Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

CCW Laws......To those that don't know...Legally Packing Heat!

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

CCW Laws......To those that don't know...Legally Packing Heat!

Old 2nd May 2010, 21:20
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 4,722
hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights.
I completely agree with that philosophy.

The problem with gun ownership is that pulling a trigger is so quick, you can infringe on my right to life before I can complain about it. That makes gun ownership a special case in which you have to "backtrack" from the action of the few who pull the trigger to the point of preventing the ownership of the weapon in the first place in order to protect the rights of the victim.
Checkboard is offline  
Old 2nd May 2010, 21:27
  #22 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,052
Surely the point about carrying a gun, or not, is that the 'baddies' know that if they try to pull a robbery there is a good chance that they will get shot, so they don't. No shooting and no robbery, a good result!

I am an avid target rifle shooter and owner, I shoot at 6 foot square cardboard targets, where is the harm in that? Why shouldn't I be allowed to own and shoot my rifle Checkboard?

The hand gun ban in the UK was a knee jerk reaction by the government of the day to appease a particular group of voters after a school massacre. It wiped out a very safe and competitive sport, followed by thousands of law abiding gun owners and nearly wiped out the Olympic team too, who had to go abroad to practice. Result? A major increase in knife crime and the baddies kept their guns anyway, easily obtainable from Eastern Europe.
parabellum is offline  
Old 2nd May 2010, 21:34
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 4,722
I thought I had made that clear - I don't know you, you might be a nutter. I don't want a nutter owning a weapon. Shooting targets isn't necessary - and it is a sport in which the tools you use for that sport are terribly dangerous in the wrong hands. The easiest way to prevent them getting into the wrong hands is to prevent them getting into ANY hands.

Surely the point about carrying a gun, or not, is that the 'baddies' know that if they try to pull a robbery there is a good chance that they will get shot, so they don't. No shooting and no robbery, a good result!
So you don't want the rifle for the targets then? You REALLY want it for "home defence" ? If the "baddies" know that you might have a gun, they will still pull the robbery - just make sure that you don't have any opportunity to pull your trigger (perhaps by pulling theirs first.) It's an escalation of violence thing.
Checkboard is offline  
Old 2nd May 2010, 21:43
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 56
Posts: 664
It's an escalation of violence thing.
I actually agree with you.

If only one side is armed and shoots, the violence ends rather quickly.

If law-abiding folks can shoot back, the violence might not end as quickly.

Or it may never start due to the uncertainty.

But, you answered my question. You want to impose your will upon others.

I wouldn't recommend Arizona for that winter vacation this year...
brickhistory is offline  
Old 2nd May 2010, 21:51
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 4,722
You want to impose your will upon others.
In those instances where others might impose their will upon me? Yep - welcome to democracy!
Checkboard is offline  
Old 2nd May 2010, 22:08
  #26 (permalink)  

Controversial, moi?
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,550
...it just another tool like a simple kitchen knife which I can do more damage to anyone if need ever arises.
What sort of circumstances have you envisaged?
M.Mouse is offline  
Old 2nd May 2010, 22:14
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 4,722
... and if you can do more damage with a simple kitchen knife, then surely this is a more appropriate tool to dispatch an unmoving deer than a handgun?
Checkboard is offline  
Old 2nd May 2010, 22:16
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 56
Posts: 664
In those instances where others might impose their will upon me?
Might. Where your position is a certainty of imposition.

Noted.


Yep - welcome to democracy!
Really?! Was the handgun ban voted on by the British voting population or arbitrarily imposed by the ruling government?

Fortunately, my nation has, by and large, chosen a different path.

Individual responsibility and freedom of choice.

I'm partial to it.

