"Gangsta"! firearm buysers/shooters

[KONY]

So the supposition I see here that because we are well trained and well armed we will prevail in any fight is wrong.

But there are plenty of people who are not criminals but nontheless have no idea what they are doing (this thread has provided some amusing stories about many of them). Requiring licensing standards prevents at least some of them from carrying legally.

Essentially, you are saying that the only benefit of increased firearms training is to prevent "undesireables" (whomever you believe those are) from obtaining a firearm. I wholeheartedly disagree but I doubt I will convince you otherwise. Thus, I'll settle for "agreeing to disagree".

 

[spacemanspiff]

was shooting at an indoor range not really noticing anything going on in the next lane when all of a sudden I heard these screams and yelling. stopped, dropped the mag,locked the slide back and set my gun on the shelf. Looked over... a hot shell casing from an auto they were shooting musta flipped up and went right down the girlfriends top

just a suggestion, should you hear screams and yelling while on a hot range, keep in the back of your mind that it just might be a bad situation about to get worse. (maybe you had your carry weapon already loaded up and concealed?)

 

[The Rabbi]

Essentially, you are saying that the only benefit of increased firearms training is to prevent "undesireables" (whomever you believe those are) from obtaining a firearm.

I'm not saying anything of the sort. I am saying that mandating standards for safety and proficiency in firearms in order to carry will prevent many people who are somehow unable to meet those standards from carrying. It is exactly analogous to standards for driver's licenses, truck drivers' licenses, pilot's licenses etc.

 

[jwmoore]

I am saying that mandating standards for safety and proficiency in firearms in order to carry will prevent many people who are somehow unable to meet those standards from carrying. It is exactly analogous to standards for driver's licenses, truck drivers' licenses, pilot's licenses etc.

The right to keep and drive car/truck/airplanes shall not be infringed.

Edit to add: My point being that the analogy does not work, due to lack of Constutional protection on operating motor vehicles.

 

[RyanM]

The right to keep and drive car/truck/airplanes shall not be infringed.

Edit to add: My point being that the analogy does not work, due to lack of Constutional protection on operating motor vehicles

Amendment 9

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[Gordon Fink]

[T]here are plenty of people who are not criminals but nontheless have no idea what they are doing.… Requiring licensing standards prevents at least some of them from carrying legally.

At best, gun-control “laws†might help prevent accidents. Keeping with our stereotypes, the good-hearted but careless ’neck who is too impatient to learn how to properly handle a firearm will probably be dissuaded from acquiring one by complicated regulations and requirements, but a truly bad guy like your criminal ’banger will simply acquire and use his guns illegally.

However, accidental shootings have become vanishingly rare. I suspect this has more to do with the emphasis placed on safety and training by the NRA and similar organizations than with any gun-control legislation. Either that or natural selection has already claimed the genes of most of the careless ’necks and ’bangers.

~G. Fink

 

[mountaindrew]

Well you guy are forgeting that, even though a crimnal can get thier hands on a gun illegally, he can never use it or show it to anyone without commiting a crime. If I am in an accident, or traffic stop, or whatever and am carrting legally, nothing bad happens to me. If your "banger" with an illegal wepon get pulled over for a broken tailight and the cop discovers his wepon, he is going to jail. And this happens alot. If there was nor regulation, alot of the very bad people who are in jail now for gun crimes would be out on the street.

I dont mind taking a driving test to get my drivers license and I dont mind taking a training course to get my ccw. It wont deter me because I am Legal.

 

[Control Group]

Amendment 9

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that everything not mentioned in the Constitution is a right. It just means that one can't use the exclusion of something from the Constitution as justification for restraint. The Constitution doesn't specifically prohibit me from keeping your wallet if I find it in the street, but most people would agree I don't have a "right" to the wallet. Ditto stealing your car, breaking into your home, and so forth.

 

[Control Group]

It wont deter me because I am Legal.

The problem is that this thought process can be used to justify anything. You're legal, so I'm sure you won't mind if we search your home, right? You don't engage in illegal activity, so I'm sure you won't mind if we monitor your behavior all the time, right? You're not plotting any criminal activity, so I'm sure you won't mind if we read your mail, tap your phone, and log your email, right? You're legal, so you won't mind if we check your papers at every state border, right?

"And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

Why should the "banger" go to jail just for having a weapon? Because he might commit a crime with it? We can't start incarcerating people because they might eventually do something bad. Or rather, we can, and we have, but we shouldn't. I believe in punishing crimes, and I don't see how possessing an inanimate item is, in itself, a crime.

Except, of course, that "they" don't trust us with firearms, so we have to prove we're worthy. If that's legitimate, then we should make people prove they're competent to vote or express their political opinions in public.

