If you had a week?

[packerbacker]

I also believe in gun control.......to a point. We don't want nut-jobs to have guns but I don't think there is any way to truly tell who is a nut and who isn't. I don't think felons should have guns either but felons steal things; guns being one of the things they steal. I also think guns that are in homes where children reside should be locked up. I don't need a fully automatic weapon to enjoy shooting but I can understand there is probably some perfectly honest citizens that get a kick out of firing them. They usually have permits to own those weapons. I also agree on the number of rounds needed to hunt deer. Heck, dove and migratory bird hunting laws in CA state your shotgun can only hold three rounds while bird hunting so you have to put a plug in your gun. There ARE gun control laws but not everyone adheres to them. THAT is the problem. I would hate to be left defenseless against looters because I could no longer have a weapon to protect myself. During disasters such as the one we are speaking of, law enforcement is very busy and you are basically on your own. Yes, I agree, it's a problem but the cure has to be something other than taking everyone's guns away or outlawing certain ones because of their "appearance".

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[bigscoop]

Gun control is a very tough and sensitive issue. However, somewhere along the line there simply has to be "an effective compromise". If this compromise means surrendering a bit of my gun ownership rights, or ease of access, then at this point, I am all for it. My issue with military style weapons in the sporting field is that for many, they simply attract and invite and promote the wrong values within the sporting field. In Indiana I lived right on a 3000 acre lake that was surrounded by state forest lands, I cannot tell you the number of times I witnessed the spraying of bullets at running deer without any consideration as to what was in the background. DNR Officers were routine customers in my shop and their concern over the issue was getting to the point that they feared even entering the field during deer season. Several of the hunters I knew simply quit coming to the area for fear of getting caught in the reckless crossfire, especially true on the weekends. So clearly there are many issues in several gun control areas that need addressed.

 

[Chadeaux]

I think we can do without the gun control, if we institute the institutionalization of idiots.

It's people that pull the trigger, therefore, the gun is only a tool.

I always have at least three lethal blades on my person except when I'm in the Federal Courthouse (you would not want to do what I do for a living) because I personally won't carry a firearm - don't even own one. On the other hand, I've never had to pull a knife on a human. It's usually a smart butt question about whether I know how to use them. My answer is: "I've been doing this for over 20 years, and I'm still here without a cut or bullet hole in me."

I do believe that anyone who is able to THINK RATIONALLY should be able to decide for themselves if they want one. I may soon as I'm getting up in years and not as fast or accurate as I once was. Prefer the blades though because I can't accidentally pull the trigger or forget to turn off the safety.

BTW, there are places that are trying to make it illegal for citizens to carry ANY knives in public. It's the same donkeys that are pushing gun control.

 

[bigscoop]

I think we can do without the gun control, if we institute the institutionalization of idiots.

It's people that pull the trigger, therefore, the gun is only a tool.

I always have at least three lethal blades on my person except when I'm in the Federal Courthouse (you would not want to do what I do for a living) because I personally won't carry a firearm - don't even own one. On the other hand, I've never had to pull a knife on a human. It's usually a smart butt question about whether I know how to use them. My answer is: "I've been doing this for over 20 years, and I'm still here without a cut or bullet hole in me."

I do believe that anyone who is able to THINK RATIONALLY should be able to decide for themselves if they want one. I may soon as I'm getting up in years and not as fast or accurate as I once was. Prefer the blades though because I can't accidentally pull the trigger or forget to turn off the safety.

BTW, there are places that are trying to make it illegal for citizens to carry ANY knives in public. It's the same donkeys that are pushing gun control.

So far, anyone with a different opinion is dumb, stupid, an idiot, a donkey, etc. I'm betting you're not in public relations.

 

[Chadeaux]

Actually, that's a big part of my job. Don't forget, this is for opinions . . . it isn't business.

 

[FarmerChick]

Bigscoop I applaud your patience. You must have tons of it good posts!!

 

[packerbacker]

Yeah Scoop, again I agree; it's a tough and sensitive issue but, in the context of this thread I think that even you will admit that "households" should be able to protect themselves and others from those that would enter a home to "loot". Let me clarify....if I'm in the house when they enter I have no idea of what they might do and I'll protect myself or others with deadly force. That's the risk a looter would take at my house.
Now, if I were approaching my house and saw some fool carrying out my tv, no, I would not use deadly force against this person but he may wish I had.

 

[truckinbutch]

Scoop ,
I agree that you are in over your head on this one . The issue is parenting and taking responsibility for one's own actions . What you are espousing here is that we must give in to those who did not have those benefits .
>
By your criteria ; my 3 daughters and one son (parents of my 6 grandchildren) who were responsibly reared and are professionals in the working world as well as parents should be denied their choice of firearms . Just because of the failures
of others .
>
Instead I propose that everyone should be required to go armed . You will see fewer dysfunctional individuals opening up on crowds if they think someone is going to shoot back .
>
In closing ; I'll say that my 3 girls and son , 2 sons in law , and a daughter in law are licensed CCW . My wife and I as well .
We all responsibly carry every day to protect ourselves and those around us . It's only an assault weapon if you are committing an assault with it . In that light ; even a fist is a rapid fire assault weapon ........ Ya wanna sponsor a nation of armless people just in case?...........................................