-------------------------------------------------------------

edited to add:

this is a more appropriate tool to dispatch an unmoving deer than a handgun?
Classic!
brickhistory is offline  
Old 2nd May 2010, 22:23
  #29 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 72
Posts: 2,394
... and if you can do more damage with a simple kitchen knife, then surely this is a more appropriate tool to dispatch an unmoving deer than a handgun?
Who ever said an unmoving deer? If the deer is really not capable of moving, it is probably dead. I'll let you approach an "unmoving" deer armed only with a knife, thank you very much. I'm sure the hell not going to do such.

You obviously have no idea what so ever of just how dangerous a badly hurt and frighted deer can be. There is no way on earth I would ever get close enough just armed with a knife to try to end the suffering.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 2nd May 2010, 22:35
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 4,722
I wasn't advising a course of action for injured animals here. I was pointing out a statement made by someone justifying their handgun ownership, and (perhaps too subtly for some) pointing out that I considered their stated reasons for owning that handgun were somewhat spurious. To be frank - I think a trucker carrying a handgun in their cab didn't put it there for knocking off deer.

Was the handgun ban voted on by the British voting population or arbitrarily imposed by the ruling government?
OK Welcome to representative democracy.
Checkboard is offline  
Old 2nd May 2010, 22:36
  #31 (permalink)  

Controversial, moi?
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,550
I think the lack of punctuation means the sentence about the knife is being misread, I read it as the gun could do more damage.

Anybody care to answer my questions because I presume those who like to carry guns have thought through the implications involved in doing so?
M.Mouse is offline  
Old 2nd May 2010, 22:38
  #32 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,603
Again folks.....the discussion is about "Freedom" and not all pro/anti-gun arguments.

The issue under discussion is about having the ability to make one's own decision....not the dangers of firearms, risk of being a victim of crime, or being made a giant among men.

I maintain, as a "free" person, I am able to make my decisions to possess firearms and do so as long as I do no harm to others. We have laws that define the situations in which I may display, carry, or use firearms but the basic determination of whether to possess the firearm should remain with the individual and not the State.

Use a firearm wrongfully and one can face criminal and civil charges up to and including Murder, which in most US States is a Capital Offense.

Thus arguing about limiting my Freedom out of fear of what I might do....as compared to punishing me for having done wrong...simply miss the concept of what "Freedom" is all about in my view. As long as it is someone else's freedom that gets limited that is fine to them though in time all of our freedom's disappear as one "aggrieved" group lobbies for limits on others.
SASless is online now  
Old 2nd May 2010, 22:43
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 4,722
So your contention is that it is immoral for the people (represented by the state) to limit your ownership of a firearm, because if you murder someone with that firearm you can then be prosecuted.

Seems fine for everyone but the murdered party then.

(Should point out here, that "you" and "your" means "you who want to own firearms", not any person in particular.)
Checkboard is offline  
Old 2nd May 2010, 22:55
  #34 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,603
CB,

Let's use your logic shall we.

I fear folks with meat cleavers, straight razors, and big ol' butcher knives, big trucks that weigh 80,000 pounds and run at high speeds. I look up and worry about fully fuelled 747's flying over my head....I see overhead power lines and fear them falling to the ground and frying my ass.

I especially fear cars as they might smash into me as I stumble home drunk from the Pub.

I really...really fear voting machines knowing flaming Liberals are pulling the handles at election time.

Do we ban all those things or punish those who harm others by using them improperly.....they are all capable of causing great harm and death to others are they not?

Why would you argue to limit me in lawfully exercising my Freedom?

Remember....along with "freedom" comes "responsibility". They come hand in hand as you should know.
SASless is online now  
Old 2nd May 2010, 23:09
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 4,722
I fear folks with meat cleavers, straight razors, and big ol' butcher knives, big trucks that weigh 80,000 pounds and run at high speeds. I look up and worry about fully fuelled 747's flying over my head....I see overhead power lines and fear them falling to the ground and frying my ass.
Yes, life is full of dangerous things, but you cant cook a steak with a handgun. It exists for one purpose only - and it is very good at that purpose. I fear someone with a handgun more than someone driving a truck or holding a knife, because I understand that a trucker drives a truck, or a chef holds a knife for a reason other than thinking that they may one day want to kill someone.

