Any Pro Gun / Gun Owners Here?

[loopy]

Fear not Loopy. We have the same government, just different faces. The "Patriot Act" is nothing more than Congress sponsored terrorism on the people. You can be arrested and held indefinitely, without visitation or legal, for as little as 2 to 5 years to much more. They don't need any proof, just suspicion. Sound familiar?

Very familiar, but I'll keep fearing if you don't mind

Hmm how odd, the labour government, who are socialists having similar policies to the republicans.....

Edit: Sorry for the complete Thread hijack btw :X Some nice guns in here, but I'm honestly glad they're not available in the uk (well legally at least)

[freswith]

Of course its been happening since Maggie was in power. Now they just don't have any respect for the people, forcing through badly thought out laws/systems no one in their right mind would want (ID cards, Vetting databases).....

Sorry for the rant, but we've had 12 years (all my adult life) of this bullshit.

I go along with every word Loopy has said.

It's not just the last twelve years. I voted for the first time in 1970, and watched the chaos that the old Labour government produced. Their philosophy had been in power for much of the time since WWII, and even the Conservatives seemed to accept the "inevitability of Socialism". It was Maggie, (and also Reagan) who rubbished that and showed them up for the incompetent frauds they are. It's not just the cod economics, the megalomania, and the lies and deception which irritate, its the over-riding intellectual arrogance that really bugs me. They have worked out their whole philosophy from a theoretical basis, (but they do not realise the fundemental flaws in that basis), and thus they think that anyone who opposes them is ignorant or evil. They say things like "We will MAKE them listen to us!" and if they don't listen they are evil, therefore criminal, and they will be eliminated. And eliminate them they do. The present Labour government has put more that 4,000 imprisonable offences on the statute book, which include disobeying a Health and Safety Inspector. The only thing that separates them from Stalin is the exact method of persecuting their non-believers.

It's impossible to argue with Socialists - they are actually SURE they know better - it's like arguing with a Scientologist or fundamentalist Christian. The only thing is to get rid of them, and send them back to the classrooms, law offices, council offices, the BBC and trade unions from which they sprung.

The sooner the better, but they will start their lying promises again. At least we will have a respite.

[loopy]

The only thing that separates them from Stalin is the exact method of persecuting their non-believers.

It's impossible to argue with Socialists - they are actually SURE they know better - it's like arguing with a Scientologist or fundamentalist Christian. The only thing is to get rid of them, and send them back to the classrooms, law offices, council offices, the BBC and trade unions from which they sprung.

The sooner the better, but they will start their lying promises again. At least we will have a respite.

The only reason they don't do a Stalin on people who don't tow the party line is because it would be bad PR, and that's this government is. Sadly it looks like its all the next government is going to be as well. Media and spin.

Now for some comedy

He does have a good EYE for the media.

And yea, that's the worst thing about the government, they think they know better then everyone else, and if you disagree you're an ignorant idiot. We need to be told what to eat, how much to drink, that smoking is bad for us, how to look after kids. If it wasn't for the government we'd be sat in a mud puddle crapping our selves and crying.

The problem is they go too far. Maggie went to far.... Blair went to far.... the next lot will go even further I reckon.

Who do you vote for? The tits in power now? The opposition tits? or the 3rd party who well lets face it are just tits.

[Snugglebug]

When matters of self defense are involved, I have no trouble believing a UK judge would make such a ridiculous ruling. More liberal jurisdictions in the US, such as San Fran or NYC, would probably rule the same way.

It wasn't self defense. Self defense ends when your attacker attempts to flee. Anything after that is vigilante justice. I may not agree with the sentencing, but the brothers DID step over the line when they cornered one of the guys and proceeded to enact their own version of justice.

Your "Judged by 12 instead of carried by 6" doesn't apply in this situation; it'd be just 'judged by 12.'

[BoTox]

It wasn't self defense. Self defense ends when your attacker attempts to flee. Anything after that is vigilante justice. I may not agree with the sentencing, but the brothers DID step over the line when they cornered one of the guys and proceeded to enact their own version of justice.