 

[bigscoop]

First, to the issue of looting, or stealing and vandalizing, not the same as an aggressive attack on one's physical person. So, for the context of this thread, "no"...I don't believe shooting looters should be made into an open season. The opening post in this thread was about "looting" and not about out right physical threats and/or attacks during home invasion. Entering an occupied residence or business with an armed show of force is subject for an entirely different thread. Just let us pray that all 50 of the customers inside the McDonald's are not packing and all making their move at the same time. I do not want to be in that crossfire.

Butch, the problem with your logic is that as a society we can't even get kids to quit using drugs despite all efforts to educate them. And like it or not, our society has also become one with two working parents, if in fact both parents still reside in the same home. The very values and principles you want to utilize are fading so fast from our society it is staggering. I would be greatly interested in hearing what laws you would create that would make good values and principles a requirement, though? Not sure how you would do this without violating an endless list of rights? And here rest the flaw in your logic; "Not everyone wants to be educated to Butche's way of thinking and living." I fully understand what you are saying, but the practicality of your proposal just isn't real world anymore. And "no"..the old "arm everyone" is a drum that has been beaten into the ground. Nearly everyone already owns, or has access to at least one gun and you can see how that is working out just dandy.

 

[Chadeaux]

Works out really well here in Arkansas.

The only places we have ever had mass shootings is where firearms are prohibited: School and the workplace.

No one holds up the gun club, no one bothers with the local pawnshops either. Everyone there IS packing, and usually there are deputies visiting (they get first pick at the nicer pieces) . . . sometimes even working when the owners need a day off or its hunting season.

Living in the north must be really different. Glad I've never been there.

Just a happy misplaced coonass living in Arkansas. God I love the south!

. . . 'cept for these buggers:

 

[truckinbutch]

First, to the issue of looting, or stealing and vandalizing, not the same as an aggressive attack on one's physical person. So, for the context of this thread, "no"...I don't believe shooting looters should be made into an open season. The opening post in this thread was about "looting" and not about out right physical threats and/or attacks during home invasion. Entering an occupied residence or business with an armed show of force is subject for an entirely different thread. Just let us pray that all 50 of the customers inside the McDonald's are not packing and all making their move at the same time. I do not want to be in that crossfire.

Butch, the problem with your logic is that as a society we can't even get kids to quit using drugs despite all efforts to educate them. And like it or not, our society has also become one with two working parents, if in fact both parents still reside in the same home. The very values and principles you want to utilize are fading so fast from our society it is staggering. I would be greatly interested in hearing what laws you would create that would make good values and principles a requirement, though? Not sure how you would do this without violating an endless list of rights? And here rest the flaw in your logic; "Not everyone wants to be educated to Butche's way of thinking and living." I fully understand what you are saying, but the practicality of your proposal just isn't real world anymore. And "no"..the old "arm everyone" is a drum that has been beaten into the ground. Nearly everyone already owns, or has access to at least one gun and you can see how that is working out just dandy.

I would enact no laws . The right of self preservation is already law . The idea you propose that the principles of personal responsibility and respect for others are outdated are prime for ridicule .
Why should we surrender our rights to a populace Hell-bent on self destruction ?
>
One son in law had access to at least one gun he owned when an armed felon fired on him ,unprovoked ,on a dark street
with an illegaly posessed .357mag .
>
Being legaly armed worked out fine for my son in law . He got the baxard in the head with one shot . Ruled justifieable shoot .

 

[onfire]

speaking about gun control, Last week I took a trip up north and visited a local gun shop that was robbed of all it's pistols One surfaced in a near by town after a murder using one of these stolen guns. They caught the dude in fact he admitted stealing them He got life for the act but all the guns recovered are now evidence The owner figures 9 to 10 years before he gets them back (Because of the appeals process). Hows that for gun control? Beware of Lawyers.

 

[bigscoop]

speaking about gun control, Last week I took a trip up north and visited a local gun shop that was robbed of all it's pistols One surfaced in a near by town after a murder using one of these stolen guns. They caught the dude in fact he admitted stealing them He got life for the act but all the guns recovered are now evidence The owner figures 9 to 10 years before he gets them back (Because of the appeals process). Hows that for gun control? Beware of Lawyers.

I do agree our court system needs some serious adjustment.

 

[bigscoop]

I would enact no laws . The right of self preservation is already law . The idea you propose that the principles of personal responsibility and respect for others are outdated are prime for ridicule .
Why should we surrender our rights to a populace Hell-bent on self destruction ?
>
One son in law had access to at least one gun he owned when an armed felon fired on him ,unprovoked ,on a dark street
with an illegaly posessed .357mag .
>
Being legaly armed worked out fine for my son in law . He got the baxard in the head with one shot . Ruled justifieable shoot .

Butch, not knowing all the details and circumstances of the shooting you're describing I can't pass any opinion on it. However, usually these things have a spring board leading up to the altercation. Though not a practical reply, I could just as easily argue that there would have been no shooting had there been no guns. And here is yet another flaw in the "arm them all" concept....if neither man would have had a gun then there would have been no shooting at all. If we use just your example of one shooting, two men, it could easily be argued that 50% of that population acted carelessly with a gun. Your example only stands out as to why there is a need for gun control, not the opposite.

