A question of guns

scorpion90 · 04-22-2009, 03:30 PM

If you are a law abiding citizen, this is factual information you need to know.

PEOPLE ASK WHY CARRY A GUN?

My old grandpa said to me, "Son, there comes a time in every man's life
when he stops bustin knuckles and starts bustin caps and usually it's
when he becomes too old to take an *** whoppin. I don't carry a gun to
kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this
world can be a scary place.

I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid. I carry a gun because there are
real threats in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I'm evil. I carry a gun because I have lived long
enough to see the evil in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I
understand the limitations of government.

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry. I carry a gun so that I don't have to
spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because
I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere
tomorrow afternoon.

I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy. I carry a gun because, when I die
and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men know
how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and
facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don't carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people
who make it meaningful to me.

Police Protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves. Police do
not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens
and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

**********************************************

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---- ------------- -------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to
explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding
Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.

The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the
shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE TO. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO
MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

Think about it, there's only one reason the government
wants to rid the country of guns,
and that reason is to leave all of it's citizens defenseless.
It has nothing to do with crime. Criminals don't obey the law.

wstar · 04-22-2009, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcticreaver

is it just me or am i the only one that thinks that guns should be banned from the hands of civilians? should only be allowed for police officiers and military personnel.

i know this will probably never happen in the USA since it's a HUGE industry, but personally, i don't think owning a gun automatically means = safe.

a lot of foreign countries actually think we are like barbarians.

In some sort of weird theoretical sense, it almost makes sense to uninvent the gun. But things can't be uninvented, and when you try to control inventions by law, only outlaws have those inventions. Attempts to disarm the criminals ends up only disarming the victims. It just doesn't work.

Beyond that, I wouldn't want guns uninvented even if it were possible. Guns are a great force equalizer. Think about when a 25 year old male, 6'1", 250 lbs, all muscle, decides to rape a 5'4" 37 year old office worker late one night. In a traditional struggle, she has no chance, as he has an extreme power advantage over her. Guns are force equalizers in violent situations. If both persons in that situation are armed, the playing field is greatly leveled. Guns empower the weak to stand up to the strong.

The standard anti-gun responses to this are these:

1) But that's the police's job! Call 911! Doesn't work. The average violent confrontation ends, one way or another, much faster than the average police response time. In the vast majority of actual cases of violence, police show up after the fact to do the reporting and aftercare. Direct police intervention in an ongoing violent struggle between two citizens is rare. As well-intentioned as they are, it is statistically silly to rely on the police to save you from violence.

2) But... the woman will just have her gun taken and used against her! Wrong, the statistics bear this out. The number of violent crimes prevented by the defensive use of a handgun outweigh the number of actual handgun crimes committed succesfully by more than an order of magnitude.

Quote:

i remember a friend going to japan as an exchange student. first day with the japanese family, the father asked my buddy "do all americans have guns because it is not safe there?" i personally believe japan has the best gun policy in the whole world - "No-one shall possess a fire-arm or fire-arms or a sword or swords', and very few exceptions are allowed"

From another source of gun data:

MYTH: Japan has strict gun control and a less violent society.

FACT: In Japan, the murder rate is about 1 per 100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 each year by weapons other than firearms.

* United Nations data

The point being made here is that guns aren't the issue in the murder rate discrepancy between Japan and the US. Even if you eliminate all gun murders in the US from the equation (in reality, many of those murders would have been accomplished with other weapons, lacking a gun), the US has 3 times the murder rate of Japan. The problem isn't the guns, the problem is that we're a more murderous society to begin with.

arcticreaver · 04-22-2009, 05:10 PM

i don't know, to me, owning a gun or guns doesn't scream freedom to me. my friend on facebook recently posted a "someone go to the shooting range with me" others responded, why do you need someone to go, his response, "it's the policy, so people don't kill themselves" i found that extremely laughable because how would 2 people make a different if one had a gun.

also, regarding illogical thinkings, Ad Populum aka the fallacy Appeal to Popularity

example -

1 - Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2 - Therefore X is true.

and just because other countries are more lenient by stating the facts something like "everyone over at xxx countries has a gun" does not make a logical reason that to own a gun is a good or even a right choice.

wstar · 04-22-2009, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcticreaver

i don't know, to me, owning a gun or guns doesn't scream freedom to me.

