Contact your Rep about gun control!

So once you feel your opinion is validated, no reason to keep researching?

Cone_Junky wrote: So once you feel your opinion is validated, no reason to keep researching?

The comment you quoted has no verification. All the links are dead. In fact one of them showed it was from 2000, a year before the article I already quoted. It's not that I "quit researching", I just know when I smell bullE36 M3.

Carolyn McCarthy is the idiot who made the infamous "Is it the shoulder thing that goes up?" comment. She was on some political show explaining why she was voting for some gun control law. The law would have banned, among other things, barrel shrouds. The host of the show asked her what a barrel shroud was. She admitted she had no idea before making the above guess. All she wants is guns banned by any means. I don't think it actually matters to her whether a barrel shroud has some intrinsic property that makes it more attractive to criminals than legitimate shooters. She just thinks guns are icky and wants them gone.

Let's face it. If someone wants to kill someone, sometimes there is not much you can do about it (not knowing it is going to happen of course).

More guns almost certainly would not have stopped it (I would have to assume someone near her, probably a few, had to have a gun anyway).

More gun control certainly would not have stopped it (unless you can somehow magically make them all go away, then he could just go at her with a knife)

aircooled wrote: Let's face it. If someone wants to kill someone, sometimes there is not much you can do about it (not knowing it is going to happen of course). More guns almost certainly would not have stopped it (I would have to assume someone near her, probably a few, had to have a gun anyway). More gun control certainly would not have stopped it (unless you can somehow magically make them all go away, then he could just go at her with a knife)

This. Outlaw guns and magically make them all disappear, and then they will use knives. Ban knives and make them all disappear and htey'y use sharpened sticks. Ban those, and they'll use rocks...

If someone wants to commit murder, they will. Period.

Bobzilla wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: So once you feel your opinion is validated, no reason to keep researching?

The comment you quoted has no verification. All the links are dead. In fact one of them showed it was from 2000, a year before the article I already quoted. It's not that I "quit researching", I just know when I smell bullE36 M3.

I didn't post any links. I pulled a quote from the wikipedia article that Strizzo posted to prove that the conceal laws reduced crime. My comment was that even that article mentions that the stats over a longer period of time did not show a true drop in crime. In other words that article was a contradiction.

You can use the googles to support more guns theory, but you'll find just as many articles that disprove that same notion.

I will repeat what I said before. If guns are outlawed, the criminals will still get them, the law abiding citizens will be defenseless. That form of gun control does not work. Many examples without looking too far.

I find that most of those I personally know that wish to see firearms gone also want motorcycles, motorsports, and scary cars like Corvettes gone. This is all for the public good, of course. These people scare the crap out of me.

In reply to cwh:

Outlawing guns and arming every citizen is two different things.

we live in a violent society. We as a society have been told, through our history lessons, that all problems can be solved through the application of superior force. Adding or reducing arms does nothing.. It has been proven time and time again that the addition of gun laws or police officers does nothing to curb crime.

The only way to stop crime is to get at the root of the socio economic issues that drives people to do what they do..

but seriously, Do you need a 30 round mag for a handgun? Noone does.

Ignorant wrote: but seriously, Do you need a 30 round mag for a handgun? Noone does.

You mean Peter Noone? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Noone

1988RedT2 wrote:

Ignorant wrote: but seriously, Do you need a 30 round mag for a handgun? Noone does.

You mean Peter Noone? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Noone

damn space bar.

Ignorant wrote: but seriously, Do you need a 30 round mag for a handgun? Noone does.

Careful there. I don't want the government telling me what I need. I don't want it telling me that I don't need a 400 hp Cadillac. I don't want it telling me that I don't need bacon on that cheeseburger. I don't want it telling me that I don't need certain books.

When we permit the government to "grant" us those things that they think we actually need, we're in big trouble.

30rd mag in a glock..

not exactly EDC.

Seriously....

Cone_Junky wrote: I didn't post any links. I pulled a quote from the wikipedia article that Strizzo posted to prove that the conceal laws reduced crime. My comment was that even that article mentions that the stats over a longer period of time did not show a true drop in crime. In other words that article was a contradiction.

obviously you didn't read much past that, because the link i posted was about heads of household being required to maintain a firearm together with ammunition in the home. it says nothing about people carrying concealed. the article also says this, which you left out.

Kennesaw once again was in the news on May 1, 1982, when the city unanimously passed a law requiring "every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition." After passage of the law, the burglary rate in Kennesaw declined and even today, the City has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County."

The hilarious thing is that the right-wing radio/television types have conned the whole country into believing that draconian gun laws are right around the corner, which has driven up the cost of ammunition, which in turn costs the gun owner's money. It's like a tax on gullibility.

That said, gun ownership / gun control is not the problem. The problem is a conservative media that fans the flames of fear for a profit without regard for the consequences.

Note: I have a Glock 9mm (the same model used in the Arizona shootings) a .22 bolt action rifle, and I carried an M4 assault rifle and an M9 9mm pistol through 2+ years in Iraq.

Tifosi2k2 wrote:

Ignorant wrote: 30rd mag in a glock.. not exactly EDC. Seriously....

Agreed. Not for EDC. But again I ask: Why not? How many of the millions in this country have been used for a crime? One? Two? Ten? Less than 1/100th of One percent would be my guess. Is that enough to ban them all? I think not.

Look I don't disagree with you. I got a friend who "Needs" to hunt deer with an AR15. Like any hobby that is somewhat dangerous(read fun), the mistakes/misdeeds of a few destroy it for many..

I just wish the folks in the NRA were a little more introspective sometimes. I find them and any who cries for no restrictions to be irresponsible. Cause they assume everyone will be responsible and follow the rules or at least be responsible.

the big problem I have with the whole gun debate is that it smacks too much of the abortion debate..

One side says.. If you're not with us.. you're against us..

sorry but I'm not anti gun at all.. and I'm not pro-abortion.

I'm for reasonable and sane controls on both. Cause as this kid in AZ just proved.. Americans are neither.

Shadow six, Had you been in that crowd, lawfully carrying your 9mm, could things have turned out differently?

Big mags are easier at the range. Load a few of those suckers at home, save your thumbs.

For whatever it's worth, Arizona has about the loosest gun laws in the country. For example, it's one of only three states that will let you conceal carry pretty much anyplace, no permit required.

^^ I remember being in a grocery store in Yuma, AZ...I was the only one in line NOT carrying a firearm. I was in the Marine Corps at the time, so it was a wierd feeling.

I think their laws are a little different, though. Just about anybody can carry, but I thought concealed permits were nearly impossible. Gun has to be visible, loaded w/ one in the chamber to be legal.

Correct, concealed carry permits are harder to come by. Although my Indiana LTCH allows me to conceal carry in AZ.

For the record, I've been a CC'er for 10 years and have never shot anyone. I guess according to the gun-haters I'm falling behind here. I need to go shoot up a school or something.

In reply to Bobzilla:

According to the gun lovers you're falling behind. You haven't had to shoot anyone in 10 years.

Tifosi2k2 wrote:

TRoglodyte wrote: Shadow six, Had you been in that crowd, lawfully carrying your 9mm, could things have turned out differently?

One of the people who subdued the shooter was carrying his CCW. He was inside the Walgreens when he heard the gunfire and ran towards it. He ran towards the gunfire. When he got there the shooter had already been disarmed and he felt no need to draw his weapon. He held the mans legs until the Police arrived, all the while never touching his weapon. A model of restraint. Not exactly the blood thirsty vigilante the media likes to make CCW holders out to be......

Or a good example of how the CCW was not needed?