 

[The Rabbi]

Edit to add: My point being that the analogy does not work, due to lack of Constutional protection on operating motor vehicles.

The analogy does work because the 2nd does not apply to states. And even states where the state constituion guarantees firearm ownership, nothing in the language says the state has to leave it totally unregulated.

At best, gun-control “laws†might help prevent accidents. Keeping with our stereotypes, the good-hearted but careless ’neck who is too impatient to learn how to properly handle a firearm will probably be dissuaded from acquiring one by complicated regulations and requirements, but a truly bad guy like your criminal ’banger will simply acquire and use his guns illegally

You will never deter a truly determined bad guy from just about anything. But most people are not truly determined, including those who commit crimes. We have seen ample ample anecdotal evidence on this thread of people who have no business being around guns, either through irresponsibility or through gross ignorance. You can cure the gross ignorance part by mandating some kind of safety training. You can mitigate the irresponsible part by setting up some kind of minimal threshold people have to pass.

 

[KONY]

Well you guy are forgeting that, even though a crimnal can get thier hands on a gun illegally, he can never use it or show it to anyone without commiting a crime. If I am in an accident, or traffic stop, or whatever and am carrting legally, nothing bad happens to me. If your "banger" with an illegal wepon get pulled over for a broken tailight and the cop discovers his wepon, he is going to jail. And this happens alot. If there was nor regulation, alot of the very bad people who are in jail now for gun crimes would be out on the street.

Ummm ... if a "banger" did something illegal, it would show-up on his criminal record. Wouldn't the charges found on this record be what qualifies him/her as a "banger"? Or are we prosecuting people BEFORE they commit a crime now? Where's Tom Cruise when you need him?!!

 

[KONY]

You can mitigate the irresponsible part by setting up some kind of minimal threshold people have to pass.

Who gets to determine the "minimal threshold to pass"? What if we set the "threshold" so high that poor people couldn't afford to get "enough" training? Just some questions I have.

 

[Werewolf]

I was responding to the statement that Darwin would take care of things. The lesson I got from Tyler is that Darwin doesnt work all the time. There, a well trained shooter lost his life to a creep. So the supposition I see here that because we are well trained and well armed we will prevail in any fight is wrong.

DARWIN ALWAYS WINS!

And he won at Tyler, TX too. The CCW holder didn't have a vest the shooter did (foresight, tactical planning ability, etc). The shooter's ability to plan ahead and carry big guns trumped any training the CCW guy had.

Like I said:

DARWIN ALWAYS WINS!

 

[KONY]

DARWIN ALWAYS WINS!

Unfortunately, I must agree. Makes me want to take a trip to the Galapogos to find out what other stuff those birds told him!

 

[ScorpioVI]

There, a well trained shooter lost his life to a creep.

I gotta disagree there. Without disparaging his heroics, the man essentially brought a knife to a gunfight, and died. A "well-trained" shooter would have seen the event going down from his apartment window (as this man did), grabbed a rifle, oh say a Remington 700PSS in .308 (this is Texas, no?), and popped the perp from the comfort of his living room. He'd be a living hero, and not a dead one.

 

[UberPhLuBB]

Is failure to pass the test and obtain the permit really going to stop him from carrying a gun?! How many shootings can you cite in which the murderer fired a gun he was legally licensed to carry a gun you would prefer he had not been licensed to carry?

I don't think that bureaucratic hurdles have kept one "banger" from carrying a gun and saved a single life. We are talking about people who are willing to commit murder. Denial of a pistol permit will keep them from going around with a Jennings tucked into the waistband?! Come on, people, let's think a little deeper about this than the average HCI spokesman would, okay?

The Rabbi,

How does simply licensing handgun carry affect the availability of weapons for a criminal? Seriously, I can't see the connection there. If we started talking about background checks to buy and restricting handgun sales, then I could see it. But if he already has the gun, how does denying him a permit to carry prevent him from getting one?

I don't think it's an issue of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, it's an issue of liability. If we show that these people are clearly distinct from law-abiding carriers, there isn't going to be any blanket liability for us. Draw a line and stay on one side of it and they can't lump all gun owners in with criminals.

At least that's how I see it.

Helping keep a few idiots from carrying when they shouldn't would be a great side effect, but the paper-based distinction it would provide (not unlike comparing a college grad to a non-grad when sizing them up for a job) is the main factor in my opinion.

I dont mind taking a driving test to get my drivers license and I dont mind taking a training course to get my ccw. It wont deter me because I am Legal.

I agree. I only wish I had that chance here in LA County.

Now then, can we get back to the painfully amusing stories?