 

[truckinbutch]

Scoop ,
Can you name me on country where the criminals are without access to firearms ? Name me one such and I'll be more disposed to entertain your argument .......
>
My sil was a uniformed ,on duty,police officer and identified himself as such ; as well as ordering the felon to drop the weapon . The felon fired rather than comply . He missed . Sil didn't .
>
When guns are outlawed only the outlaws will have guns .

 

[bigscoop]

Scoop ,
Can you name me on country where the criminals are without access to firearms ? Name me one such and I'll be more disposed to entertain your argument .......
>
My sil was a uniformed ,on duty,police officer and identified himself as such ; as well as ordering the felon to drop the weapon . The felon fired rather than comply . He missed . Sil didn't .
>
When guns are outlawed only the outlaws will have guns .

First, I think you are perhaps confusing "outlawing guns" with "gun control". Nobody is suggesting that guns should be outlawed. What is being discussed is a need for some means, a better means, of gun control. Obviously, and using your own example, not everyone should have access to guns. In the situation you provided we have an armed officer of the law engaging an armed felon, just as it should be. This also serves as a good example as to why some should, and should not, have access to firearms. Nobody is suggesting that guns should be outlawed, only that a better means of gun control is required. As stated before, I do not have an effective answer for the problem, but I do realize there is a need for an effective solution. Arming everyone is not the answer, just as every gun related incident/altercation demonstrates. In every one of these scenarios there is someone who should not have had access to guns. And no matter how hard you try you cannot despite this very obvious fact. As a gun enthusiast I'm not afraid to openly and publicly admit that I fully realize this fact and that an effective solution needs to be brought to the table. If in enacting that effective solution it cost me a bit of gun/access rights then I am all for it. "Guns don't kill people, people do" and we need to find a way to effectively attack the situation.

 

[Frankn]

You haven't said it yet Bigscoop! What is you idea of "Gun Control" that you think would work? Do you suggest more laws, and what laws. I think the point you are missing is that criminals don't obey the law. Frank

 

[Chadeaux]

First, I think you are perhaps confusing "outlawing guns" with "gun control". Nobody is suggesting that guns should be outlawed. What is being discussed is a need for some means, a better means, of gun control. Obviously, and using your own example, not everyone should have access to guns. In the situation you provided we have an armed officer of the law engaging an armed felon, just as it should be. This also serves as a good example as to why some should, and should not, have access to firearms. Nobody is suggesting that guns should be outlawed, only that a better means of gun control is required. As stated before, I do not have an effective answer for the problem, but I do realize there is a need for an effective solution. Arming everyone is not the answer, just as every gun related incident/altercation demonstrates. In every one of these scenarios there is someone who should not have had access to guns. And no matter how hard you try you cannot despite this very obvious fact. As a gun enthusiast I'm not afraid to openly and publicly admit that I fully realize this fact and that an effective solution needs to be brought to the table. If in enacting that effective solution it cost me a bit of gun/access rights then I am all for it. "Guns don't kill people, people do" and we need to find a way to effectively attack the situation.

How do you propose to get the felons, the gang bangers and general no goods to abide by that law?

When you can make them abide by the law, then you will have a gun control law I can accept, PROVIDED THAT IT DOES NOT DEPRIVE EVEN ONE LAW ABIDING CITIZEN of their right to keep and bear arms.

Until you can get that type of gun control to work, then don't talk to me about gun control. Anything less is an attempt to disarm the honest law abiding public thus making martial law easier to put in place and enforce.

 

[Rossiter25]

I think we can do without the gun control, if we institute the institutionalization of idiots.

It's people that pull the trigger, therefore, the gun is only a tool.

I always have at least three lethal blades on my person except when I'm in the Federal Courthouse (you would not want to do what I do for a living) because I personally won't carry a firearm - don't even own one. On the other hand, I've never had to pull a knife on a human. It's usually a smart butt question about whether I know how to use them. My answer is: "I've been doing this for over 20 years, and I'm still here without a cut or bullet hole in me."

I do believe that anyone who is able to THINK RATIONALLY should be able to decide for themselves if they want one. I may soon as I'm getting up in years and not as fast or accurate as I once was. Prefer the blades though because I can't accidentally pull the trigger or forget to turn off the safety.

BTW, there are places that are trying to make it illegal for citizens to carry ANY knives in public. It's the same donkeys that are pushing gun control.

So what exactly do you do for a living. You may think its hard someone else may think its easy.

 

[bigscoop]

You haven't said it yet Bigscoop! What is you idea of "Gun Control" that you think would work? Do you suggest more laws, and what laws. I think the point you are missing is that criminals don't obey the law. Frank

If you have been following my post you would have no doubt read a couple of times where I have stated that, "I do not have an answer to the problem but that I am also a gun enthusiast, one who is open to solutions because I recognize the problem and also feel that it needs addressed." So what is it that you are waiting for me to say, exactly?