Cost of gun control?

[wrag]

I wold prefer the M1 Springfield myself and its semi-auto. Its bigger its heavier which are not good traits but its also accurate which is something the AK misses out on but please dont think for an instant the AK isnt dangerous. Bullet for bullet though I think the Springfield is much better.

You are referring to the M1A?

An M14 on full auto is nearly impossible to control UNLESS you are using a bipod and firing from the prone position (and even then it will still lift your body upward if your firing down hill) or fire very short burst with you aim allowing for the climb.

[CAVPFCDD]

The chance of needing homeowners insurance is actually pretty slim, but most people have it.  Same for life insurance when you are young, but again, most have it.  The difference of course is a gun might save your life, insurance just saves your money.  Which is worth more to you?

i still think its paranoia, i own a gun, it stays at home, theres no need to walk around with one, that's just a little too extreme for me, theres more of a chance of someone unarmed taking your gun from you and using it on you than there is you'll needed to use your gun on someone whos armed. I just think people shounldn't walk around being prepared and expecting the worst to happen.

[FLOTSOM]

i still think its paranoia, i own a gun, it stays at home, theres no need to walk around with one, that's just a little too extreme for me, theres more of a chance of someone unarmed taking your gun from you and using it on you than there is you'll needed to use your gun on someone whos armed. I just think people shounldn't walk around being prepared and expecting the worst to happen.

so what your saying is that preparation is futile and submission when confronted is the answer?

yes i agree that the odds of being a victim are low, but so are the odds your 2 year old will set himself on fire if he plays with matches because he is not likely to figure out how to ignite them. does this mean you are more than willing to supply him with them? or will you take the preventative measure to keep them out of his reach?

does your home have a smoke alarm? do you know what the odds are of dying in a house fire are?

but of course those who built the dikes in New Orleans said that the odds of catastrophic flooding were so low that they didn't need to reinforce the old and decrepit dikes already in existence.

what do you think the odds were of Pompey exploding and completely covering burying an entire roman city? do you think their unpreparedness and wishful thinking stopped even one of them from being buried alive?

well I'm a damn good driver, but my car still comes with airbags and seat belts. why should i have to buy equipment that i don't feel that i need?

my point is, you are saying that because the odds are low that you will ever need to use it to defend yourself that you don't need to carry a firearm, and i disagree completely with this rational. there are thousands of things that will kill or harm you in the world, and most of them are avoided by simply taking precautions.

and as a last point, if you have received proper weapon handling instruction and training, like any responsible adult would before carrying a weapon, then the chances of someone who is unarmed taking it away from you is extremely unlikely. the chances of an unarmed person assailing you knowing that you are armed is astronomically unlikely. i wont say these things are impossible, but then again you are not gonna find many people willing to take those risks.

i do not object to your want of belief that this is a safe world and that self defence is merely a mythical thing that need not be believed in, but i fear that is just the wishful thinking of an optimistic dreamer.

FLOTSOM

[Dago]

i still think its paranoia, i own a gun, it stays at home, theres no need to walk around with one, that's just a little too extreme for me, theres more of a chance of someone unarmed taking your gun from you and using it on you than there is you'll needed to use your gun on someone whos armed. I just think people shounldn't walk around being prepared and expecting the worst to happen.

1) Some people may not live in the neighborhood you do and are not safe in their neighborhood
2) Some people may not be able to physically defend themselves without a firearm
3) What you believe should not of course be forced upon others

I personally have a CCW, but don't carry, as the area I live in is pretty safe.  Because I don't carry means I don't think others should be denied the right to do so.

[KgB]

I think everyone should carry a gun. The stupid ones with no control will die off quickly leaving the rest of us with fewer people to support and if there ever is a situation where you need to pull your gun out there will be more people to cover the firing line that is blocked to your position.

Win/win.

Where did you learn that,Somalia?

[CAVPFCDD]

Dago i'm not forcing my beliefs on you, i'm stating my opinion

Flotsom you bring up good points, but everyone has smoke detectors because it's housing code.

All I'm saying is in my opinion, carrying a gun everywhere is a bit extreme, however if you have the permit, and you legally own the gun it's in acordance with the law and you have the right to do that, and I'd prefer you sane, law abiding people be doing it rather than a criminal with an illegal firearm.

I don't live in la la land and believe i'm going to be safe everywhere i go, i just prefer to not worry about things like that, and i don't think being armed will keep me safe in every situation. Like i said I'm not saying any of this to offend you guys, I respect you for doing it the right way as opposed to plaxico, I just disagree with it.

[FLOTSOM]

Dago i'm not forcing my beliefs on you, i'm stating my opinion

Flotsom you bring up good points, but everyone has smoke detectors because it's housing code.

