[Farrowlane]

Yes. I think that an armed civilian in public, is a potentially dangerous person in public. There are far too many situations where someone might temporarily lose control of themselves. Suddenly, a minor fiststicuffs event, becomes a hopeless bloodbath.

I believe in a well-informed, well-staffed, and competent police force. As surveillance and intelligence technology advances, there will soon be very few places where violent criminals will be able to thrive.

There's no practical civilian use for semi-automatic firearms of any kind.

I'm an old man. Throughout the years, I've met far too many people who intially impressed me as being intellectually gifted and moral folks, only to find out later that they possessed some kinda quirk that would suddenly change my mind about them. Some people are savy enough to pass a psychological exam in flying colors, but are crazy as hell, nonetheless!

There are many good citizens out there who know how to conduct themselves in a civil manner when armed, I'm sure. However, it has been my experience, that when males are in their prime, confrontation is almost always on the table. That goes double for whenever they're armed... Maturity usually makes a difference, but even that's not guaranteed.

Criminals will soon learn that if they're going to carry a gun, they're going to prison. No ifs, ands, or buts, about it!

I love what California is doing!

[Merlincustom]

If you need another reason to dislike the NRA:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/us/legislative-handcuffs-limit-atfs-ability-to-fight-gun-crime.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121226 &_r=0

[Industry_Hack]

Originally Posted by Merlincustom

If you need another reason to dislike the NRA:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/us/legislative-handcuffs-limit-atfs-ability-to-fight-gun-crime.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121226 &_r=0

I have never been a fan (or member) of the NRA. But this doesn't make sense to me:

Advocates for increased gun regulation, however, contend that in a country plagued by gun violence, a central registry could help keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and allow law enforcement officials to act more effectively to prevent gun crime.

I don't see how a central registry can do either. If you want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, a good first step is harsh penalties for failing to secure your own weapons. If someone steals a handgun out of your nightstand, vehicle, or business, you should go to jail. It also wouldn't prevent crime as much as it would make it easier to track a gun used in a crime, but only after the fact, in the rare instance that the gun is recovered.

If they want Americans to register their guns, they're going to need to provide a more persuasive argument.

[Ken_J_164]

Originally Posted by Farrowlane

Yes. I think that an armed civilian in public, is a potentially dangerous person in public. There are far too many situations where someone might temporarily lose control of themselves. Suddenly, a minor fiststicuffs event, becomes a hopeless bloodbath.

I believe in a well-informed, well-staffed, and competent police force. As surveillance and intelligence technology advances, there will soon be very few places where violent criminals will be able to thrive.

There's no practical civilian use for semi-auomatic firearms of any kind.

I'm an old man. Throughout the years, I've met far too many people who intially impressed me as being intellectually gifted and moral folks, only to find out later that they possessed some kinda quirk that would suddenly change my mind about them. Some people are savy enough to pass a psychological exam in flying colors, but are crazy as hell, nonetheless!

There are many good citizens out there who know how to conduct themselves in a civil manner when armed, I'm sure. However, it has been my experience, that when males are in their prime, confrontation is almost always on the table. That goes double for whenever they're armed... Maturity usually makes a difference, but even that's not guaranteed.

Criminals will soon learn that if they're going to carry a gun, they're going to prison. No ifs, ands, or buts, about it!

I love what California is doing!

With all these new laws there will soon be very few places that law abiding citizens will be able to thrive - yikes!

[John_V]

I think I'll make this my last response to on this subject as it is going around and around in circles with no end in sight.

Originally Posted by Farrowlane

Yes. I think that an armed civilian in public, is a potentially dangerous person in public. There are far too many situations where someone might temporarily lose control of themselves. Suddenly, a minor fiststicuffs event, becomes a hopeless bloodbath.

I believe in a well-informed, well-staffed, and competent police force. As surveillance and intelligence technology advances, there will soon be very few places where violent criminals will be able to thrive.

