Gun owners are loser, wimps, & cowards

Two things the anti-gun types always seem to ignore:

Fact: In states where more and more gun control is innacted, the crime rate increases. Why should criminals be afraid to commit crimes? The gun control laws disarmed their victims for them.

Fact: Concerning hunting, there is a larger and healthier deer population here now than when Columbus landed. Why? Properly regulated hunted seasons and conservation efforts made my hunters.

OK. Whether you agree with the guy who wrote the article or not he is entitled to an opinion; I am unaware of any law/ statute etc that states you must agree with what he writes.



A lot of gun owners probably are losers, wimps and cowards who have guns to make up for their insecurities. Then again such as description can also be applied to people who like big cars, or even - heaven forfend - lift weights; Insecurity is insecurity, what you dress it up with is irrelevant.



Then again, not everyone who has a gun is a wimp etc…Strangely enough, people are people and they are even different.



Riddle me this: I can understand why you may wish to have a handgun for protection or a rifle for hunting, but where, in the concept of self-defense of your home/ family etc do you need a semi-automatic assault rifle [for arguments sake, accepting that not everyone owns one] or is the occurance of multiple, heavily-armed home invasion a common occurance?



Riddle me this too: I see and understand the argument that criminals polled are less likely to commit a crime where they know they home owner has a gun. Well d’uh! Being a criminal doesn’t automatically reduce your IQ by 50 points; if it did, they’d be in congress. Lessee, I’m a criminal do I rob the house with the gun or without??? Thing is though, such a society isn’t about the right to bear arms for your protection, it’s about your right to bear arms because everyone else has got a gun and safe is a hell of a lot better than sorry. Still a climate of fear and suspicion even if you’re neither afraid or suspicious.




However the argument that guns are bad is fallacious [Not fellatio]. Just like you can’t argue that alcohol is bad; they are things, nothing more. People, however, are a whole different story; people ought to be banned. So if you have to have your right to bear arms fine, but also a stand-down period for mandatory police checks etc [which is what they do here in NZ] to make sure you’re not a psycho then everybody wins, the responsible people get the guns and the nutters get a padded cell.

In the US, unlike other places, we have a right to bear arms. That starts with the supposion (not suppository)that we don’t have to prove the need or have a reason in the first place and if the government feels the need to regulate then it’s encumbent upon them to prove it necessary. Kind of like the innocent until proven guilty thing.

There are something like 6 million “assault” rifles in legal possesion of people here. Something less than 2% of all firearms confiscated from criminals are this type of weapon. The percentage of them used in murders is even less. They have valid uses in sport. There are shooting competitions specifically for military type weapons of this sort. They are used for predator control on ranches and farms. They have been used in defense of life and property, the most notable examples are the LA riots and the looting in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew. In neither instance were the authorities in any postition to help and the people had to deal with mobs the best they could. “Assault” weapons were used to great effect both times.

The favorite source of guns for criminals is theft. No surprise there, if you’re willing to steal why buy your own gun. There is no waiting period or background check involved in burglary. Criminals circumvent the law, that’s kind of part of the job discription. We have about 10,000 laws regarding firearms in the US already, many of them go unenforced or are watered down in effect by plea bargaining so it’s safe to assume any additional laws would meet the same fate.

I don’t know why people are so stirred up about semi automatic rifles in the first place. Any skilled shooter can engage a target and hit it with a bolt action, pump, or lever action rifle just as quickly. In some of the timed stages of shooting competitions there is no additional time alloted for each action type specifically because of that. If you want to put a lot of lead in the air a pump shotgun with buckshot is tons more effective than a semiauto “assualt” rifle. It about emotion and impression rather than any real threat or risk.

I happened to read an interesting story this morning about a woman who fended off a rapist with a gun. It’s a little long to post, but the URL is below. Good story.

