I own a handgun for personal home protection. Once I quit being lazy I'll apply for my concealed carry permit, though I don't see myself carrying concealed too often.
I strongly believe those who are qualified to own handguns for personal and home protection, should absolutely be able to. In my view, handgun ownership requirements should be similar to getting a security clearance. No felonies or other violent crimes, no mental health issues, no drug/alcohol issues, no severe financial issues, no affiliation or support for violent/terrorist groups, and for gun ownership, certification of proper firearm safety training.
Of course that would require a much more extensive investigation than a simple background check, including extra costs, which should be paid for in part by the prospective owner, with contribution from the NRA and the state, maybe the feds too. We need more responsible owners, and less irresponsible owners.
Said accident hapened 31 years ago, in Europe. Gun control back wasnt as good as it is now - nor were safety precautions. Their father is fully to blame for leaving the safe unlocked, not going to argue about that. What i dont like is having weapon around, which obviously are aimed to kill. They dont make mé feel safer...
I'm not talking about comparative studies. I'm talking about objective isolated facts.
What are the odds of getting murdered by a gun in America? They're pretty low.
You can figure it out.
11,000/310,000,000 = ?
and if you want to do comparitive studies the violent crime is higher in the uk and multiple victim shootings are about the same per capita in Europe. Germany had the worst child school shootings of the past decade
In my home state of Pennsylvania ownership of a firearm is contingent upon a background check. This allows a person to purchase a firearm. In order to carry a firearm for personal protection "concealed". There is an application process, non refundable fee (fee is forfeit regardless of completion of application even if denied). There is then an education course required where the applicant sits with a state sherif or constable where the state agent decides if you are mentally and emotionally stable.
a) As one of the previous posters has already said, go read the federalist papers before spouting things like this
b) Once you finish reading them, read the 2 links I provided in the post you quoted
c) Profit and finally realise that in the US there is an individual right to bear arms, PERIOD
I spent my "conscript period" in medic training too. I'm Finnish though. :3
I don't know, just holding gun doesn't make me want to shoot someone. Really, if someone want's to get rid of somebody then he can do it without a gun as well. Shooting at a target-thingy(?!) and scoring bulls-eyes was actually fun.
I own a Corsair K90 keyboard.
What.....you don't think that counts as a weapon?
I would use it to beat internet trolls.
Last edited by mmoc13485c3c3f; 2012-11-28 at 12:16 AM.
I have read the federalist papers. i got it free on my kindal from amazon.
i cant find your links... i gave it a good look .... it may be in a different thread please relink.
yes there is a individual right to bear arms. i consider that self evident and not in question, but you asked for an instance where an amendment of the constitution can be outdated without the use of another amendment: with citations. i simply complied.
if you disagree that the formation of the national guard didn't effectively strip the states of any viable means of a modern defense, please state why. also consider the various weapon bans put in place that also violate the second amendment and the national guard is part of the federal government. yes each state can have its own militia in the traditional sense. formed from the population of each state and armed with the best/most modern weapons available. not happening... so yea i consider the second amendment violated: with citation
Last edited by tombstoner139; 2012-11-28 at 12:23 AM.
Wasn't there a city in the States where EVERY house is required to have a gun by law, and the crime rate in the city was 0 or something similar?
If you did read my post, I did clearly said that I considerd hunting to be a legitimate reason for gun ownership. While I dont hunt, I dont agree with killing animals for sport, I dont judge those who do hunt legaly.
Rather my point was that I dont see any reason why you would go hunting with an Assault Rifle, Submachine gun, Semi automatics, Automatic pistols.
I remember your previous posts. You even said something along the lines of "Wow another gun crime in the US What else is new!"
you try to push your agenda in a snarky mannerHey look its the weekly gun crime story, "still not allowed to generalize!"
'Rolls eyes into back of head'
And no English isnt my first language
you also didnt address my points.
11,000 gun murders in a country of 310 million is really low no matter which way you cut it. It's not as big a problem as you would like it to be
ignore it all you want its the objective truth
If you think your arms will be able to protect you from your military arms, well gg LOL. I usually don't respond with that kind of stuff, but in this case I kinda felt I had to.
I don't fear that I will have to protect myself from the police or military and even if I did, a handgun won't do shit against a tank. You can tell me all you want you feel safer with a gun in case you need to kill the US military someday, I'll just give you a high five and a good luck.
Last edited by Aceshigh; 2012-11-28 at 12:31 AM.
Here in New England almost everyone has a gun and the crime rate is the lowest in the country
---------- Post added 2012-11-28 at 12:31 AM ----------
good well maybe cut out the ad hominem attacks. Not everyone who likes guns is a "redneck" or "gun nut"