While you can make legislation to confiscate and remove handguns and other types of weapons from the public, you can't legislate that a person value and respect the life, safety and property of others. If all handguns were confiscated and successfully kept from entering the country, your logic still doesn't work. If any scenario should arise where there is a heated confrontation between two or more individuals where the police respond, there is always the potential of a gunfight. Every call that a law enforcement officer responds to, regardless of the nature of the call, has the potential of ending up in a gunfight because they are the ones bringing the guns. I hope that you don't think that it's impossible to take an officer's weapon away from them. So now, you have a situation where an officer can lose his weapon to someone that is mentally unstable and we are back to square one with a person who should not have a firearm in possession of one and possibly a dead or injured officer. As a former LEO, I also believe in a well-informed, well-staffed and competent police force, but as long as they are the only ones carrying a handgun, if someone really wants to take it from them, they will, regardless of the method they use to do so. The end result would be more LEOs killed for their weapons than for any other reason because you can't legislate someone to value and respect the life and property of someone else.

There's no practical civilian use for semi-automatic firearms of any kind.

Then you would have to include semi-automatic hunting rifles and shotguns in that category, which you seem to favor as being OK to have.

I'm an old man. Throughout the years, I've met far too many people who intially impressed me as being intellectually gifted and moral folks, only to find out later that they possessed some kinda quirk that would suddenly change my mind about them. Some people are savy enough to pass a psychological exam in flying colors, but are crazy as hell, nonetheless!

Back to my first paragraph, if that type of person is confronted by law enforcement, and gets the upper hand, they have a handgun because the LEO brought it with them.

There are many good citizens out there who know how to conduct themselves in a civil manner when armed, I'm sure. However, it has been my experience, that when males are in their prime, confrontation is almost always on the table. That goes double for whenever they're armed... Maturity usually makes a difference, but even that's not guaranteed.

Thus far, we have been discussing confrontational situations between angry people and again I will respond with my first paragraph. However, given a different scenario, what would you have your wife, mother or sister do if she was being attacked by a rapist? Are you telling them that they should not have the right to protect themselves in these situations? Should women have to carry a rifle or shotgun around with them in order to feel safe? And before you mention pepper spray, stun guns or a pocket knife, it has been proven that those don't work in the vast majority of rape cases. Rapists are not afraid of them and still overpower their victims.

Criminals will soon learn that if they're going to carry a gun, they're going to prison. No ifs, ands, or buts, about it!

How's that working with the drug laws, especially in California?

[Merlincustom]

Originally Posted by Industry_Hack

I have never been a fan (or member) of the NRA. But this doesn't make sense to me:

Advocates for increased gun regulation, however, contend that in a country plagued by gun violence, a central registry could help keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and allow law enforcement officials to act more effectively to prevent gun crime.

I don't see how a central registry can do either. If you want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, a good first step is harsh penalties for failing to secure your own weapons. If someone steals a handgun out of your nightstand, vehicle, or business, you should go to jail. It also wouldn't prevent crime as much as it would make it easier to track a gun used in a crime, but only after the fact, in the rare instance that the gun is recovered.

If they want Americans to register their guns, they're going to need to provide a more persuasive argument.

Actually, the registry helps you put those negligent gun owners in jail. Suppose an instance where the stolen gun is used in a crime and recovered. The owner, out of fear, doesn't report it stolen. No registry, no jail time. Does anyone have numbers on how many stolen guns used in crime are recovered?

[Industry_Hack]

John, in Australia, the criminals get their guns by beating up security officers and taking their guns. Happened too often when I lived there.

Merlin, I do like the information you present. Rather than perpetuating a circular argument, you bring other facets of the issue into the conversation. But I think the kind of person that neglects to report a stolen gun is kind of person unlikely to voluntarily register their gun. So it may have some merit going forward, but won't do anything for the majority of guns in circulation.

[synack]

I don't like registries for obvious reasons, especially registries being used to punish law abiding citizens. It just isn't right to punish someone for being a victim of a robbery. Yes, gun owners should lock up their guns.

It is a little surprising that some of you are advocating punishing people who have already been violated by a home robbery?? I just don't get it.

Personal responsibility and accountability for your actions are what this country needs desperately.

[Industry_Hack]

A very simple way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals (and children) is to properly secure them. That's part of responsible gun ownership.

[Hazy]

Originally Posted by Industry_Hack

A very simple way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals (and children) is to properly secure them. That's part of responsible gun ownership.

Confused by this response. The subject at hand being that if a firearm is stolen from its rightful owner, if the said firearm is used in an illegal manner then the legal owner is charged with a crime as well. Are you saying that it is impossible for a properly secured gun to be stolen?

I do not have a problem with a registry, unless of course it is used in this manner of stupidity.
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/newspaper-gun-owners-map/2012/12/26/id/469039?s=al