Your "Judged by 12 instead of carried by 6" doesn't apply in this situation; it'd be just 'judged by 12.'

When someone breaks into an occupied home, they want more than to rob the place. At that point, the rule is me or them. As long as they live, they are a possible threat to return and finish the job without sufficient deterrent. I am justified in any action I take once they have threatened me or my family. In the US many states have castle doctrine that protects homeowners in their rights to defense. Adrenaline and fear combined will make a man do incredible things. Someone breaking in and wanting to hurt my family would make me beat them to a bloody pulp if given the opportunity. I'd hate to kill a person but it would be my least concern in such a situation. The crook is still guilty, regardless of what the brothers did. This was not justice! No amount of rationalization by anyone can excuse what the original criminal did.

[Snugglebug]

When someone breaks into an occupied home, they want more than to rob the place. At that point, the rule is me or them. As long as they live, they are a possible threat to return and finish the job without sufficient deterrent. I am justified in any action I take once they have threatened me or my family. In the US many states have castle doctrine that protects homeowners in their rights to defense. Adrenaline and fear combined will make a man do incredible things. Someone breaking in and wanting to hurt my family would make me beat them to a bloody pulp if given the opportunity. I'd hate to kill a person but it would be my least concern in such a situation. The crook is still guilty, regardless of what the brothers did. This was not justice! No amount of rationalization by anyone can excuse what the original criminal did.

Nobody excused what the original criminals did. But let's go over this point again. You bring up someone breaking into the home to threaten a family. Fine. In a similar situation, I would neutralize a threat in the most expedient method possible. However, if the criminals, after you had beaten them off/maimed one or two/frightened the beejezus out of, FLED the house and you CHASED them to exact some revenge, that stops being self defense. It's not the ethical thing to do; you do NOT have the required law enforcement training to know what the appropriate course of action is. It's not the responsible thing to do; who's going to protect and support your family if you're in JAIL? It's not even the TACTICAL thing to do; come on, chasing criminals in the dark where they can circle back to attack you? You're MUCH better off seeing to immediate safety of your family by getting them to a secure location, as well as calling the cops. As an added point, if you're not off running after the criminals in the dark, you are far less likely to be mistaken for one by law enforcement, something you REALLY DON'T WANT if you're chasing them with a gun in your hand.

[BBB]

unfortunately, most castle doctrine in the US (as it varies state to state) usually doesn't allow you to give chase outside domicile.

Should they of given chase, and detained? absolutely.

Should they of been allow to get in a couple swings while subduing them? yea... probably

should they of beaten the shit out of them? no.

Its sad that I'm pro-gun, pro-home defense, pro-sheepdog, but I can't condone them allegedly beating the guy with a bat until it breaks...

[Dougie]

If the scum breaks into a house knowing people are in it, they are already prepared to take a life to get what they want. I would not have left them alive to be prosecuted. The legal systems are geared to protect the guilty, not the victim.

Shoot center mass. If it's still moving, it's still a threat.

Does this mean I would chase after them with a gun if they got off my property? Hell no. The police K-9 units here need to practice. They would have a blood trail to follow to make things easier for them to find the corpse.

[Snugglebug]

If the scum breaks into a house knowing people are in it, they are already prepared to take a life to get what they want. I would not have left them alive to be prosecuted. The legal systems are geared to protect the guilty, not the victim.

Shoot center mass. If it's still moving, it's still a threat.

Does this mean I would chase after them with a gun if they got off my property? Hell no. The police K-9 units here need to practice. They would have a blood trail to follow to make things easier for them to find the corpse.

Hence my comment earlier about when to do "no insufficient injury."

[Yvhuce]

If the scum breaks into a house knowing people are in it, they are already prepared to take a life to get what they want. I would not have left them alive to be prosecuted. The legal systems are geared to protect the guilty, not the victim.

Shoot center mass. If it's still moving, it's still a threat.

Does this mean I would chase after them with a gun if they got off my property? Hell no. The police K-9 units here need to practice. They would have a blood trail to follow to make things easier for them to find the corpse.

