Is the private ownership of a gun wrong?

[hcjilson]

Please refrain from personal attacks on BOTH sides of this question. My position on this question is that while I no longer own any firearms, I believe in the right of an individual to own one or more for whatever reason is deemed appropriate as long as the owner of said firearm is well versed with the safety issues inherent.

I am positive my friend from Mississippi was unaware that he was making a racial slur when he used the term "Limey". The reason I am positive is because he is not a racist. He has told me this, and while we often disagree on some things, he is a man of his word and I believe him.

We often pick up things we hear commonly used, and mistakenly reuse them in a general sense. The term Limey is one such word, used (particuarly in Irish bars in South Boston) to describe the English people. It is a racial slur and I am sure one unintended by Chip.

For more than you wanted to know about Limey try; http://www.coolname.com/pipermail/ma...ry/019031.html

[QDO1]

Please refrain from personal attacks on BOTH sides of this question. My position on this question is that while I no longer own any firearms, I believe in the right of an individual to own one or more for whatever reason is deemed appropriate as long as the owner of said firearm is well versed with the safety issues inherent.

I am positive my friend from Mississippi was unaware that he was making a racial slur when he used the term "Limey". The reason I am positive is because he is not a racist. He has told me this, and while we often disagree on some things, he is a man of his word and I believe him.

We often pick up things we hear commonly used, and mistakenly reuse them in a general sense. The term Limey is one such word, used (particuarly in Irish bars in South Boston) to describe the English people. It is a racial slur and I am sure one unintended by Chip.

For further reading try this: http://www.coolname.com/pipermail/ma...ry/019031.html

my shoulders are broad enough to shrug off such a slur

[hcjilson]

Just trying to keep the peace and encourage a mutual respect for opposing views.

[rinselberg]

Barrett's .50-caliber rifle. Some use it for hunting - although there may not be much of the kill left for human consumption, aside from hamburger.

Ronnie Barrett's .50-caliber rifle is the most powerful firearm available to civilians, although it has been banned by some states, including California, for sale to civilians. The weapon, which fires an armor-piercing round up to 2000 yards, has been acquired by various military and police organizations, including the U.S. Army.

For the complete MSNBC report:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10207205/



OptiBoard member rinselberg describes how he's carved his own personalized cyberspace on the Web under the mock umbrella tradename rinselberg™.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=217

[QDO1]

Barrett's .50-caliber rifle. Some use it for hunting - although there may not be much of the kill left for human consumption, aside from hamburger.

Ronnie Barrett's .50-caliber rifle is the most powerful firearm available to civilians, although it has been banned by some states, including California, for sale to civilians. The weapon, which fires an armor-piercing round up to 2000 yards, has been acquired by various military and police organizations, including the U.S. Army.

That pretty much sums the deabte up Rinsel, its like saying I can own a huge bomb, because I can own a firework

[chip anderson]

I was about to capitualte and say that I agree: No one other than citizens of The United States should be allowed to own guns. Then you posted those rediculous stories about wierdos with 50 cal. stuff. These people are appearently just amuseing themselves. I can't find a single incident where such a weapon has ever been used in a crime in the U.S. The middle east, yes, but here no. Only in movies. This has no relevance to gun crime in the U.S. While I can see no reason for owning one, or a claymore mine, or a machine gun (unless the the U.S. becomes like the South Africia when the Mau-Mau's were taking power.

Most of this stuff costs so much and the ammuniton cost so much only the affluent nuts (who don't commit crimes) could aford to become proficent enough to use one.

Just what are you trying to prove. Illegal guns will always be available to criminals. If one were really wanting to commit a crime anyone with mediocre skills could make one (Yes, I could buy a lathe and make one, which is illegal but if I didn't care about illegaligalty, I could do this. Not as good as Remmington, but adequate for say, a 1000 yard assignation).

Bombs are easy to make, even people who can't read, or make cars, or even a toaster can make a rather efficent bomb. (I will probabaly get a visit from the FBI or Homeland "Security) after mentioning bombs in this post.

What is your point. There is a saying in the U.S. that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. This of course is not true, if outlawed the only effect in the US would be the price would go up (Has increaset about 1600% since Kennedy was shot).

So what is your arguement? You don't have gun, for which I am gratefull. You can probably buy (or steal) any kind of weapon you want in any country in the world, including those who have "outlawed) them today. It's just a question of how much you are willing to pay and how big of a risk you are willing to take.
If guns were illegal in the US (and in areas where they are such as Washington, D.C. murder rates are the highest, in areas where there are practically no restrictions they are the lowest.) And if they were illegal you can bet our neighbors to the north and south would be running them in just as they kept us supplied with liquor in the 20's.

Chip

[rinselberg]

I wasn't trying to move the discussion in any particular direction with my post (above).

It's confusing. On the one hand, the civilian sales of the .50-caliber rifle help make the weapon more affordable for, and more readily available to the U.S. Army and similar military and police agencies. At least, that is how I interpret this sentence in the MSNBC report:

Civilian sales are crucial to business because military and police orders can fluctuate year to year, Barrett said.

