry I think would be more effective at reducing crime than concealed-carry because if you walk down the street and notice everyone is armed, you will probably avoid doing something to antagonizing all those people.

Also, someone mentioned that there will be idiots (i.e. drunks) who will do stupid things, lose their tempor, but the same thing happens with cars (look at how many people die because of drunk drivers) and we don’t move to ban cars. Instead, we move to punish people when their willful stupidity or lack of self-control causes harm or endangers to others.
 
Just remember that virtually every civilian massacre (i.e. school shooting such as Virginia Tech, Columbine; people going ‘postal’, etc.) could have been stopped if just a few “good guys” (or gals) had been packing and knew how to properly handle a gun.

Also remember that criminals, regardless of the law, are always going to be able to find weapons (think about it, if you are a murderer, a rapist, a robber, etc., is tacking on illegal weapons possession really going to scare you?). All gun bans (obviously, people who want to purchase a gun should go through criminal and psychological background checks, but then again, maybe the same restrictions should be implemented for people who go to get a driver’s license or renew one) do is prevent law-abiding citizens from getting guns and leaving them at the mercy of armed criminals.
Absolutely ridiculous. WHo gets to deem what is pyschologically ok?
 
Absolutely ridiculous. WHo gets to deem what is pyschologically ok?
Are they a danger to themselves or others?

I’m not sure totally what you’re getting at: psychological background are used to determine if an individual for various things. As one who is possibly considering the Priesthood, I know the Church will submit me to such a batter of tests if I decide to move forward.
 
Absolutely ridiculous. WHo gets to deem what is pyschologically ok?
You would hope that this would only refer to people who have been institutionalized due to being a threat to themselves or others (under proper due process). Unfortunately this has been recently used to keep veterans from getting guns if they have had financial difficulties and were demed unable to handle their financial affairs.

gunowners.org/veterans.htm
 
Are they a danger to themselves or others?

I’m not sure totally what you’re getting at: psychological background are used to determine if an individual for various things. As one who is possibly considering the Priesthood, I know the Church will submit me to such a batter of tests if I decide to move forward.
But with your pursuit of the priest hood I doubt it would be halted by some deacon or parrish administrator making an un challenged assertion that you are mentaly defective, with you not having any legal recourse to counter.

With the background checks, as with the no fly list, they are secret processes with no judicial oversight and no opportunity for appeal. With an arbitrary stroke of the pen they can suppress your rights.
 
Are they a danger to themselves or others?

I’m not sure totally what you’re getting at: psychological background are used to determine if an individual for various things. As one who is possibly considering the Priesthood, I know the Church will submit me to such a batter of tests if I decide to move forward.
Someone who is going to get a gun to murder someone else by going through the legal process is probably smart enough to fool those tests. They aren’t that hard to get around. A vast majority of people who are going to use a gun to kill someone are going to get it off the streets.

As has been stated by royal archer, they can spin it anyway they want. Something as simple as saying you have a stressful job could be uesd to suppress your rights under a psychological test.
 
Someone who is going to get a gun to murder someone else by going through the legal process is probably smart enough to fool those tests. They aren’t that hard to get around. A vast majority of people who are going to use a gun to kill someone are going to get it off the streets.

As has been stated by royal archer, they can spin it anyway they want. Something as simple as saying you have a stressful job could be uesd to suppress your rights under a psychological test.
I suppose you’re right.
 
Just remember that virtually every civilian massacre (i.e. school shooting such as Virginia Tech, Columbine; people going ‘postal’, etc.) could have been stopped if just a few “good guys” (or gals) had been packing and knew how to properly handle a gun.

.
I’m glad you didn’t say “would have” or “would likely have”. It takes more than the ability to properly handle a gun to address such situations, not to mention that a deranged student or stranger with an automatic weapon could walk into a crowded classroom and kill many people before even an armed and trained person could stop them. You have a very valid point, and I’m glad you didn’t attempt to take it too far. 👍

In school situations, it would have to be teachers or administrators, no? Having high-school students carry is a very bad idea, and I’d have to question the wisdom of college students carrying loaded weapons as well, in general.

I guess the question is how far we take the concept of “protection” or “precautions”.

Where I live, I don’t give even the remotest thought of owning a firearm for protection. I don’t even have deadbolts on my doors. There was a thread a while ago about carrying concealed weapons to church; I wouldn’t think in my worst nightmare that that would be necessary in my parish.

I have never in my nearly 50 years needed the personal protection of a firearm.

Others are less fortunate than I am and live and work in danger; for them the reality of the need for protection or even the show of protection even though they may never need to pull a trigger is always present.

They and others in intermediate situations have a different viewpoint on protection, and I respect that. To again adress the OP’s query, I guess the answer depends on one’s living arena and their life experience.

Remember, though, Chuck Norris does not wear guns for protection, the guns wear Chuck Norris for protection. 😃
 
A handgun is only as dangerous as the heart that wields it. The problem is that one cannot carry a long gun in public. I have a question: Why is it so easy for a gun to find a criminal?
Because some of the so-called “law abiding citizens” manufacture and then indirectly sell them to crimminals.
 
I tell you what: since you feel so strongly about not caring if someone elses freedom is taken away, I think you should post a sign on the front of your house stating you dislike guns and have none in the house.
wabrams,

If you read the post in its entirety, I wasn’t advocating the banning, just that if they did decide to ban them I could care less since I don’t own any. In other words it does’t affect me either way.

I’ve been on this planet over five decades and have never needed a weapon; not a bad run if i don’t say so myself besides, If I need to have someone shot i’m going to call the police and let them do it. Thats part of what they are paid to do.
 
Absolutely ridiculous. WHo gets to deem what is pyschologically ok?
Wasn’t this issue sort of hinted at as the reason why airline pilots should not be allowed to carry pistols in the cockpit?

I guess the pilots would be marginally stable enough to be trusted to fly a plane with hundreds of passengers but might not be stable enough to be trusted to have a gun.

They might go berserkers and shoot up the plane or point it at themselves and demand they hijack themselves to Cuba.

Of course, had all airline pilots been REQUIRED to have a handgun, then the pilots of AA11 and other other airliners might have been able to defend their cockpits and the 9/11 disaster might not have happened.

[And I am SURE that someone will twist my words and add all sorts of hypothetical what-ifs to defend the notion that nobody should ever fight back or defend themselves.]
 
In school situations, it would have to be teachers or administrators, no? Having high-school students carry is a very bad idea, and I’d have to question the wisdom of college students carrying loaded weapons as well, in general.
You do realize that those in college and some in highschool are the same age as the youthful soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan that are carrying loaded fully automatic weapons every day. Also how could you doubt the suitability of an ROTC student carrying a loaded weapon.
 
wabrams,

If you read the post in its entirety, I wasn’t advocating the banning, just that if they did decide to ban them I could care less since I don’t own any. In other words it does’t affect me either way.

I’ve been on this planet over five decades and have never needed a weapon; not a bad run if i don’t say so myself besides, If I need to have someone shot i’m going to call the police and let them do it. Thats part of what they are paid to do.
every time you have walked in public in safety and every night you went with out your home being robbed you can thank the millions who own guns. our massive fire arms possession in the United states creates a deterent to many would be criminals. Our possession of fire arms also frequently leans out the number of criminals who are stopped durring, or just prior to, the commission of a crime.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top