why does a person need to carry a gun on a daily basis in america in 2005?

[Reapsy00]

Are you allowed to carry any gun? like a machine pistol ? or is it semi auto only?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Reapsy00
Are you allowed to carry any gun? like a machine pistol ? or is it semi auto only?

for carrying on your person you usually need a CCHL, which is a handgun license. i'd imagine its semi-auto or revolver only, even if you do have a federal automatic permit.

 

[Boztech]

I can think of 1000 reasons why I would need to carry a gun, but mostly it would be for the reasons I can't think of.

 

[MikePanic]

ive skimmed some of this thread... in the city i live, which is an hour outside philly, there were 14 murders thus far of 2005. when i was 16 i was car jacked. i carry because 1) i can and 2) because i can

 

[Stretchman]

Originally posted by: Boztech
I can think of 1000 reasons why I would need to carry a gun, but mostly it would be for the reasons I can't think of.

Lol, that about sums up gun logic.

 

Originally posted by: MikePanic
ive skimmed some of this thread... in the city i live, which is an hour outside philly, there were 14 murders thus far of 2005. when i was 16 i was car jacked. i carry because 1) i can and 2) because i can

Do you live in Reading? Move out of that sh!thole.

 

[Vic]

I'm not gonna bother to read this flamebait thread, but the real question is not why should, but why SHOULDN'T a person be allowed to carry a gun? I do not have to justify my inherent rights, they justify themselves. What is "needed" or "not needed" is irrelevant. What is factual is that not allowing a person to carry a gun is believing them guilty before they have committed any crime. It is forcing them to prove their innocence. It is proclaiming that, simply by a mere possession of a thing, they are already guilty of crimes they have not yet committed (almost certainly never would). These are the only arguments. In essense, the gun control nuts hate and mistrust their fellow citizens, and out of that fear seek to have the rights of the fellow citizens pre-emptively revoked.

Nothing new here... may as well wage a war on the possession and use of less popular intoxicants... oh, wait, we've already done that. :roll:

 

[BaldAvenger]

I have always carried a knife about my person with plenty of practice on how to use it in a bad situation. And, nope, I ain't talking about some kinda kool knife fightin' or ninjakungfuqyandojo or anything like that...just being able to make a basic cut or stab in an awkward situation such as a grappling hold or other scuffle, because that is what it will usually be when I need it. I have thought about getting a concealed carry (gun) license here in Louisiana lately, but for now I'll stick to my knife. It works and is easily carried anywhere in the south, including schools and the like. And it is useful for much more than just defending yourself.
Now, this doesn't mean that I wouldn't carry a gun. I am eventually planning on it. But not before some good training in the defensive handgun techniques. There have been some situations I have been in where having a gun would surely help, but that is water under the bridge. I know that in the future, however, that there will be situations where I will want to carry for the simple feeling of security.
Just a bit of FYI...I once was talking to a cop moonlighting as security where I was working. He told me that in an altercation at ~30 feet or less, he would be more wary of a man with a knife than a gun. I asked him why this would rate worse than a gun. He told me that with a gun, you only have to worry about where the hole in the end was pointed. With a knife you have to worry about the entire blade as it is usually capable of inflicting injury at multiple angles. He also said that it is easier for an assailant with a knife to lunge a short distance that it is for the firearm holder to react and correct the firing angle. Of course, he also said that the hole in his gun never points away from an assailant. Just a bit of FYI...

 

[2cpuminimum]

I personally don't bother with a gun. Instead I deter assailants by constantly wearing enough dynamite wrapped around my chest to level a city block, and I have a critical mass of plutonium in my car set to detonate if my heart ever stops. I'm never far enough from my car for my potential killer to escape the blast radius, so that's been good enough for me so far.

 

[Reapsy00]

It seems crazy too me that you can have citizens walking around with guns legally. Still I suppose it's just what you're used to. Hope it never happens over here (UK).

 

[ryan256]

Originally posted by: Reapsy00
It seems crazy too me that you can have citizens walking around with guns legally. Still I suppose it's just what you're used to. Hope it never happens over here (UK).

It seems funny to me that after banning legally owned firearms your gun crime rate has actually gone UP!! Hope it never happens over here (US).

 

[SP33Demon]

So I can fcking shoot you. Duh.

 

[43st]

Originally posted by: ryan256

Originally posted by: Reapsy00
It seems crazy too me that you can have citizens walking around with guns legally. Still I suppose it's just what you're used to. Hope it never happens over here (UK).

It seems funny to me that after banning legally owned firearms your gun crime rate has actually gone UP!! Hope it never happens over here (US).

Yeah, having 30,000 gun deaths per year makes us a great example for gun ownership. :thumbsup:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: ryan256

Originally posted by: Reapsy00
It seems crazy too me that you can have citizens walking around with guns legally. Still I suppose it's just what you're used to. Hope it never happens over here (UK).

It seems funny to me that after banning legally owned firearms your gun crime rate has actually gone UP!! Hope it never happens over here (US).