On the other hand, the report cites attempts by certain states and federal lawmakers to ban civilian sales of this weapon.

This is probably not a very good case to try and generalize about, since the .50-caliber is such a singularly high-powered and military-like firearm.



OptiBoard member rinselberg describes how he's carved his own personalized cyberspace on the Web under the mock umbrella tradename rinselberg™.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=217

[chm2023]

I do not propose outlawing gun ownership though I hate guns and would never own one. Some food for thought: gun ownership in colonial America was far less than is the case now--guns were very, very expensive (a musket cost about 2 months income) and there were no gun manufacturers in the US until the 19th century. My history on this is a bit fuzzy but the % of population who actually took up arms against the British was quite small. If you read the history of the Am Revolution you will see the major reasons the Am won were: the support of the French, and some real bone-headed military moves by the British. David McCullough's latest "1776" goes into this in great, and entertaining, depth.

Something else to consider: the recent rioting in France where thousands of cars were burned--went on for something like 12 nights, multiple cities. ONE death. Say what you want about the restrictive guns laws of the Europeans, but I think the upside of those laws are very eloquently demonstrated by this recent event. Imagine this in the US, hell you don't have to imagine, remember Watts.

[chip anderson]

Watts was an excellent example of why the law abiding part of society should have guns. Of course I guess you don't think bashing inocent peoples heads in with bricks is as much of a crime as shooting the person with the brick before he throws it.

Chip

[rinselberg]

Something else to consider: The recent rioting in France where thousands of cars were burned, went on for something like twelve nights in multiple cities. ONE death. Say what you want about the restrictive guns laws of the Europeans, but I think the upside of those laws is very eloquently demonstrated by this recent event. Imagine this in the US - hell you don't have to imagine, remember Watts.

Don't know. Watts seems kind of like ancient history by now. Maybe the differences in gun laws from the U.S. to France are part of some larger socio-economic picture (a "gestalt", if you will) that is the reason that there are currently such riots in France, but not here in the U.S.



OptiBoard member rinselberg describes how he's carved his own personalized cyberspace on the Web under the mock umbrella tradename rinselberg™.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=217

[Spexvet]

...If guns were illegal in the US (and in areas where they are such as Washington, D.C. murder rates are the highest, in areas where there are practically no restrictions they are the lowest.) ...
Chip

Chip,
I wonder if you can show some evidence of this. I went to

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...&did=169#MRord

and

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/schools/gun.control/

and I honestly don't see a corolation either way. Can you support your claim?

[chm2023]

Don't know. Watts seems kind of like ancient history by now. Maybe the differences in gun laws from the U.S. to France are part of some larger socio-economic picture (a "gestalt", if you will) that is the reason that there are currently such riots in France, but not here in the U.S.



OptiBoard member rinselberg describes how he's carved his own personalized cyberspace on the Web under the mock umbrella tradename rinselberg™.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=217

Check out "Bowling in Columbine" Speaks to the gestalt of US culture and how that links to our high level of gun related deaths versus Canada (a country where gun ownership is more common that in the US, though much more highly regulated).

My favorite NRA bit: opposition to a waiting period before someone can buy a gun--the idea being to check the background info on the purchaser. The NRA is strongly against this. Think about it: are you comfortable selling a gun to someone who must have it RIGHT NOW???

Truly, the mind boggles.

[chip anderson]

O.K. CHM:

I see your logic but suppose you are non-wimp witness against a drug dealer, you life has been threatened or you have been shot at. You wanna wait 3 or more days to carry? You want to leave your defense entirely to a corrupt police force? Or you have traveled several thousand miles to hunt, your luggage (guns didn't arrive) and you have 3 days to do your $5000.00 hunt. Of course, you should just wait...
If you are a law abiding citizen and can prove it what's the problem. If you come in all hot under the collar saying: "I'm gonna kill him." this is another matter.

Chip

[chm2023]

O.K. CHM:

I see your logic but suppose you are non-wimp witness against a drug dealer, you life has been threatened or you have been shot at. You wanna wait 3 or more days to carry? You want to leave your defense entirely to a corrupt police force? Or you have traveled several thousand miles to hunt, your luggage (guns didn't arrive) and you have 3 days to do your $5000.00 hunt. Of course, you should just wait...
If you are a law abiding citizen and can prove it what's the problem. If you come in all hot under the collar saying: "I'm gonna kill him." this is another matter.

Chip

Well Chip I think it's like anything else: weigh each side of the argument. In this case, I think your examples are a bit far-fetched and not likely to occur with such frequency that they would outweigh the downside of making guns available to felons, schizophrenics, drug dealers etc. Practically speaking, I don't think it's completely possible to prove one is (or isn't ) a law abiding citizen instantly, therefore the wait.