One thing to keep in mind: In such a situation, one is probly goinna be jacked up on adrenaline. And in such a state, one tends to act more aggressive and primal than normal. So, unless we're actually put into the situation, we can't say for sure just how we'll react. If they managed to get out of the house, I may run 'em down with my truck... And, barring any calls to the cops from the neighbors, the offender would become a missing person... One of the up-sides to living out in the sticks...

[Snugglebug]

One thing to keep in mind: In such a situation, one is probly goinna be jacked up on adrenaline. And in such a state, one tends to act more aggressive and primal than normal. So, unless we're actually put into the situation, we can't say for sure just how we'll react. If they managed to get out of the house, I may run 'em down with my truck... And, barring any calls to the cops from the neighbors, the offender would become a missing person... One of the up-sides to living out in the sticks...

Granted, people make critical mistakes in the heat of the moment. As such, it's a good idea to talk through such ideas NOW, rather than trying to think things through whilst overloaded with adrenalyne, 'cause, generally speaking, you can't really rely on a judge to take 'heat of the moment' into account as much as you would like.

[redneck diaper boy]

I live in Florida where one's home is one's castle. Floridians, under law, are permitted to use deadly force to defend themselves.

In Florida, if someone approaches you vehicle in a public place and threatens you, you can shoot them legally! The only stipulation is you have to be in fear for your life.

In Florida, you do not need a permit to keep a firearm in you glove-box. The only stipulation is it has to be in a holster.

[Snugglebug]

In Florida, you do not need a permit to keep a firearm in you glove-box. The only stipulation is it has to be in a holster.

That's absolutely mad. All it takes is for someone to break into your car whilst you've got it parked somewhere and, le voila, armed criminal.

In Canada, if you're going to transport a firearm, it's gotta be with a gunlock on it, minimum. Cuts down on those road rage shooting sprees.

[BoTox]

That's absolutely mad. All it takes is for someone to break into your car whilst you've got it parked somewhere and, le voila, armed criminal.

In Canada, if you're going to transport a firearm, it's gotta be with a gunlock on it, minimum. Cuts down on those road rage shooting sprees.

And in Canada you are royally screwed if you are car jacked. The right of self defense is first among all rights for without that, the rest do not matter.

As for a criminal breaking into a car and getting armed, if they are counting on finding a firearm as the primary reason to commit B&E, they are going to have a low success rate. Most thefts from autos are for something they can pawn quickly for drug money.

Criminals are criminals, as such they are generally lazy and look for easy targets. Don't be the easy target. As for road rage, if people knew more of their fellow citizens were armed, society would be a lot politer.

[curiositykilledthecat]

Might I add in Connecticut it is illegal to keep your gun in the glove box and if you as a gun owner think that is okay to do you should lose your gun. If yo can't be an intelligent person while excersising your rights, you should lose them. What the heck are you thinking leaving the gun in the glove box. It's same as the idiots who keep the gun in their purse. Be responsible, again the left can only argue with hypotheiticals which is not a logic based sytem of arguing or debating since it's emotion, so I'll stay out of the stupidity debate, however if you own a gun, you need to be intelligent about it. Your car is your greatest weapon in the event of a car jacking, you're not going to be an urban cowboy and reach for the glove box without getting a bullet to the skull should you leave it in the glove box. Best thing to do is either speed away or go in reverse and run the cocksucker over as I would. Sorry I don't pity poor criminal, tired of liberal judges treating victims like the criminal and criminals like victims.

I don't care wher epeople lie politically as anything off center is wrong, however protecting myself and my loved ones is something I have a fiery passion over so please don't take anything I say as a personal attack, I just refuse to play victim in life when as a species we don't have to.

[Snugglebug]

And in Canada you are royally screwed if you are car jacked. The right of self defense is first among all rights for without that, the rest do not matter.

As for a criminal breaking into a car and getting armed, if they are counting on finding a firearm as the primary reason to commit B&E, they are going to have a low success rate. Most thefts from autos are for something they can pawn quickly for drug money.