I also understand why people like to own handguns. They're sexy, they're empowering, they're dangerous - and the people owning them feel "dangerous".

Doesn't mean I think that is a good reason to allow the general public to own guns.


Note: I grew up next door to a reasonably famous crook in OZ, who had a house full of various weapons. As a teenager I fired most of them down at a firing range. I also underwent Air Force firearm training as I had to carry a pistol as payroll officer in the RAAF (and rated well). So I do not put this argument as an ignorant "fluffy" lefty.
Checkboard is offline  
Old 2nd May 2010, 23:20
  #36 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,052
So you don't want the rifle for the targets then? You REALLY want it for "home defence" ?
No, I want my rifle to follow my sport, if I used it for home defence I would A). lose it and B). probably finish up in jail.

Shooting targets isn't necessary - and it is a sport in which the tools you use for that sport are terribly dangerous in the wrong hands.
So are cricket and baseball bats, hockey sticks and bows and arrows - no sport is 'necessary' but that doesn't mean that people who want to should not participate - welcome to democracy.
parabellum is offline  
Old 2nd May 2010, 23:24
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 278
Checkerboard:

I also understand why people like to own handguns. They're sexy, they're empowering, they're dangerous - and the people owning them feel "dangerous".
That statement shows a typical European bias against gun owners that clouds your arguments. I can think of a dozen real reasons why someone would want to own a gun, but why bother? It doesn't really matter.

In the US, people have the freedom to exercise their Constitutional right to own a gun or not, regardless of the reason.

By the way, the Texas legislature just passed a law that makes your automobile an extension of your home. So all the protections afforded by the law, in terms of defending a home with deadly force if necessary, apply to the automobile.

Sensible, that.
Matari is offline  
Old 3rd May 2010, 00:16
  #38 (permalink)  
Dushan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Checkboard View Post
So when do you guys carry your concealed firearm? Do you strap the thing on every day - to go to the shops? - to buy milk? -to drop the kids off at school?

Or is it a "special occasion" thing. Under the dinner jacket when at the opera?
CB when do you carry your cell phone? Do you strap the thing on every day - to go to the shops? - to buy milk? -to drop the kids off at school?

Or is it a "special occasion" thing. Under the dinner jacket when at the opera?
 
Old 3rd May 2010, 00:23
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: long island
Posts: 301
Question has been asked as to circumstances under which one might envision using a concealed weapon.

In many metro areas, traffic is heavy and drivers often furious with perceived offenses by other drivers, real or not. Termed "road rage" they can often escalate into physical assaults by one driver against the perceived offender.

Should a gun carrying driver get into a minor fender bender with a driver who then leaps from his car carrying a tire iron and smashes the windshield and tries to then gain entry to the gun owners vehicle for the purpose of inflicting grievous bodily injury, I feel a gun owner would be justified in first displaying his weapon and inviting the lunatic to put down his tire iron, and failing that, shooting him.

I am sure most gun owners would not welcome such an exchange, but I am reasonably sure they would prefer it to the same scenario where they were totally defenseless.
finfly1 is offline  
Old 3rd May 2010, 00:24
  #40 (permalink)  
Dushan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by brickhistory View Post

9mm Beretta slapping your armpit
Aw, what a cute little gun. All Euro 'n stuff...


I'm partial to the .45ACP and keep my collection of handguns, saving the .44 Magnum, to that caliber.

If the weapon is "slapping your armpit" you aren't doing it right.

And to remain on point, it is the fundamental right to carry or not that is important. I don't fault anyone for not doing so and I don't encourage or discourage for doing so.

And you?
I knew Brick would say that, but the caliber is not the point. The rest is. When you have the choice, you decide, when you don't the government decides for you. The founding fathers clearly understood the difference and it remains so despite all the lefties desperately trying to change it.

I like my 9mm, but I love my S&W .44 Magnum
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.