[rep]

Please refrain from personal attacks on BOTH sides of this question. My position on this question is that while I no longer own any firearms, I believe in the right of an individual to own one or more for whatever reason is deemed appropriate as long as the owner of said firearm is well versed with the safety issues inherent.

I am positive my friend from Mississippi was unaware that he was making a racial slur when he used the term "Limey". The reason I am positive is because he is not a racist. He has told me this, and while we often disagree on some things, he is a man of his word and I believe him.

We often pick up things we hear commonly used, and mistakenly reuse them in a general sense. The term Limey is one such word, used (particuarly in Irish bars in South Boston) to describe the English people. It is a racial slur and I am sure one unintended by Chip.

For more than you wanted to know about Limey try; http://www.coolname.com/pipermail/ma...ry/019031.html

Become a seperate RACE?????????????????????????????

Brits are a member of the Nordic or Northern European Race which include the British Isles, Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Belgium; predominant element in Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Finland and the Baltic States; majority in Austria and Russia; minority in France, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary.

I agree with keeping the tone civil, but please calling a nation a seperate race and the term "limey" a racial slur is way off the deep end. Under that assumption you would have to say "Yank" is also a racial slur. Baloney

That's political correctness to the degree of lunacy, which is where it usually ends up anyway.

Rep

[chip anderson]

Examples were not far fetched were even recorded on video tape. Head crushers with bricks were caught, and let off on some silly "heat of the moment defense" which appearently applies in California. Looting in Mississippi was not extensive as it was in New Orleans after three of them were shot and left lying in the street for a few days, it stopped entirely.
If you care they were shot by members of our Beaure of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks who were called in for enforcement.

[chm2023]

Examples were not far fetched were even recorded on video tape. Head crushers with bricks were caught, and let off on some silly "heat of the moment defense" which appearently applies in California. Looting in Mississippi was not extensive as it was in New Orleans after three of them were shot and left lying in the street for a few days, it stopped entirely.
If you care they were shot by members of our Beaure of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks who were called in for enforcement.

The examples to which I referred were the rifles lost on flight and drug witness needing protection bits from your post (reasons a waiting period would be problematic).

You know I'm easily confused.......;)

[hcjilson]

Your post would seem to indicate you either did not read my post, or did not understand it. Your post, on the other hand, would indicate you knew the race of all participating in this discussion, which you obviously do not. Where did I indicate the word separate with the term racial? Where, indeed in the definition of the word racial can you find the word separate? I suggest you look up the word first, THEN make the appropriate bon mot.

There are a number of ways to put another person down gently and with good humour. Using the word lunacy to describe civility is not one of them. You might want to look that word up as well.

Become a seperate RACE?????????????????????????????

Brits are a member of the Nordic or Northern European Race which include the British Isles, Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Belgium; predominant element in Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Finland and the Baltic States; majority in Austria and Russia; minority in France, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary.

I agree with keeping the tone civil, but please calling a nation a seperate race and the term "limey" a racial slur is way off the deep end. Under that assumption you would have to say "Yank" is also a racial slur. Baloney

That's political correctness to the degree of lunacy, which is where it usually ends up anyway.

Rep

[Roy R. Ferguson]

Hi All:



In the United States I have only been placed in the position of defending myself with a firearm on two occasions. In the first encounter I fired one shot and in the second the situation was quickly resolved once my concealed pistol was drawn. In hindsight, neither of the events could have been predicted or avoided; and in each incident I choose to defend myself, and possibly my life, rather than submit to the capricious whelms of an aggressor. If you decide to entrust your well being to the benevolence of others, I harbor you no ill will and gladly support your right to do so. By the same token, please understand that there are those of us who have no desire to submit to the violence actions of others.



Roy

[hcjilson]

Well said Roy!

[rbaker]

I have had a license to carry a concealed handgun since 1958. I carry the handgun for self defense and thankfully have never had to use it. However, to the maximum extent possible neither myself nor my family will be the victims of the hoodlums, thugs, crooks, perverts and terrorists that we occasionally come in contact with.

What do you thing would have been the outcome on 9-11 had Roy, Dick and Chip been passengers on one of the ill fated flights?

[For-Life]

I have had a license to carry a concealed handgun since 1958. I carry the handgun for self defense and thankfully have never had to use it. However, to the maximum extent possible neither myself nor my family will be the victims of the hoodlums, thugs, crooks, perverts and terrorists that we occasionally come in contact with.

What do you thing would have been the outcome on 9-11 had Roy, Dick and Chip been passengers on one of the ill fated flights?

Probably worse since those terrorist would have guns too

[chip anderson]

Terroists wouldn't hyjack planes if they thought the passengers were or could be armed. They are cowardsl

[For-Life]

Terroists wouldn't hyjack planes if they thought the passengers were or could be armed. They are cowardsl

sure they would and it would happen a lot more frequently because they now have the weapons.

[hcjilson]

I would place a bet that Mr Smith and Mr Wesson could overcome a box cutter 100% of the time.