Criminals are criminals, as such they are generally lazy and look for easy targets. Don't be the easy target. As for road rage, if people knew more of their fellow citizens were armed, society would be a lot politer.

You're pretty unlikely to get car jacked in Canada; gun crime of ANY sort is far less frequent. That might have something to do with tighter gun control restrictions, ya know, the ones that only allow people to own a gun if they a) pass background checks for past criminal behaviour and demonstrated psychological instability, and pass a test of their understanding of the legal and safe handling and storage of firearms.

As for the gun in the glove compartment scenario, I didn't say the criminal was looking for a gun specifically, but do you think that, if he finds a gun in the midst of a routine car break-in, he's going to leave it behind?

[WallaWalla]

I own a bunch of 'em! I'm also from Texas, funny that.

Not going to bother listing off, but several handguns, a few rifles, and a couple of shotguns. No paperwork was involved on half of them, God bless the USA/Yeehaw!

[tenderheart]

You're pretty unlikely to get car jacked in Canada; gun crime of ANY sort is far less frequent. That might have something to do with tighter gun control restrictions, ya know, the ones that only allow people to own a gun if they a) pass background checks for past criminal behaviour and demonstrated psychological instability, and pass a test of their understanding of the legal and safe handling and storage of firearms.

I have read a lot of your posts in this thread and I can say I agree with a lot you have to say. However, I think culture plays a larger part in American gun crimes then registration requirements for the weapons.

[Snugglebug]

I have read a lot of your posts in this thread and I can say I agree with a lot you have to say. However, I think culture plays a larger part in American gun crimes then registration requirements for the weapons.

I'm inclined to disagree. There may be some truth to the perception that Canadians are more laid back than Americans, but I don't there is a substantial difference in how prone we are to act in the heat of the moment or the like. I think availability plays a HUGE role in how diminished our gun crimes per capita are in compared to the U.S. For starters, to purchase ANY firearms in Canada (not just handguns or the like), you are required to have a background check and demonstrate that you know how to safely and legally store and handle your weapons. Legal storage in a home requires at least two locks or a gun safe, with ammunition stored AWAY from the guns. That limits two things: easy theft in a break in and, more importantly, reducing the risk of a crime of passion, as having to unlock one's gun safe AND then retrieve the ammo gives a vital cooling off period. Locking the things away safely also limits gun accidents (i.e., if following legal standards, little Jimmy will NOT find a loaded handgun underneath his parents' bed).

Reducing theft plays a vital role in diminishing gun crime. In Toronto, where gun crime in Canada is at it's highest, about half the guns seized in gun crime arrests come from the US. Most of the ones from Canada are long arms, like rifles and shotguns, that had previoiusly been reported stolen.

And, frankly, a background check for ANY weapon is going to make it harder for either a person with a criminal record or psychological impairment to acquire one; they certainly won't be able to do so legally.

[tenderheart]

You cannot enforce adherence to gun safety. Sure, you can educate people but you can't make them follow safe gun handling procedures all the time. Gun safety is vital and any responsible gun owner will have a understanding of gun safety. I would also agree that the steps you mentioned may help certain people with impulse control. However, it also gives a home invader an advantage. They know that the victim does not have immediate access to firearms to protect themselves. That renders quite a bit of the defensive power of the gun moot.

As far as background checks go. There are extensive checks on all handguns, that is the purpose of a waiting period. Felons are not allowed weapons period. Oh, and they run checks on rifles too. The bottom line is if you have or manufacture guns at all they will be available to the criminal class. You cannot legislate to those who disregard the law completely. If you put them in a safe they'll go to the manufacturing plant.

[Snugglebug]

You cannot enforce adherence to gun safety. Sure, you can educate people but you can't make them follow safe gun handling procedures all the time. Gun safety is vital and any responsible gun owner will have a understanding of gun safety. I would also agree that the steps you mentioned may help certain people with impulse control. However, it also gives a home invader an advantage. They know that the victim does not have immediate access to firearms to protect themselves. That renders quite a bit of the defensive power of the gun moot.

