Revolvers for Everyone!

[Monte_RCMS]

While I own a number of guns I do not carry one on my person, I certainly wish that my state would allow me to obtain a permit to do so. Crime rates do go down in areas that have allowed people to carry a weapon. I do not believe that every citizen should be automatically granted a permit, there needs to be fairly rigorous training and testing. The NRA and some pistol associations have suitable safety courses; at least for starters. Both the International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA) and the United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) have organizational structures and membership that already support safety training and practice in every state.

Going hand in hand with issuing permits to carry guns there needs to be the creation of some very strict gun laws. Commission of a crime with a gun should merit an automatic 20 years, on top of whatever sentence the crime carries. Sentences should also be imposed upon those who do not safely store their weapon. Too many children are injured or die each year because of carelessness. If a weapon accidentally discharges, the owner of that weapon should face the same charges as if he had fired the weapon. Part of obtaining a license should include a written agreement to this.

Just a few thoughts.

Everyone should join the NRA. The continuous discussions of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and of the various aspects of local and state gun laws are fabulous.

Their magazine, “America’s First Freedom”, is excellent.

nrapublications.org/a1f/index.html

 

[Lycorth]

Shew! Glad you’re on my side!

I have to say, I have a CCW and carry within the laws of my state. We live in a rural area, similar to the 8 people killed in Virginia. Without protection, someone could have me vacuum packed in my own freezer before law enforcement could arrive. I’m not willing to give up my right to protect myself. That does not mean I will discharge my firearm randomly or recklessly. I am well aware of the distance a bullet will travel, and that an innocent person could very well be at the end of that trajectory. However, I am not willing to go down to rape or murder without a fight. Bottom line.

I’m no one special, just doing my duty to defend the truth. But thanks for the support

And you are correct; knowing how much damage firearms can do prompts us to learn how to use them responsibly. Humans have lived for centuries in social conditions that were far more dangerous than communities with high percentages of firearms ownership. Ergo, humans will manage just fine in communities where guns are prevalent, so long as the bad humans are controlled. Banning inanimate objects is not the answer.

Actually, a home is much more likely to get burgled. Thieves break in when they know no one is home. Guns are rarely used for home defense. Actually, a dog is better. A dog will alert a person to an attempted entry before it happens.

Apparently, you’ve never heard of the concept of home invasion. Few statistics are available on home invasion as a crime, because it is not technically a specific crime in most states. However, it does happen, and often; it was common in New Jersey, where I used to live, and is common in many large cities with crime problems.

Dogs are wonderful for lots of reasons but cannot be the last line of defense. Especially as a dog can be incapacitated, then you’re in trouble.

Yes, a dog can alert you, but what then? Either you have to fight or flee.

No one said anything about banning guns. However, you mention storage laws (or trigger lock laws) to ‘gun organizations’ and they have a fit, waving around the second amendment.

Most storage laws are impractical, requiring trigger locks even on handguns kept for personal defense. Common sense isn’t common anymore; any idiot knows that no burglar is going to wait until you unlock your handgun, find and unlock and load the ammunition, and all that. Trigger locks are only good for storing arms that will not require immediate use.

Laws do not save lives; laws are not magic spells that magically make everything better as soon as they are enacted. Laws that only make things worse are an even more problematic issue. Common sense laws are one thing - foolishness and nanny-state behavior is quite another.

You know, I stated a fact and did not blame anyone. There is a moral requirement for a person to secure a dangerous instrumentality – like putting a fence around a swimming pool. In the county where I live, 20 years ago the county president had guns stolen from his home. These are not isolated incidents.

And in the state where I lived, home invasions, rapes, carjackings, and muggings were commonplace. That your county president either didn’t invest enough time into home security and/or that burglars committed a sin and stole from him is not the issue, and in no sense a remotely cogent argument for gun control.

Frankly, I have yet to hear a single reasonable argument for gun control. I suppose I never will.

Everyone should join the NRA. The continuous discussions of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and of the various aspects of local and state gun laws are fabulous.

I agree, though sadly the NRA will not lobby for the repeal of laws currently in place. All they do is obey the line the government draws in the sand and then advocates that it goes no further.

But, the NRA is a great place for pro-firearms folks to gather together and make enough noise so that the government is at least slowed due.

The Japanese were able to massacre vast numbers of Chinese because the Chinese and other groups were unarmed. If they had had one personal weapon per person, the Japanese would have been massacred.

I don’t know about “massacred” (this is the Imperial Japanese Army we’re talking about here), but the point is crystal-clear - the Chinese could have fought back. They would have had the chance to either massacre their attackers, drive them back while sustaining heavy losses, or at least put a considerable hurt on the IJA before going down. Disarmed, they had none of those chances, and only the chance to die.

