A paranoid schizophrenic maybe crazy but they're not stupid. In their mind everyone is out to get them, so they'll pull all their resources and do whatever it takes to get a gun. Any advantage they can get over their perceived enemy (which is everyone in their line of sight).

I'm all for giving civilians a fighting chance against any hostile force trying to kill and/or oppress them, be it criminals, paranoid schizophrenics, or their own government. Being left without a means to defend yourself against a criminal who HAS a gun because "you might accidentally shoot someone" is ludicrous.

Yup, up here in Canada we continually get shot by schizophrenics who know how to work the black market. Its a real hassle trying to get by the local mental institute. Its not like most homicides are commited by people the victim knew.

Real Gun Control is hitting what you aim at.

I'm anti-killing things. Not sure what that says about guns.

You can punch paper with a rifle or pistol you could also bust sporting clays with a shotgun.

Schizophrenics are far more likely to harm themselves than other people. Statistically, mentally ill people commit only a VERY small proportion of violent crimes. I would provide sources for that, but since you didn't feel the need to post any when making that stereotypical over-generalization, I'll leave you to google it and discover how right I am for yourself.

By the way, even assuming that that statement wasn't completely unsound, tighter gun control would apply to paranoid schizophrenics too. Surely it's better that NOBODY gets shot?

It's idiotic to see gun sales going higher as Obama passes these anti-gun laws. I bet many Republicans have arsenals by now, locked in their basement, ready to be used on clueless trespassers.

answer to topic question; I've been to the shooting range a couple of times, semi-autos and revolvers. But I'll never try firing a shotgun again, bruised myself with the butt-stock...surprisingly .357 Magnums are smooth to shoot, unlike those exaggerated strong recoils you see on TV or video-games.

Just a bit of advice.

The next time you fire a shotgun try to hold the stock tighter against your shoulder,lean forward with most of your weight,and bring the front bead to eye level.

If you are still getting the b-jesus kicked out of you switch to a smaller bore (If you're shooting a 12 gauge switch to a 16 or 20 and you should be a bit more comfortable.)

Well said.

If people do not wish to possess firearms, or other weaponry because they aren't comfortable with it, that is their right. I'm ok with that. They have most likely been fortunate enough in life to have never needed to defend their life, family, home or property. In my experience, people who have had those things threatened then use every means in their power to defend themselves afterward, assuming they survive, of course.

However, please realize that if you do not arm yourself, mentally or physically, you are trusting EVERY OTHER PERSON with whom you come in contact to treat you with respect and consideration. You are trusting your life and well-being to everyone who could possibly mean you harm. Also realize you are then burdening those who are armed and have a conscience with a moral duty to protect you, because you are unable to protect yourself.

I don't think that anti-weapon people realize that most ( not all, of course) of your law abiding gun owners who carry weapons do so not only to ensure their personal safety but also the safety of there friends, family, and the other average citizens around them.

If someone goes to the trouble to get a CCW, please know that that means they have been willing to take time to attend class, and spend money for the permit, and also be willing to be registered with local law enforcement as owning and carrying a weapon ( sometimes with a direct, personal cost of as much as $300, depending on the state.) They have done this not only to have the legal right to be armed with out the "bad guys" knowing it, but also in many cases so that normal, everyday citizens will not be UNCOMFORTABLE with their presence.

Do you understand this mindset?! That the average person who carries a legal, concealed firearm not only is willing to defend you against those who would mean you harm, but that they also care enough about how you feel to modify their behavior?

Kinda puts a new light on those so-called NRA nuts, huh?

Extrapolate this just a little further, and you will realize why arms ownership is not only a right, but for many, a duty. Every legal tenet we have is ultimately based on the threat of violence. Perhaps it doesn't seem so at first, but that is ultimately what it comes down to. If you don't obey the law, it will be enforced upon you. If you continue to resist, you will be captured, shackled, caged, and punished. Basic fact of life, right there.

Now, at this fundamental level, what is to prevent that power we AS A PEOPLE have granted the government from being abused? That's right, the only thing we have to prevent that is ourselves. No amount of protesting or lobbying in Congress will prevent it. We try those ways first. WE have granted the government the power to hold the threat of violence, to organize it, in hopes and in theory to ultimately reduce violence against innocents, and protect us from outside threat. The only thing that holds that power in check, is the power of those who have granted it.

If we as a people, as a group, do not maintain that power over the government, it can do whatever it wants to us as individuals. That means without that basic, animal threat at the bottom of all the polite and not so polite words, that organized force you granted power to do the right thing can then abuse it. It can become that monster that invades your home, takes away your children, rapes your wife, steals your possessions and beats you to a bloody pulp. Ask the people of any poor, un-democratic nation on earth.

If you do not support the right if individuals to defend their lives, home, and property by ANY MEANS NECESSARY, then, by default, you support the right of the governmental institution to which YOU have granted power to do whatever it pleases. Their is no riding the fence, there is no middle ground. You either support the rights of the individual to their well being, or you support the rights of the more powerful entity to rule every aspect of their lives. You either support the right of people to defend themselves, or you support their slavery.

