Revolvers for Everyone!

[MyRdmrLvs]

That is absolute rubbish! Please provide your evidence to support such a claim.

My brother is a police officer and he is convinced that the more law abiding citisens are armed the better. But I doubt even he would think it should be required.

 

[CPA2]

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

It takes 10 armed men to overcome 1 armed man in a defensive position. A sniper in a well concealed and undiscovered position can hold off a company of armed men. e.g. Carlos Hathcock in Vietnam

One armed man, who knows what he is doing, is in a good position to hold off up to 10 armed criminals before the police arrive.

 

[CPA2]

My brother is a police officer and he is convinced that the more law abiding citisens are armed the better. But I doubt even he would think it should be required.

Your brother is correct. After hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, some police from outside parishes (county) were loaning citizens guns to protect themselves. On the other hand, the corrupt New Orleans police were disarming citizens and then commiting crimes.

 

[CPA2]

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.

“Gun free” school zones are a terrible idea. Gun free means that the only one who has a gun is the criminal. There is no one to stop the criminal from killing many people. Individuals with concealed license permit should be allowed to carry guns on campus. We should take a clue from Israel.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Funny I read that in the national enquirer too.

Maybe you should try reading a history book and start with Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto – “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

Maybe you should tell those running our military ROTC programs that they’re doing it wrong. I’m sure that they will appreciate you sharing this information with them.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

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.

Like Huckabee and the Washington cop killer? You should not have politicized this.

 

[gamewell45]

Maybe you should try reading a history book and start with Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto – “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

Maybe you should tell those running our military ROTC programs that they’re doing it wrong. I’m sure that they will appreciate you sharing this information with them.

Sir Knight,

I think you fail to realize that that statement was made over 70 years ago. So to imply and give false hope to those seeking justification is misleading at best. After all this is not 1940.

As a former ROTC student I can assure you that you’d get laughed at if you told them you thought you could hold off a platoon of soldiers armed with assault rifles with a handgun.

 

[Sir_Knight]

As a former ROTC student I can assure you that you’d get laughed at if you told them you thought you could hold off a platoon of soldiers armed with assault rifles with a handgun.

First off, I never said that one could hold off an entire platoon of soldiers. But with one firearm, you can take out one soldier and get his weapon. And so forth and so on getting more and more powerful arms.

I work with one fellow who is currently in ROTC and another fellow who just came back from serving six years in the middle East and they both say that those concepts are as valid today as they were 70 years ago.

 

[Lycorth]

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

Yes, he is, be that invader Russia or China or our own government.

Americans have short memories. America has only existed for a couple hundred years, but already Americans have forgotten that without an illegal armed uprising fought mostly by irregulars, there would be no America today

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.

Yes, it’s the level of gun control that is the issue. Forgive me for not being clearer

Royal Archer is right to note the Gun Owners of America. I’m going to be looking into them, myself. The NRA talks big but acts small.

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.

Yes, the Swiss are armed with SIG 556s, now. All the better for Switzerland.

Excellent reference to the NICS background checks. The streets are not running with blood, children are not dying in heaps from guns, nothing untoward has happened. That’s because only the civilized bother to buy guns legally.

God forbid a bleeding heart should understand this.

Like Huckabee and the Washington cop killer? You should not have politicized this.

Royal Archer is correct and this is already a political issue.

It is not conservative Republicans who turn loose hardened criminals on the mythical belief that a few years’ jail time magically turns them into sterling citizens.

 

[CPA2]

Sir Knight,

I think you fail to realize that that statement was made over 70 years ago. So to imply and give false hope to those seeking justification is misleading at best. After all this is not 1940.

As a former ROTC student I can assure you that you’d get laughed at if you told them you thought you could hold off a platoon of soldiers armed with assault rifles with a handgun.

A hand gun is a defensive weapon; it, or a knife, is the weapon of last resort. An old bolt action rifle, like the Remington 700, in the hands of a trained sniper is an offensive weapon.

A sniper would have no trouble shooting the officer in a platoon of soldiers equipped with the current assault rifle, the M16. Distance is the sniper’s friend. Carlos Hathcock had 93 confirmed kills in Vietnam! One shot. One kill.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

More Guns = Less Crime

washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/21/guns-decrease-murder-rates/

More guns in law-abiding hands mean less crime. The District of Columbia proves the point.

Reading most press accounts, one would be forgiven for thinking Armageddon had arrived after the Supreme Court struck down the District’s handgun ban in 2008. Predictions sprung forth from all directions that allowing more citizens to own guns and not forcing them to keep them locked up was going to threaten public safety. According to D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, more guns in homes would cause more violent crime.