Yeah, having 30,000 gun deaths per year makes us a great example for gun ownership. :thumbsup:

The US had a bit over 12,000 murders and 17,000 suicides by handgun in 1999. Way to show your sources. Hint: Michael Moore is not a reliable one.

 

[Sureshot324]

Originally posted by: MagicConch
b/c they can pull it out around women and hope to attract them with the level of security only a gunowner can provide them.

Lol!

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: Pablo
I understand the fear if he was shot or was hurt physically, but losing a car or other material goods can't be worth the time it would take to file all the police reports for shooting somebody, or the risk that the gun would fall into the wrong hands during the years that you are carrying it waiting for the opportunity to use it...

There really is not much in the way of reports to fill out over what you have to fill out anytime you are robbed, a couple of extra questions from the police is all.
As for the risk, owning a weapon, any weapon, is a responsibility. Part of that responsibility is to keep it out of the wrong hands.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: logic1485
Even if you do have a gun, do you really think you have the balls to shoot the other person, even if it is just shooting them in the foot just to disable them?

I know I wouldn't.

Yes, absolutely. I understand my moral right and duty to protect myself, my loved ones, and those I have pledged myself to protect. I would not hesitate, because to do so would be the greater evil.

 

[Stretchman]

Maybe when the zombies come? I dunno...doesn't seem to help them even then.

 

[Vic]

It's crucial to realize that leftist philosophy is ALWAYS lowest common denominator. If a moron could get hurt, then so will a trained expert, so there oughta be a law to protect people from themselves.

 

[ryan256]

Originally posted by: Thera
Yeah, having 30,000 gun deaths per year makes us a great example for gun ownership. :thumbsup:

Well consider that the US has roughly 5x the population of the entire UK and their numbers would have to be somewhere around 6000 to be doing better than us. Sorry.. but its much higher.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Reapsy00
Are you allowed to carry any gun? like a machine pistol ? or is it semi auto only?

for carrying on your person you usually need a CCHL, which is a handgun license. i'd imagine its semi-auto or revolver only, even if you do have a federal automatic permit.

You do not need a CCHL to carry a gun openly. You only need one to Carry a Concealed Handgun. Wear a handgun in plain sight, in no way concealed, and you are consitutionally protected.

 

[CChaos]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: ryan256

Originally posted by: Reapsy00
It seems crazy too me that you can have citizens walking around with guns legally. Still I suppose it's just what you're used to. Hope it never happens over here (UK).

It seems funny to me that after banning legally owned firearms your gun crime rate has actually gone UP!! Hope it never happens over here (US).

Yeah, having 30,000 gun deaths per year makes us a great example for gun ownership. :thumbsup:

The US had a bit over 12,000 murders and 17,000 suicides by handgun in 1999. Way to show your sources. Hint: Michael Moore is not a reliable one.

I can't really tell. Are you saying Thera is posting inaccurate information? You just posted there were approx. 29,000 gun deaths in the US 6 years ago. What makes 30,000 so inaccurate? Where's your source?

Also, do you think it's wise to use the UK as an example when we have 6x the population and 184x as many gun deaths? That link indicates ~70 gun deaths in the UK while we have more than that every day in this country.

EDIT: Found more recent statistics.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ryan256

Originally posted by: Thera
Yeah, having 30,000 gun deaths per year makes us a great example for gun ownership. :thumbsup:

Well consider that the US has roughly 5x the population of the entire UK and their numbers would have to be somewhere around 6000 to be doing better than us. Sorry.. but its much higher.

Actually, as I noted above, the total of ALL US murders that year (1999) was roughly 12,800. Thera used the figure which Michael Moore falsely inflated in his movie Bowling for Columbine by including suicide deaths by handgun (an additional 17,000).

But yeah, you should check out Finland after they banned guns. That country of 5 million people went from a mere 5 murders per year to over 200.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. This isn't rocket science.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CChaos
I can't really tell. Are you saying Thera is posting inaccurate information? You just posted there were approx. 29,000 gun deaths in the US 6 years ago. What makes 30,000 so inaccurate? Where's your source?

Also, do you think it's wise to use the UK as an example when we have 6x the population and 400x as many gun deaths? That link indicates ~70 gun deaths in the UK while we have more than that every day in this country.

No, I said that there were a bit over 12,000 murders total in 1999. The actual number was 12,658. Of which, 8,259 were by firearm. It is an acknowledged fact by every police agency in the country that crime has been going steadily down since the early 90s.
So yes, Thera did post inaccurate information. Using the figure she did, I even recognized the source. Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, where he intentional lied about the number of US gun deaths by including the suicide figures, and then compared his US figures to other countries by not including their suicide figures. But hey, what do you expect from the guy who called one of MLK's best friends a racist?

Text

 

[Sureshot324]

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
the right to carry arm is so that incase of an emergency a civilian milita can be assembeled. This includes government overthrowing

A bunch of civilians with guns would have absolutly no hope of overthrowing the government.