tamparectec

Gun control isn't as much about guns as it is about control.

The definition has changed over the years. It used to be 12 rounds in the 10-ring in 20 seconds. Now, its 30 rounds in the 10-ring in 30 seconds.

sinatraman Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant

hey dbann according to the FBI, armed American citizens legally carrying stop approximately 50,000 crimes a year. yes there are idiots who do really dumb things with a gun but there are far more idiots driving cars then carrying guns. also to the Australian need I remind you that it was Australians who grew up with firearms and yanks to who kept the Japanese (who were not a people accustomed to guns , from invading your country.

StormSeeker

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

skylane5sp Loc: Puyallup, WA

Our purchasing agent has no right leg and rides a GW trike... :thumbup:

DrPhrogg Loc: NJ

Up to you. 2 things to consider. What is there to be concerned about? One new problem is coyotes. A small pack of them will attack anything or anybody. The second thing is your comfort level with both the gun and the law. It is your responsibility to practice to the point where your gun becomes second nature. It is also your responsibility to keep up with the changes in the law concerning when you may or may not use it. I support your right to carry, but be diligent with both concerns.

Greg-Colo Loc: Fort Collins,Co

It wasn't the closest, or the largest theater for the shooter, but the only one with a declared "gun free zone" . I would rather be in a gun fight than a massacre .

lowkick Loc: Connecticut

Amazing, isn't it? That theater had around 300 people in it and the only one armed was the guy who was ignoring the theater's "no gun policy" not to mention breaking the law by murdering people. Imagine if only 10% of the patrons were armed - about 30 people would have been firing back at the killer from all over the theater. Could some of them hit some innocent people? Possibly. But they either would have shot the perpetrator or pinned him down so he wouldn't have been able to do as much damage as he did. Or, if he realized that others would be firing back, he might have gone elsewhere, or maybe wouldn't have even tried in the first place.

skylane5sp Loc: Puyallup, WA

Here's a story that sent the libtards in Seattle off their meds...

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=743747795644976&set=a.119068864779542.15053.112779115408517&type=1&theater

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Yep. :(

If others had been armed in that theater they would have STILL been shot.

OR they would have shot other innocents in an attempt to get that psycho.

Thinking there would have been ANY other outcome is just plain unrealistic.

A few weeks back there was a mass shooting in a Panhandle Florida town. A pissed employee of a car dealership goes out to his truck, drives it THROUGH the front door and starts blasting away with his shotgun.

Well, it just so happens a local Deputy Sheriff was in side waiting for his patrol vehicle to be serviced at the same time. He immediately engages the bad guy and they have a brief shootout before the Deputy kills him.

Now bad guy shot the Deputy an one other patron, wounding them both seriously. Deputy shoots and kills the irate mechanic and another Dealership employee.

The Deputy engaged the perp within SECONDS of the truck coming through the glass, yet two other innocents STILL got shot.

Now, if the Deputy HAD NOT been there, no doubt that idiot would have killed as many people as he had shotgun shells. But even a HIGHLY trained and EXPERIENCED deputy STILL hit a bystander in the heat of the moment.

Civilians with weapons in pubic places will only kill MORE civilians... NOT the bad guys.

:thumbdown:

Johngalt Loc: Downers Grove, Il

Or... It could be ended!

DrPhrogg Loc: NJ

Assumptions are great for making a point, but they are still assumptions. The problem is that potential shooters who just give up when faced with several armed civilians just don't make the news. If it bleeds, it leads, so your perspective is biased. Since it is hard to study what didn't happen, only statistics give a clue, and they suggest that armed citizens reduce crime. (See John Lott Study, Univ of Chicago)

BamaTexan Loc: Deep in the heart of Texas

You state this as fact without basis but I will still take my chances armed rather than like an unarmed sheep.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

:hunf:

Stop and listen to yourself. :(

In THIS society... with as MANY people afraid of what's going on in the world... and with ALL THE GUN OWNERS we have in this country... do you HONESTLY think that if someone faced down a crook with his own weapon that it WOULDN'T get NATIONAL headlines?