Owning a gun doesn't scream freedom, you're right. But a government founded on principles of freedom, which at its founding established a freedom to own firearms, trying to pass laws to disarm its citizens, screams the opposite.

Quote:

my friend on facebook recently posted a "someone go to the shooting range with me" others responded, why do you need someone to go, his response, "it's the policy, so people don't kill themselves" i found that extremely laughable because how would 2 people make a different if one had a gun.

I've been to lots of shooting ranges around the country, and I've never heard of a two person rule. People go to gun ranges solo regularly, myself included. Deaths at gun ranges are insanely rare.

Quote:

also, regarding illogical thinkings, Ad Populum aka the fallacy Appeal to Popularity

example -

1 - Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2 - Therefore X is true.

and just because other countries are more lenient by stating the facts something like "everyone over at xxx countries has a gun" does not make a logical reason that to own a gun is a good or even a right choice.

Don't even get me started on logical fallacies

You're right that popularity doesn't make something logically correct. I don't see where this has been used on either side of the argument so far in this thread, though.

arcticreaver · 04-22-2009, 05:26 PM

if i'm mistaken, looks like the majority of the people in this thread believe owning a gun is correct and/or right. which is why i had to bring that up. also because i believe everyone's opinion is somewhat biased no matter who you are, including myself and my own points and views.

and in regards to the shooting rule, my buddy is in Irvine, CA but i didn't ask which shooting range.

but i really like this arguement, no flames, just real people talking real opinions.

wstar · 04-22-2009, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcticreaver

if i'm mistaken, looks like the majority of the people in this thread believe owning a gun is correct and/or right. which is why i had to bring that up. also because i believe everyone's opinion is somewhat biased no matter who you are, including myself and my own points and views.

Well, I think it's true we have more pro- than anti- gun posters in this thread. But again, that shouldn't be a deciding factor in anything.

And of course, everyone is biased. The idea of "unbiased opinions" is hogwash. There's such a thing as unbiased evidence, but never unbiased interpretation of that evidence.

Quote:

and in regards to the shooting rule, my buddy is in Irvine, CA but i didn't ask which shooting range.

Well, California is somewhere I've never fired a gun. I don't even take my guns on trips to California, the laws there are too strict. More than half of the weapons I legally own here in TX are flat-out illegal to possess there. I'm really hoping the recent Heller decision by the supreme court will eventually lead these gun-restricted parts of the country to finally slacken their gun laws back down to something reasonable. There are still lots of follow-on and appeals cases to go through in the wake of Heller before it really starts having big effects though.

Prior to the Heller case, while the historical evidence on the meaning of the second ammendment (such as the other writings of its authors, the federalist papers, etc) was pretty clear, there was a lot of debate in this country about the meaning of the second ammendment. The anti-gun lobby was playing semantics games and trying to say that it only applied to the military due to the phrase "well-regulated militia". In the Heller decision, the US Supreme Court finally (for the first time in history) gave a direct answer to that question, and settled the matter legally. The second ammendment does in fact protect individual gun ownership.

More info here: District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

dad · 04-22-2009, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wstar

Well, I think it's true we have more pro- than anti- gun posters in this thread. But again, that shouldn't be a deciding factor in anything.

And of course, everyone is biased. The idea of "unbiased opinions" is hogwash. There's such a thing as unbiased evidence, but never unbiased interpretation of that evidence.

Well, California is somewhere I've never fired a gun. I don't even take my guns on trips to California, the laws there are too strict. More than half of the weapons I legally own here in TX are flat-out illegal to possess there. I'm really hoping the recent Heller decision by the supreme court will eventually lead these gun-restricted parts of the country to finally slacken their gun laws back down to something reasonable. There are still lots of follow-on and appeals cases to go through in the wake of Heller before it really starts having big effects though.

