There obviously should be some form of gun control. Nobody needs a Barrett .50 for protection or hunting.
So what? No-one "needs" any more than about 100 horsepower to commute and run errands, but we are free to choose. Do you even know what a Barrett .50 is? Does the CONUS say specifically that the right to keep and bear arms is strictly for the purpose of hunting and protection? There OBVIOUSLY already is a very long list of gun control measures in effect. Wake up, and enlighten yourself before you attack MY rights.
How about you grow up a little bit and not act like a sullen child when responding to my posts. If you don't like them, then don't respond to them. You should know better by now. I'm not the Sheriff; it's not my responsibility to protect anybody rather it's the job of law enforcement; that's why I pay taxes. You want to be a gunslinger, that's your business; just don't miss when you fire. You might end up killing killing the person(s) your trying to protect.
As I've said before, bolt action rifles, shotguns and musketry should be allowed. A properly aimed bullet will kill whether it's fired from a rifle or handgun.
No one needs more than 12 horsepower to drive to work either. You just display another ignorant position about guns but that does not surprise me. You are just another authoritarian that wants to tell people what to do. Let me know how many Barratt .50's have been used in crimes.
I have my own set of rights which include not being picked off from a mile away. Seems like your rights end where mine begin. And I know what the CONUS says, particularly the "well-regulated militia" part. As I read "well-regulated", I think it means "well-regulated".
if you are so frightened of getting pick off a mile away, there's two things to note. 1. There's not that many who could take that shot. 2. You stand a better chance of being mauled by your family pet than you are to be shot from a mile away. I think you've convinced yourself to exist in a world full of terrible things and everybody should join you.
It's not projecting to say I don't need a Barrett .50 for hunting. It would be projecting for me to say you don't need one, either. I forgot to take into account that you most likely do.
And how many actual crimes have been done with a Barrett .50? Barrett .50s were developed as target rifles for people doing 1,000 yard shooting.
maybe I do and maybe I don't That isn't any of your business. you are projecting your personal fears on the rest of us.... Now that's real terror.........and you have no Right to determine how I posses my firearms or for what purpose BTW, I can't hit a target 1 mile away.
So uh... Exactly how many criminals have used a target rifle of any kind, at any time, anywhere in the entire history of mankind, to randomly kill anyone from a mile away? I think it's much more urgent to have a law already in existence in the eventuality that someone should develop an instrument that is able to isolate and direct a meteor at a selected individual. Yea. Ban That! Before it's too late!
That's a much broader question than "why do you carry a concealed weapon?", which is what your query appeared to be. But the answer is similar, in Florida people with a concealed carry permit do not have these issues of going postal, or improperly storing their firearms. The fears & predictions in 1987 (when Florida went "shall issue") by the gun banners were that people with carry permits would go nuts and kill people, every road rage incident would turn into a gun battle, their guns would be taken from them by a criminal, etc. Didn't happen, just the opposite. That's why the FDLE quit compiling the data. And why are you so concerned about the law abiding gun owner and not the criminal? Criminals get their firearms through multiple sources, there is a thriving black market which will easily expand to meet demand. It seems you are concerned about a red herring.
If you have read my posts in here, you'll find that no where have I maintained that criminals should have weapons. If you find a post in here where I've said that, please point it out to me. My point is if ownership of handguns, etc is made illegal with stiff penaties, then the demand for gun companies in this country to produce handguns, etc will be sharply reduced and fewer and fewer of them will be manufactured thus reducing criminals ability to acquire them. The black market will dry up as well.
I'm sure you have not claimed that criminals should have weapons. But rather than focus on the major sources and causes of crime and violence, you focus on curtailing the rights of law abiding people whose role in the sources and causes of crime is small and secondary at best. By focusing on gun violence (cherry picking) you mark yourself as a "banner" - someone interested in guns and not interested in public safety. Guns don't cause violence, guns are a tool of people who first decide on violence and then seek a means to do violence. If you want to reduce truly reduce violence, then address inner city poverty, poor schools, hopelessness, inner city political corruption, drugs. But that's a hard problem, its much easier and politically convenient to go after a nice distraction like guns. So you want to ban handguns. And when that does not reduce crime and violence to zero, you will proceed to banning long guns. And when a total gun ban not only fails to eliminate crime but increases it (as in Australia), then what? Are you going to ban knives, clubs, baseball bats? Are you going to ban bullies? Are you going to make it illegal for more than 2 men to hang out because they might gang up on someone? What are you going to tell those 500,000 to 2,300,000 (per year) people that would have successfully defended themselves against violence but were made into victims by your disarmament? Australia reduced their already low homicide rate to an even lower number, but in the process greatly increased sexual assault, assault with serious bodily injury, kidnapping, robbery, and even homicide (some temporarily, others like assault are still high above the pre-ban rate). What are you going to tell all those victims of violence? "Sorry you had to suffer life long injury, but I don't like guns and you are just collateral damage."
We disagree then. It's not a curtailing of the rights of law abiding citizens since they would still have the right to arm themselves; just not with handguns. I think that's mere speculation on your part. Yes, Bullies should be banned. I don't know about knives, clubs and baseball bats since their primary function is not to kill or maim others. Subject to a change in the constitution, I would not support the total ban on firearms. The same thing that we currently hear from many pro-gunners in response to the thousands of victims who die each year from gunshots : "Sorry but life's not fair".
There is a big difference between the banners and the gun rights people. On balance, firearms decrease crime as demonstrated by the simple fact that over 20+ years crime rates in the US have dropped >50% while gun ownership has increased and gun control has decreased (contrary to Australia). As the previous few posts have shown, defensive firearm use in the US is significant even if you go with the lowest estimates of around 200,000 per year. In order to make a small reduction in firearm related homicide, as a banner you would willingly increase overall crime and violence. You would willingly shift those 200,000+ people per year into the crime victim category to save a maximum of 8,200 or so firearm related homicides. Think of it like this, 1 less homicide for at least 24 more rapes, aggravated assaults, and robberies. Good trade? Maybe for a banner, but not for someone truly interested in public safety.
Nah, you're confusing me for a Republican. Not many. But those who could take that shot might certainly be tempted to try, doncha think? Especially when they are in another county and know the police response would be slow.
But those who could take that shot might certainly be tempted to try Do you read what you write? (did you hear what you said?) Why on God's green earth would someone want to kill you? Why waste a $4 bullet when a .25 cent round will work even better. Where has one of these magnificent 1 mile shots been taken at you? Has someone attempted to assassinate you? Because that's all that weapon would be good for...target practice and long distance murder. and some way the pro-gun crowd is paranoid......
In a couple paragraphs, you just supported my arguments against .50 cals. and John Malvo would have loved one of those .50 caliber sniper guns. Sheeeit - we'd still be looking for him. And the toll would be about what by now?
some people actually believe in their fears coming to life, and here you are concerned with something that'll never happen.................what if what if what if..............now wonder Liberal extremists are nuts, they are to the point where they required a bowl of "what if" paranoia with their coffee in the morning. just to make sure you are clear on this...I don't support any what if paranoia games, especially yours.
LOL, you mean he would love to have had the trunk blow open from the blast and also ruin his hearing?