SERIOUSLY?!?! :roll:

We see videos of little old ladies going after would-be convenience store robbers with their handbags and grocery scanners... If someone stopped a criminal with their licensed handgun that would be front page news... just like Deputy Lundy stopping a mass killing spree in that dealership with his quick reaction and good marksmanship.

Let's be honest here; You DON'T see it on the news... BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN!

Look, I own SEVERAL firearms and I am WELL TRAINED in their use... but I'm smart enough to know that if the REAL experts (military and paramilitary under combat conditions) only hit their targets 25% of the time, then a bunch of civilians will only do worse. ESPECIALLY under pressure and under fire.

And you know what... those stray rounds WILL result in innocent people being injured or killed.

Life is NOT a dang Hollywood Movie. :x

StormSeeker

Okay, this makes no sense no matter how you try to explain it.

Yeah, there is the possibility of an errant shot striking a civilian, especially in a crowded place.

Now ask yourself this: Would you rather have someone marching unopposed through a public place or workplace shooting to kill everyone he/she see's, coming to you and AIMING their weapon at you? You are likely going to die.
Or, would you rather take your chances on a stray shot from someone who is NOT aiming at you and has no intentions of hitting you?
I'll take my chances being accidentally shot by a hero rather than someone trying to rack up a high body count.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: There seems to be a Liberal, "fact", for just about everything. But when facts are honestly checked those Liberal spouted facts just aren't so anymore.

Most recently Harry Reid claims that ALL Republican claims of people not getting health insurance to cover their needs, people who claim to have cancer or another debilitating disease, people who no longer are able to afford insurance after signing up for health insurance are false and every one of those people is lying.

It is a well known fact that when a woman resists a rapist that she will probably be killed or injured severely. Her best bet is to give in quietly and allow the attacker to do what he wants with her in order for her to survive.

It is a well known fact that if a firearm is kept in the home there is a greater likelihood that the firearm will end up being used by one family to kill another family member either accidently or through a murder.

It is a well known fact that when a private citizen uses a firearm to save his/her life that a bystander will be killed or maimed.

I have heard 3 of the above rants for better than 50 years now even by people who have checked the facts and know better.

Harry Reid is full of crap and says what he says as a last ditch effort to get the fence people to believe what he says. Just as he claimed on the floor of the U.S. Senate that Mitt Romney did not pay his taxes. It was an all out lie but it was just one of the lies that got Barack H. Obama voted as our President a 2nd time.

In truth if facts be checked the other 3 claims above are just not true:

In reality if a woman fights her attacker she is MORE LIKELY to survive than if she allows the attacker to rape her. Of course she may be punched etc. But we are talking survival and the majority of cases indicate that fighting back is your best chance of surviving.

Of course there are incidents of a firearm in the home being used to shoot another family member. There are also many cases of a family member driving over another family member with a car accidentally or stabbing another family member. My 5 year old granddaughter is sometimes playing outside when I back up into the driveway. God forbid I am not paying attention and she runs behind my truck where I am unable to see her. Bad things do happen to good people. None of us is immune to life going on in a bad way. But honest statistics do show that the majority of guns in a household are tools to be used for hunting, self defense of the family or target shooting.

In the case of an armed citizen using a firearm to protect his life or the life of another there are literally thousands upon thousands of cases each year where an armed citizen has successfully used a firearm to ward off a robber, rapist, car jacker, home invader etc. Pick your own situation.

Let's talk about accidental shootings. Most people believe the Liberals claim of thousands of kids being killed by firearms every day. In reality (check the National Safety Council regarding accidental deaths) there are far more kids killed by drowning and car accidents. I have not checked lately but the last time I checked I believe accidental deaths by firearms were 7th or 8th on the list.

I urge each of you doubters to go online and check out some of these facts for yourself. Some may do just that while others will tell me I am lying because they could not be wrong. Some will check the facts and dismiss them while still carrying a lie to others because it suits their purpose more than the truth.

My best to all of you,

Dennis