 

[greggy53]

I have heard that the Swiss were not bothered by the Germans in the 2nd world war because the Germans knew that every able bodied Swiss male was required by law to keep a semi-automatic weapon for the countires defense.

 

[Lycorth]

I have heard that the Swiss were not bothered by the Germans in the 2nd world war because the Germans knew that every able bodied Swiss male was required by law to keep a semi-automatic weapon for the countires defense.

Actually, the Swiss’ main battle arm was the Schmidt-Rubin K31, a bolt-action rifle of the straight-pull design. Unless I’m mistaken, the Swiss had these and older Schmidt-Rubins as arms, but compulsory military service, the option to keep one’s service arm after discharge, and a well-developed militia system contribute to Switzerland being a very well-armed and protected country. Any invading army with reliable intel on the Swiss would know that in addition to knowing that the Swiss stress individual marksmanship above all else as well as that shooting is a national pastime, so it’s preferable to just ignore Switzerland altogether than try to enter a mountainous country full of snipers.

But yes, your point is clear - arms can deter assault as well as allow defense and counterattack. The anti-gun crowd just doesn’t get it.

 

[gamewell45]

The notion that a 135 lb police officer (male or female) should attempt to whip up on a 300 pound criminal using martial arts is fantacy. No police officer in their right mind would want to take this risk. Police officers only engage in hand-to-hand when it is either forced on them or there is no other alternative. That’s why even the big male cops use tasers etc.

Your arguments here are simply off base.

Gob Bless,

Iowa Mike

How many female police officers do you personally know who don’t carry a weapon while on or off duty? Don’t you think it makes common sense that if they felt they couldn’t subdue a perp, using either martial arts/hand-to-hand that they’d use other means? Obviously not every single police officer is trained in martial arts, but where I come from an overwhelming majority law enforcement officers decide to have more training then what they receive in the academy.

Contrary to what you may believe my “arguments” are neither off-base nor full of holes. Maybe where you live that may be the case; but not where i’m from.

 

[gamewell45]

I own over a dozen guns for over a quarter of a century and not a single one of my guns have ever killed any living creature. I guess they must be defective.

A whole dozen guns?? Well I guess your all set when the Russians invade us.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Frankly, I have yet to hear a single reasonable argument for gun control. I suppose I never will.

Everyone believes in some level of gun control, or there would be kids with revolvers in their lunchboxes. Where the discussion comes in is the *extent *of gun control.

I am a gun owner and a hunter. And I am anti-NRA. The organization is just too political and has done too much fear-mongering for me to be part of it.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

The Japanese were able to massacre vast numbers of Chinese because the Chinese and other groups were unarmed. If they had had one personal weapon per person, the Japanese would have been massacred.

Do you think World War II would have lasted ten minutes longer if every person in Japan were armed with a gun?

 

[gamewell45]

I have heard that the Swiss were not bothered by the Germans in the 2nd world war because the Germans knew that every able bodied Swiss male was required by law to keep a semi-automatic weapon for the countires defense.

Funny I read that in the national enquirer too.

Warfare was different 70 years ago too. You think you could hold off a platoon of soldiers armed with assault weapons with a handgun?

 

[royal_archer]

You know, this sounds silly but think of guns and comic books with super powers.

Why don’t we all have super powers like in X-men. Well, there would be crazy people that would cause great havoc. Same with guns I say. People who do not know how to use a gun, even with training, are very dangerous. I mean people who do not know that a gun is a tool used for good human purposes. But hey, we can say that with everything to one degree or another. Humans are dangerous enough if they do not know how to love each other. Why would you give them guns on top of it!

Now imagine a world where only the bad guys had those powers. That is what gun control nuts advocate.

 

[royal_archer]

Our Lord knew that Peter carried a dagger, against the unjust Roman law that prohibited weapons to Jewish subjects. The right to defend oneself is of natural law. The ancients, such as Aristotle, recognized that man, although bereft of fang or claw, could bring to hand such means of defense as his mind could invent. The disarming of law-abiding citizens by the state is tantamount to pulling the teeth or talons from the beasts, and returning them defenseless to the jungle. Should we be forced to carry revolvers and such? I think that would be another infringement upon liberty. However, a word of concern. Should everyone in a nation eschew proficiency in arms, that nation would not long survive. Saint Thomas More from Utopia: “Nevertheless, men and women alike assiduously exercise themselves in military training on fixed days lest they should be unfit for war when need requires.” As long as sin abounds, and Cain stalks about with free will, self-defense, and national defense, will be a “Right to Life” issue.

Well stated.

 

[royal_archer]

Maybe one does. Like a scientist working with a bad bacterium – he needs to keep that safe from theft.

Yes, that’s where the fault lies. But the fact is that home thefts account for many of the illegally-used guns in our society. People sometimes try to ignore that fact.