Prior to the Heller case, while the historical evidence on the meaning of the second ammendment (such as the other writings of its authors, the federalist papers, etc) was pretty clear, there was a lot of debate in this country about the meaning of the second ammendment. The anti-gun lobby was playing semantics games and trying to say that it only applied to the military due to the phrase "well-regulated militia". In the Heller decision, the US Supreme Court finally (for the first time in history) gave a direct answer to that question, and settled the matter legally. The second ammendment does in fact protect individual gun ownership.

More info here: District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.csgv.org/atf/cf/%7B79FD08...0Dangerous.pdf

GeneralZod · 04-22-2009, 07:38 PM

[QUOTE=arcticreaver;61195]and in regards to the shooting rule, my buddy is in Irvine, CA but i didn't ask which shooting range.QUOTE]

I live in southern california and have been to outdoor ranges on multiple occasions and there is no two-man rule whatsoever. I honestly cant speak for indoor firing ranges though.

frost · 04-22-2009, 08:13 PM

I don't have overly strong opinions on guns, but I'll throw my .02 in anyway.
When you wanted to drive, you had to prove competency, i.e. a road test. Why? Because you could kill someone.
However, you can just go buy a gun. I believe to purchase a gun, you should have take both a knowledge test, and a physical test to show competency and gain a license. And I'm not talking about concealed weapons permits, I mean buying a gun at all.

wstar · 04-22-2009, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frost

I don't have overly strong opinions on guns, but I'll throw my .02 in anyway.
When you wanted to drive, you had to prove competency, i.e. a road test. Why? Because you could kill someone.
However, you can just go buy a gun. I believe to purchase a gun, you should have take both a knowledge test, and a physical test to show competency and gain a license. And I'm not talking about concealed weapons permits, I mean buying a gun at all.

It's a fair point to make, for sure. It's much easier to get reasonably-minded regulation passed, than to outright ban things.

Personally, I'm not in favor of regulation of this sort, mostly on the grounds that it's a slippery slope that leads to suppression of gun ownership down the line. In theory, if I could trust a government to enact reasonable regulation and stick to it, there would be no problem. However, there are many examples in history where gun regulation started out soft and got progressively harder until the entire population was effectively disarmed. That's usually right about the time a crazy dictator took over and enslaved everyone, or worse.

Ask a holocaust survivor someday how they feel about gun regulation, bans, and rights.

Edit: to complete that point, here's a direct quote from Hitler:

Quote:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country."

dad · 04-22-2009, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frost

I don't have overly strong opinions on guns, but I'll throw my .02 in anyway.
When you wanted to drive, you had to prove competency, i.e. a road test. Why? Because you could kill someone.
However, you can just go buy a gun. I believe to purchase a gun, you should have take both a knowledge test, and a physical test to show competency and gain a license. And I'm not talking about concealed weapons permits, I mean buying a gun at all.

California you have to take a test, no pass the test, no buy the gun!

frost · 04-22-2009, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dad

I do! As long as they didn't use a gun in a crime!

Agreed

Quote:

Originally Posted by dad

California you have to take a test, no pass the test, no buy the gun!

Yeah, but as per norm, the laws in california are much stricter. Here, you can just go buy one. I didn't even have to wait, got my handgun over the counter.

m4a1mustang · 04-22-2009, 08:35 PM

I own mostly antique rifles and one pistol. Don't feel the need to carry and don't even think of my guns as defensive weapons... just fun to look at and shoot occasionally.

I'm definitely supportive of gun rights. I think we need to do everything possible to keep guns out of the hands of kids, though.

frost · 04-22-2009, 08:53 PM

A couple common arguments:
1. When the right to bear arms was established, arms were rifles where you had to load black powder carried in bags and stuff it. There were also no cars.
2. The problem with taking away guns is that law abiding citizens will get their guns taken away, while criminals will retain guns.