As far as background checks go. There are extensive checks on all handguns, that is the purpose of a waiting period. Felons are not allowed weapons period. Oh, and they run checks on rifles too. The bottom line is if you have or manufacture guns at all they will be available to the criminal class. You cannot legislate to those who disregard the law completely. If you put them in a safe they'll go to the manufacturing plant.

Statistically speaking, the average firearm purchased for 'home defense' tends to be more of a danger to the owner and family than any intruder. It's only a very small portion of the population who actually knows how to handle a firearm in a crisis situation.

In Canada, intruders are far less likely to have a gun anyhow, so a good ole' Louisville Slugger will do the job nicely.

Meanwhile, where do you think most illegal firearms come from? They're generally stolen from legitimate owners. Of course, in Canada, if the owner was found to not have used proper precautions (i.e. gunsafe), he could be fined or worse. You're right that it's difficult to actually enforce proper gun storage, but how many gun enthusiats would take the risk of permanently losing their F.A.C.s (Firearms Acquistion Certificate in Canada) by not storing their guns properly?

At the end of the day, the US has far higher gun crime per capita than Canada. The two cultures are not all that disimlar. The only thing that IS really disimilar is the gun control laws. What logical conclusion would you draw from that?

[redneck diaper boy]

A locked and or unloaded gun is useless! The scenerio you described is rare.

If someone is going to rob you, do you think there will be a lock on the gun? Do you think the offender's gun would be unloaded?

My favorite news stories are as follows:

Grandma is in her home watching television and minding her own business. Thug breaks in to Grandma's house. Grandma shoots thug dead with a 9mm pistol! Thug will never break in to anyone's house or car again. The state will never have to pay to incarcerate and feed the thug piece of shit.

That's absolutely mad. All it takes is for someone to break into your car whilst you've got it parked somewhere and, le voila, armed criminal.

In Canada, if you're going to transport a firearm, it's gotta be with a gunlock on it, minimum. Cuts down on those road rage shooting sprees.

[redneck diaper boy]

To answer your question regarding the glove-box, where else would you want store it to thawart off a carjacking? The firearm should be easy to get to!

Nine times out of ten, thugs do not want to encounter armed citizens!

Nobody wants to use a firearm. Sometimes shooting a thug is the last and only option!

Might I add in Connecticut it is illegal to keep your gun in the glove box and if you as a gun owner think that is okay to do you should lose your gun. If yo can't be an intelligent person while excersising your rights, you should lose them. What the heck are you thinking leaving the gun in the glove box. It's same as the idiots who keep the gun in their purse. Be responsible, again the left can only argue with hypotheiticals which is not a logic based sytem of arguing or debating since it's emotion, so I'll stay out of the stupidity debate, however if you own a gun, you need to be intelligent about it. Your car is your greatest weapon in the event of a car jacking, you're not going to be an urban cowboy and reach for the glove box without getting a bullet to the skull should you leave it in the glove box. Best thing to do is either speed away or go in reverse and run the cocksucker over as I would. Sorry I don't pity poor criminal, tired of liberal judges treating victims like the criminal and criminals like victims.

I don't care wher epeople lie politically as anything off center is wrong, however protecting myself and my loved ones is something I have a fiery passion over so please don't take anything I say as a personal attack, I just refuse to play victim in life when as a species we don't have to.

[FretaBWet]

I'm not a big fan of storing guns in glove compartments for the same reason I don't believe in storing your gun at home unloaded and locked in a safe. Criminals don't call ahead to make an appointment for a house invasion/robbery or a car jacking. When the car jacker is at your drivers window and knocking on it with the barrel of his gun you'll be kicking your own ass because you will be just as helpless as if the gun were home. Just food food thought.

Hugs,

Freta

[Dougie]

To answer your question regarding the glove-box, where else would you want store it to thawart off a carjacking? The firearm should be easy to get to!

My loaded and chambered pistol is kept enroute to the seatbelt release when I'm driving. It leaves the vehicle with me. It is NEVER in the glove box, and it gets secured at home if I need to go somewhere that prohibits weapons.

A unloaded gun is also know as a club.