This has never been the case. Local politicians enthusiastically embraced the 1977 handgun ban predicting it would make Washington a safe place by dramatically reducing murder rates. But they were as wrong three decades ago as they are now.

A telling story is illustrated by the murder numbers since the handgun ban and gun-lock bans were struck down. Between 2008 and 2009, the FBI’s preliminary numbers indicate that murders fell nationally by 10 percent and by about 8 percent in cities that have between 500,000 and 999,999 people. Washington’s population is about 590,000. During that same period of time, murders in the District fell by an astounding 25 percent, dropping from 186 to 140. The city only started allowing its citizens to own handguns for defense again in late 2008.

Few who lived in Washington during the 1970s can forget the upswing in crime that started right after the ban was originally passed. In the five years before the 1977 ban, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 murders per 100,000. In the five years after the gun ban went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. One fact is particularly hard to ignore: D.C.'s murder rate fluctuated after 1976 but only once fell below what it was in 1976 before the ban. That aberration happened years later, in 1985.

 

[chriso]

What do you think? Why? -Tina “Presently Unarmed” G

“What do I think?” I think it would be discriminatory… “Why?” because some of us prefer to carry colt 1911’s

I have always thought it would have made more sense to put box cutter knives in the seatbacks of every airliner entering USA airspace following the attacks on 9-11 than it does to make my grandmother take her shoes off everytime she flies. And it would have been a lot less expensive than the direction we took. In spite of the overnight transformation of thousands of formerly minimum wage work force into $100,000+ per year federal employees, I accidently carried a folding hunting knife for over 3 months through airport security in 7 US airports only a couple months ago. Not one of the newly highly compensated screeners caught it. At least we are paying a lot for their services, thats got to make us feel safer right?

Sort of similar… I say it would make a difference if at least every American was trained in the proper and safe use of a revolver, and had their right to own and carry one guaranteed as it is still in some states.

 

[royal_archer]

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

And long bows are hard to conceal

 

[Monte_RCMS]

“What do I think?” I think it would be discriminatory… “Why?” because some of us prefer to carry colt 1911’s

I have always thought it would have made more sense to put box cutter knives in the seatbacks of every airliner entering USA airspace following the attacks on 9-11 than it does to make my grandmother take her shoes off everytime she flies. And it would have been a lot less expensive than the direction we took. In spite of the overnight transformation of thousands of formerly minimum wage work force into $100,000+ per year federal employees, I accidently carried a folding hunting knife for over 3 months through airport security in 7 US airports only a couple months ago. Not one of the newly highly compensated screeners caught it. At least we are paying a lot for their services, thats got to make us feel safer right?

Sort of similar… I say it would make a difference if at least every American was trained in the proper and safe use of a revolver, and had their right to own and carry one guaranteed as it is still in some states.

During the time period before and after September 11, 2001, they wouldn’t even allow airline pilots to carry weapons.

I don’t know what the fear was.

But the pilots were unarmed.

 

[royal_archer]

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.

Sarcasm?

 

[wabrams]

A hand gun is a defensive weapon; it, or a knife, is the weapon of last resort. An old bolt action rifle, like the Remington 700, in the hands of a trained sniper is an offensive weapon.

A sniper would have no trouble shooting the officer in a platoon of soldiers equipped with the current assault rifle, the M16. Distance is the sniper’s friend. Carlos Hathcock had 93 confirmed kills in Vietnam! One shot. One kill.

You wouldn’t even need to go that far: give a Remington 700 w/ a decent scope to a pretty good hunter and they would reek more havoc than one could imagine.

 

[chriso]

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

Kind of like the taliban is showing us over in Afganistan right now for instance… of course, its in their favor that they only have to last long enough for us to cave in to the inevitable liberal world pressure and we will leave and let the bad guys have their way after all.

 

[chriso]

Creative accountants can make 2+2 to be whatever you want it to be. i.e. Enron and Arthur Anderson

And statisticians are even better!!!

 

[chriso]

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.

Insightful, thanks.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

I don’t agree with you on this; I’ve seen women police officers take down the above described perp’s using judo. No guns used. Any citizen properly trained can, in many instances, take down a 300-pound criminal using various martial arts (judo, Karate, etc).

If the perp has a gun, it gonna come down to who’s quicker, aims better and fires off a round; you or him. And since he’s likely to be more prepared then you would be, he’d win hands down. Bigger/Stronger cannot force anyone to do their bidding if the opponent is determined not to.

Women police officers. I’ve seen them get flattened as well. But as for the rest. Skills may carry the day, But generally. Might makes right.