All I'm saying is in my opinion, carrying a gun everywhere is a bit extreme, however if you have the permit, and you legally own the gun it's in acordance with the law and you have the right to do that, and I'd prefer you sane, law abiding people be doing it rather than a criminal with an illegal firearm.

I don't live in la la land and believe i'm going to be safe everywhere i go, i just prefer to not worry about things like that, and i don't think being armed will keep me safe in every situation. Like i said I'm not saying any of this to offend you guys, I respect you for doing it the right way as opposed to plaxico, I just disagree with it.

Then let us agree to disagree.

<SALUTE>

FLOTSOM

[Vulcan]

The question here is not about firearms for self defence, but two different questions:
1) do firearms controls in india help prevent terrorist incidents
2) would armed civilians help in the case of a terrorist incident


IMHO:
1) Yes they do help. This terrorist operation took so much effort that the finger is being pointed at Pakistani Intelligence agencies.
2) How would a cop feel having armed civilians running around shooting what they decide are terrorists. What happens when armed civilians mistake each other as terrorists. I feel that armed civilian responses in highly populated area's has a potential to make the death toll even worse. Rich46yo, can you describe to me what a terrorist looks like and what an armed civilian looks like?

On the self defence question I think thats a personal choice in the USA and I can completely understand the need.

[Rich46yo]

2) How would a cop feel having armed civilians running around shooting what they decide are terrorists. What happens when armed civilians mistake each other as terrorists. I feel that armed civilian responses in highly populated area's has a potential to make the death toll even worse. Rich46yo, can you describe to me what a terrorist looks like and what an armed civilian looks like?

The terrorists will be the ones who are shooting helpless civilians, woman and kids, while they are begging for their lives.

I need to tell you that?

What country are you from BTW?

[SmokinLoon]

What people dont seem to understand is that the bad guy will always get what they want.   

War on Drugs?
Prohibition?
Illegal firearms?
Prostitution?
Etc, etc.

Etc etc.  Laws are only followed by the good.  Laws are on a piece of paper and can not be backed by anything other than the threat of force.  That means the bad guys are kept in check by the threat of force by the good guys.  Oh, and keep in mind the LEO's are reactionary and they have very little chance of "preventing" crime.

In each and every country where firearms have been clamed down on the past 10-15 years there has been an INCREASE in gun crime.  Too bad you dont hear that in the media.  There is more gun crime now in the UK than prior.

[Vulcan]

The terrorists will be the ones who are shooting helpless civilians, woman and kids, while they are begging for their lives.

I need to tell you that?

What country are you from BTW?

Thought so, as usual you don't have a real answer do you.

[Vulcan]

In each and every country where firearms have been clamed down on the past 10-15 years there has been an INCREASE in gun crime.  Too bad you dont hear that in the media.  There is more gun crime now in the UK than prior.

Actually thats wrong.

"There was a significant increase in the number of firearm offences recorded between 1998/99 and 2001/02, though figures may have been partially influenced by some forces implementing the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard prior to its national introduction on 1 April 2002.

The increases have slowed since 2001/02, and the 2006/07 fall is the first since 1997/98."

To clarify on the first point firearms offences include anything where a firearm is alleged to have been used. In some cases no firearm is used or a replica (ie toy) is used.

Note that despite this there was a fall in recorded firearm offences in 2006/07. Feel free to pull your foot out of your mouth now.

[Dago]

Thought so, as usual you don't have a real answer do you.

I thought he answered you quite well.  I thought your original question was kind of ridiculous though.

How would a cop feel having armed civilians running around shooting what they decide are terrorists. What happens when armed civilians mistake each other as terrorists. I feel that armed civilian responses in highly populated area's has a potential to make the death toll even worse. Rich46yo, can you describe to me what a terrorist looks like and what an armed civilian looks like?

[Vulcan]

I thought he answered you quite well.  I thought your original question was kind of ridiculous though.

What exactly is ridiculous about it?

The article cites using armed civilians as a means to defeat terrorists. As a police officer I would like to know how he is going to decide - when encountering two groups of 'civlians' - who are the terrorists and who are the civilians returning fire. The other question is who do civilians decide are terrorists? If one civilian sees another civlian who is armed do they start shooting at each other.


p.s. rich46yo, I'm in that country where you are THIRTY times less like to be killed with a firearm than in the USA, where firearm ownership is ~1 firearm per 4 people, where you can legally buy suppressors/silencers for your firearm, and where you can legally buy Norinco products.

[Rich46yo]

p.s. rich46yo, I'm in that country where you are THIRTY times less like to be killed with a firearm than in the USA, where firearm ownership is ~1 firearm per 4 people, where you can legally buy suppressors/silencers for your firearm, and where you can legally buy Norinco products.

And they are 100 times less likely to answer a question when asked. For the record its for guys like you that I wish AH would reinstall the ignore feature in this forum.