 

[SpookyPistolero]

So how was your view from the street or apartment or wherever you were in Tyler, ScorpioVI? I assume you were there to see how the incident was played out in order to say that the man who grabbed his pistol to stop the killing made a mistake.

Going into a situation knowing there are bad odds for you doesn't make you untrained or a candidate for the darwin award. It means you did what you felt needed to be done. How do you know he would have had time to go unlock a safe, get out a rifle and take the shot? How do you know he didn't want to save as many lives as possible and maybe buy some people precious time by at the very least being a forceful distraction to the assailant?? How do you know his level of training (not just whats on paper, if youve even looked that up) or what any man would do in that situation, unless you were in it too?

Don't condescend to tell a man who gave his life for prefect strangers what he should have done. Deal in reality.

 

[lotus]

Why does this thread make me want to say ...

http://www.celebritywonder.com/mp/2004_Collateral/2004_collateral_015.jpg

"Yo, homey! That my briefcase?"

 

[KONY]

Well, I see this thread has taken a turn for the worse and can officially be labeled as "hi-jacked". I apologize for my role in keeping it going. Seems to happen whenever people feel strongly about a topic. Let's just keep it civil (or close to it, at least). Your opinions have been good "food for thought" for me.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'll second that and apologize for any hijacking I may have done.

Did I mention the brutha who came into the store and wanted a carbine with a short barrel? Real short. So he could hang it out a car window.

 

[KONY]

I'll second that and apologize for any hijacking I may have done.

Copy cat!

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

From some of these descriptions.....

I guess I am a banger .......
Boom Car(1 JL audio 12subwoofer300wamp monod) - check
Afro with pic hanging out- check
Glock 23- check
WASR ak- check
Baggy jeans-check(u try concealed carrying a Glock 23 or Taurus 45 mill. with a 28" waiste line )
I guess all I am missing is shooting my Glock side-ways with a home-boy grip
! I doubt some of you guys have seen all this sideways shooting /thrusting "jab" motion that you claim. I simply can't belive that Hollywood has that much influence on people ! T.V. and movies are the only place I have seen this type of activity ! Not saying it isn't done just a healthy sceptic ! No offense intended.......but a little taken lol......

 

[KONY]

Boom Car(1 JL audio 12subwoofer300wamp monod)

Lightweight! Come back when you have at least 3 12"'s or 2 15''s with a 1000 watt Class D amp! Guaranteed to make your headlights dim and kill your alt in a month!

 

[richyoung]

"Yes, but that doesn't mean that everything not mentioned in the Constitution is a right."

What it means is that EVERYTHING not mentioned in the Constitution as being a deligated power, or following into an area the Federal government has authority, such as inter-state commerce or international treaties, or raising an army, is OFF LIMITS to the Federal Government. All of those Federal parks, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas? ILLEAGAL - the Federal Governement is prohibited from retaining land, except for the National Capital, and military bases, and those are supposed to be less than 10 square miles. That's why Oklahoma had the land runs - the Feds had to get rid of the land. FAA? FCC? DOT? I don't see anything in the Constitution about airplanes, telephones, rail roads, or radio waves. The IRS? Let me ask you something -= if you aren't involved in interstate commerce or the export/import business (I venture to say that would fit most of us), and the governement is PROHIBITED from regulating you, how can they turn around and tax you? Taxation is a form of regulation! How can you file a 1040 and NOT give up your 5th ammendmant right against self-incrimination? Isn't the IRS part of the Federal Government? Unfortunately, the generation I am a part of has no guts and no spine - we don't desever the freedom our better ancestors died to give us, and we will soon lose it.



"It just means that one can't use the exclusion of something from the Constitution as justification for restraint. The Constitution doesn't specifically prohibit me from keeping your wallet if I find it in the street, but most people would agree I don't have a "right" to the wallet."

Not a federal matter - it would fall under what ever local laws govern the disbursement of lost property.

"Ditto stealing your car, breaking into your home, and so forth."

Unless I'm on an Indian reservation or military base, not federal jurisdiction. (A concept that has sadly been lost, thanks in part to the NRA's idiotic "Project Exile".)

 

[The Rabbi]

FAA? FCC? DOT? I don't see anything in the Constitution about airplanes, telephones, rail roads, or radio waves. The IRS? Let me ask you something -= if you aren't involved in interstate commerce or the export/import business (I venture to say that would fit most of us), and the governement is PROHIBITED from regulating you, how can they turn around and tax you? Taxation is a form of regulation! How can you file a 1040 and NOT give up your 5th ammendmant right against self-incrimination? Isn't the IRS part of the Federal Government? Unfortunately, the generation I am a part of has no guts and no spine - we don't desever the freedom our better ancestors died to give us, and we will soon lose it.

Check this link here: http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html