Your trying to solve the wrong problem. To many of those thefts are because the assailants are criminals who were let loose on the street by liberal politicians.

Lock up the criminals and you don’t have to worry about gun crime.

 

[royal_archer]

Everyone should join the NRA. The continuous discussions of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and of the various aspects of local and state gun laws are fabulous.

Their magazine, “America’s First Freedom”, is excellent.

nrapublications.org/a1f/index.html

Or Gun Owners of America

 

[royal_archer]

Actually, the Swiss’ main battle arm was the Schmidt-Rubin K31, a bolt-action rifle of the straight-pull design. Unless I’m mistaken, the Swiss had these and older Schmidt-Rubins as arms, but compulsory military service, the option to keep one’s service arm after discharge, and a well-developed militia system contribute to Switzerland being a very well-armed and protected country. Any invading army with reliable intel on the Swiss would know that in addition to knowing that the Swiss stress individual marksmanship above all else as well as that shooting is a national pastime, so it’s preferable to just ignore Switzerland altogether than try to enter a mountainous country full of snipers.

But yes, your point is clear - arms can deter assault as well as allow defense and counterattack. The anti-gun crowd just doesn’t get it.

Like wise the British required archery practice once a week to have an ample supply of trained archers in case there was ever a need.

 

[royal_archer]

Everyone believes in some level of gun control, or there would be kids with revolvers in their lunchboxes. Where the discussion comes in is the *extent *of gun control.

I am a gun owner and a hunter. And I am anti-NRA. The organization is just too political and has done too much fear-mongering for me to be part of it.

Your right the NRA has sold us out when it comes to everything but hunting and a narrow group of self defense weapons. The Gun Owners of America have been much more faithfull to the second amendment.

 

[royal_archer]

Funny I read that in the national enquirer too.

Warfare was different 70 years ago too. You think you could hold off a platoon of soldiers armed with assault weapons with a handgun?

No, but with M-60s and claymores…

The second ammendment does not defend just hunting weapons and revolvers, it defends Arms.

We need more veterans and inactive reservist who are prepared and ready to answer the call of duty.

 

[Lammo]

Actually, the Swiss’ main battle arm was the Schmidt-Rubin K31, a bolt-action rifle of the straight-pull design. Unless I’m mistaken, the Swiss had these and older Schmidt-Rubins as arms, but compulsory military service, the option to keep one’s service arm after discharge, and a well-developed militia system contribute to Switzerland being a very well-armed and protected country. SNIP.

True of the WWII era but the current issue rifle is also not a semi-auto but rather the select fire SIG SG 550. I own the semi-auto US adapted variant, the SIG 556.

It may or may not be true but I have read that when the German Kaiser asked in 1912 what the quarter of a million Swiss militiamen would do if invaded by a half million German soldiers, a Swiss replied: “Shoot twice and go home.”

Interesting little known fact: In 2009, there were over 14 MILLION NICS background checks conducted. These checks are primarily conducted for the purchase of a firearm (they are also conducted for the issuance of carry permits and a few other reasons). Although not every check indicates a firearm is being sold, the vast majority of them do. Translation: millions of additional firearms entered private hands in the past year. The antis would have you believe there should now be blood running in the streets but guess what? Crime rates are down!

People ask me why i carry a gun. My answer? Because a policeman is too heavy.

 

[sidbrown]

This is a premise that I heard and I thought worthy of debate. I tend to lean against it because it sounds absurd.

The premise is that we would have a much safer country and a much more polite society if everyone was required to wear a loaded sidearm at all times.

One side seems to think people are capable of rational behavior and this would help us control ourselves. It would eliminate a number of crimes, particularly those in which a weapon is used as a means of exerting power over others.

The other side seems to think there would be a perpetual bloodbath.

What do you think? Why?

-Tina “Presently Unarmed” G

Generally, I don;t think it would be that great of an idea for students and teachers in a large university to carry loaded firearms to class. For one thing, the professor may assign homework which interferes with the free after class time needed by some students to play their violent video games and by way of compensation, a student may want to play a real violent gun battle in the classroon rather than in front of his XBox 360. This would then be a real disaster for many innocent people. So I would be opposed to this recommendation of having loaded firearms on each student and professor.

 

[greggy53]

Funny I read that in the national enquirer too.

Warfare was different 70 years ago too. You think you could hold off a platoon of soldiers armed with assault weapons with a handgun?

Warefare in some respects never changes. History has taught us in many instances that a few may hold off many under the right circumstances.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

It’s absurd because of the word “required.”

Personally, I can’t imagine Jesus walking around with a loaded pistol and He was in some pretty tough neighborhoods, but that’s just me.

no but He instructed the disciples, that if they didnt own a sword to sell their tunic and buy one.