www.aware.org/archive/bwg.shtml

I appreciate you addressing the fact that if anyone (not just women) isn’t aware of thier surroundings and possible dangers, then no, a gun may not be of much help and might even hurt thier situation. However, I would like to point out that you used only a portion of my statement about how a woman can employ the use of a firearm to protect herself. Please look at the sentence just before the portion of my previous post that you picked out to ridicule. I wrote ‘Sad thing is, a woman with some basic training and target practice can fend off a rapist a lot easier with a gun than with a bat, or a knife.’ I stated that she would require some “basic training” in the proper use and attitude required to effectively use a firearm as a feasible means of self protection. I apologize if I didn’t state that clearly enough in my previous post. In every firearms training class that I have observed, the instructors stress that the gun is the last resort, and that the most important factor in avoiding harm from a potential assailant is to always be alert to your surroundings and try to avoid being alone in hostile territory. They emphasize avoiding dangerous situations, and being perceptive to possible dangers. Most of the women that are caught unawares by assailants are usually not exercising a basic level of awareness that everyone should maintain. I have observed that in most cases women are very sensitive to dangerous people and situations. The women that are caught unaware by an assailant usually don’t have the initial forsight to even carry a gun in the first place. The firearm instructors will also tell you that if you aren’t sure of your ability to shoot someone in self defense that you shouldn’t own a gun for self defense purposes. They also make it clear that if you do not feel confidence in your basic proficiency with the gun that you shouldn’t be handling it without the supervision of someone more experienced with guns. You’d be surprised by how many women there are that are very skilled with a handgun. I personally know a grandma that competes at a local gun club in combat pistol matches and often outshoots some of the law enforcement officials that are members of that club. I have no doubt that she would easily deter anyone that broke into her home or tried to mug her on the street. She is a good markswoman, stays alert to her surroundings, and she has the proper attitude and is not afraid to exert deadly force to protect her life. She will also give you a serious tongue lashing if you try to tell her that guns should be outlawed. I won’t persue your argument against hunting because if you haven’t researched the information regarding population control amongst game animals by the fish and wildlife department then you wouldn’t have any idea what I was talking about. I am not trying to criticise you, I am just trying to point out that you may not have considered all of the aspects of these issues. Peace.

Wow, I am humbled. I saw this post and I thought, this is going to be a thread of misinformation and propaganda against the 2nd amendment. I then tried to decide if it was worth pointing out the facts that the anti-gun media is all too willing to ignore on a topic that is very emotional to many people. With the exception of a few misinformed individuals, what I read was a group of people very knowledgeable about the 2nd amendment as well as game management. There is little else I could add to this thread. But I’ll voice a couple of thoughts that were touched upon briefly

In regards to hunting, game management is a science. A habitat can only support a limited amount of animals, and the expanding human population constantly reduces the available land. Game management keeps the animal population at an ideal level for the habitat, preventing a cyclical swing of overpopulation, starvation, and under population. Although I can only speak from my experience, it is a stereotype to think hunters are killing animals and not taking the meat. Are you kidding me? Who in their right mind would leave perfectly good meat and then go to the supermarket and pay for it? Also, please keep in mind that hunters pay fees in licenses and stamps and taxes on their ammo. That money then goes to support animal habitats. Population of many hunted species have actually increased with sensible game management.

As far as assault rifles, that is mainly a term given to a rifle with cosmetic differences, such as a synthetic stock, or a pistol grip. Besides the way it looks, assault rifles are really not all that different in function than most hunting rifles. Regardless, don’t be confused, the purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to allow people to hunt, but to allow them to own a weapon for self defense. Guns are designed to kill, that is the truth that people like to dance around.

I hope that T-men everywhere can live their entire lives and never have to use a gun in an emergency. Please remember that weather you choose to own a firearm or not, often making smart decisions is the best way to avoid trouble.

Fact: the anti-gun factions want ALL legal firearms confiscated. By starting with the “evil looking” assault rifles - which acount for less than 1% of violent crimes, they have a good starting point. "Well, golly gee, we all agreed that the assault rifles should be outlawed, the 9mm handgun kills many more people, therefore…

Do any of you gun hating freaks even know the definition of a assault rifle. I have two rifles at home that would be called assault rifles if I just put a bayonet stub on them. Now the lack or addition of a bayonet stub has nothing to do with the shooting effectiveness of the rifle and these people who pass legislation are the same ones I am supposed to put my trust in with keeping the second amendment. As for all those out there that think it is the cops job to protect you. Well you?re naive. I rembered a case I studied in college. It had to do with two women that were held captive and raped and made to perform sexual acts on each other over a span of a few hours. These hours passed after a desperate phone call was place to the local authorities. The women tried to sue the city do to the negligent lack of action by the police. The verdict came out that the police are not obligated to offer protection to any one specific individual but to offer protection to the society as a whole. So basically the courts said that it is the responsibility of the individual to protect them self?s. Not the police.
sorry if my pucuation is messed up. This was writen on word and t-form for some reason does it.

Based on United States Federal Court decisions; (Bowers v. DeVito U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F2d 1982 and South v Maryland, U. S. Supreme Court 1856), among other federal rulings; and in addition to California Government Code Sec. 845(5) it?s clear that the police have no responsibility to come to the aid of the individual but only have a general responsibility to protect the public