If you take away other peoples' weapons by the direction of your political support, you also disarm yourself against the threat of slavery.

We need a balance. We need the government to deal with criminals, but we need an armed citizenry, an educated citizenry, to limit governmental power.

/end of rant.

I'm pro gun for a few very simple reasons.

First, if you consult the statistics, crime generally goes DOWN in regions that allow concealed-carry. For example: a county in the state of Georgia offered a gun-use class for women and their **** numbers went down over the next year compared to the steady rates in neighboring counties.

Secondary to that, research has shown that criminals are less likely to break into a house where the residents may possibly defend themselves. Public muggings are less likely to occur in places where concealed-carry is allowed because there is a good chance that either the victim will defend him/herself or someone else will come to their aid.

Guns are not just "for killing". Target shooting is a legitimate sport and ranges hold tournaments for it. Age and sex do not play as large role as much as practice and knowledge, so it is a sport many kinds of people can participate in.

Hunting is more humane than corporate farming, where animals live unnatural lives in complete squalor, are abused by workers, must be given antibiotics to simply survive properly, and are given to hormones to increase their growth past the limits of what their genes and inflicted lifestyle can support.

Finally, as an American I believe the government should be subordinate to the people, not the opposite - we should never be forced into a position in which we can't defend ourselves from corrupt government.

I don't think I could disagree with anything in the above post. I have to see information proving that crime goes down with looser gun restrictions, though.

Here is a page from a reputable site.

http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

Everyone has their biases though, but it makes sense, considering the people who are planning to use guns illegally aren't going to get them legally anyway - why do that when anything that comes out of a registered gun can be tracked?

The opposite is true. Since the introduction of a city-wide handgun ban in Chicago, crime has fallen.

The above post was meant to be satire right?


If your answer is "It wasn't satire" then you're in pure denial and need to read the news papers and check a few facts for yourself.

Just my opinion on the matter.

You're telling him he has his facts wrong in the same sentence you say it's just your opinion?

Deadman should never be allowed to carry concealed weapon, for the same reason every fuck faced paranoid idiot who claims they have to be prepared should never be allowed to carry concealed weapons.

I think before anyone is even allowed to carry weapons should pass some test, or exclude idiots like DMW from what Zab suggested, save quite a few lives that way.

Okay then screw it.

Let me clarify.

The posters "facts" are so F.U.B.A.R. it's laughable.

It's a little more laughable that you laugh at someone's possibly (even probably) flawed "facts" without counteracting with real facts. This is especially laughable as you are only mudding the pro-gun side of the argument after such an intelligent and defensible post as Zabijej's.

Get a job.

Learn how to present a strong argument.

I'm sure they are perfectly capable of looking it up for themselves.

But Here goes.

Associated Press
Published: 6/1/2009 12:40 AM

Chicago had seven shooting deaths in 24 hours this weekend, and police say they have no suspects in custody.

All seven victims were men in their 20s or 30s, and all were shot to death.

The shootings occurred between 6:15 a.m. Saturday and just before 6 a.m. Sunday.

One victim, 30-year-old Demond Stansbury, was shot along with two of his cousins, who survived and are in fair condition.

The shootings spanned the city, happening on the North, South and West sides.

Chicago Police spokesman Roderick Drew says investigations into the shootings are ongoing.

On Saturday, police Superintendent Jody Weis spoke at an anti-violence march and rally on the West side.


Chicago has a handgun ban in effect and that went into effect when?

I guess nobody told the Criminals.

Here is a link to the source.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_209844.html

While that article is obviously factual, as it happened, it has nothing to do with a fact that would further the position you are defending.

You are saying "oh if they had had guns this wouldn't have happened"
But you don't even try to prove that. Or if you have tried to, then you've failed more miserably than I have given you credit.

When people like you realize that losing a bit of leather, 10 bucks, and credit cards that you can cancel is better than killing someone and being sent to jail for life, the better the world will be.

Well, if you were being robbed you can argue self defense so you wouldn't go to jail. And you wouldn't necessarily need to kill them; knee-capping them is just as effective and you can call the police to arrest them. However, it often isn't a matter of losing your wallet. As a male you have a decent chance of defending yourself unarmed or with an edged weapon against someone trying to rob you if you don't have a gun. If you are a female and a male is trying to **** you there is a lot lower chance of being able to fend him off, unless the female is a body-builder type or has taken some form of advanced self-defense class and is capable of taking on an attacker much stronger than her. Having a gun would easily prevent such things from happening especially if the woman had any sort of practice with a firearm.

Prohibiting firearms will do nothing to get them out of the hands of a criminal, all it will do is disarm the law abiding citizens. Even in countries where firearms are completely illegal weapons are commonplace. Australia has some of the most rigid gun laws yet many people in the rural areas still actively shoot.