Thoughts?

m4a1mustang · 04-22-2009, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frost

A couple common arguments:
1. When the right to bear arms was established, arms were rifles where you had to load black powder carried in bags and stuff it. There were also no cars.
2. The problem with taking away guns is that law abiding citizens will get their guns taken away, while criminals will retain guns.

Thoughts?

Both true.

The threat of having to defend oneself against ones government was a much more real possibility back then, as well.

04-22-2009, 03:30 PM	#1 (permalink)
scorpion90 Base Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Akron, Ohio Age: 77 Posts: 109 Drives: 370Z Base 7AT+Sports Rep Power: 284	Many Have Sacrificed to Protect the Constitution If you are a law abiding citizen, this is factual information you need to know. PEOPLE ASK WHY CARRY A GUN? My old grandpa said to me, "Son, there comes a time in every man's life when he stops bustin knuckles and starts bustin caps and usually it's when he becomes too old to take an * whoppin. I don't carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed. I don't carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place. I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world. I don't carry a gun because I'm evil. I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world. I don't carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government. I don't carry a gun because I'm angry. I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared. I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon. I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy. I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy. I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love. I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate. I don't carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me. Police Protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves. Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess. ******************************************** A LITTLE GUN HISTORY In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated ------------------------------ Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ---- ------------- ------------- Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ----------------------------- Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. ------------------------------ It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: List of 7 items: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent. Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent. Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns! While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'. During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED! If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends. The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental. SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE TO. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!! IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET. Think about it, there's only one reason the government wants to rid the country of guns, and that reason is to leave all of it's citizens defenseless. It has nothing to do with crime. Criminals don't obey the law.

04-22-2009, 05:10 PM	#3 (permalink)
arcticreaver Track Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arcadia, CA Posts: 769 Drives: 2009 Z34 7AT PG Rep Power: 925	i don't know, to me, owning a gun or guns doesn't scream freedom to me. my friend on facebook recently posted a "someone go to the shooting range with me" others responded, why do you need someone to go, his response, "it's the policy, so people don't kill themselves" i found that extremely laughable because how would 2 people make a different if one had a gun. also, regarding illogical thinkings, Ad Populum aka the fallacy Appeal to Popularity example - 1 - Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X). 2 - Therefore X is true. and just because other countries are more lenient by stating the facts something like "everyone over at xxx countries has a gun" does not make a logical reason that to own a gun is a good or even a right choice. __________________ http://www.facebook.com/arcticreaver - FaceBook http://www.linkedin.com/pub/sam-yang/a/832/325 - LinkedIn Profile

04-22-2009, 05:26 PM	#5 (permalink)
arcticreaver Track Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arcadia, CA Posts: 769 Drives: 2009 Z34 7AT PG Rep Power: 925	if i'm mistaken, looks like the majority of the people in this thread believe owning a gun is correct and/or right. which is why i had to bring that up. also because i believe everyone's opinion is somewhat biased no matter who you are, including myself and my own points and views. and in regards to the shooting rule, my buddy is in Irvine, CA but i didn't ask which shooting range. but i really like this arguement, no flames, just real people talking real opinions. __________________ http://www.facebook.com/arcticreaver - FaceBook http://www.linkedin.com/pub/sam-yang/a/832/325 - LinkedIn Profile

04-22-2009, 08:35 PM	#13 (permalink)
m4a1mustang A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Northern VA Posts: 55,385 Drives: on two wheels Rep Power: 6963	I own mostly antique rifles and one pistol. Don't feel the need to carry and don't even think of my guns as defensive weapons... just fun to look at and shoot occasionally. I'm definitely supportive of gun rights. I think we need to do everything possible to keep guns out of the hands of kids, though. __________________ - Steve Zs & Coffee - Saturdays at 10AM in Fairfax, VA and Columbia, MD (Click the banner!) LIKE us on Facebook!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Question about oem ECU	Black kNight	Tuning	9	07-13-2009 11:08 AM
Pricing question	g35300mm	Canada	3	04-10-2009 08:04 AM
Question about rim size	armensti	Wheels & Tires	3	04-09-2009 02:42 AM
Question???	Xavier Raymond	Nissan 370Z General Discussions	1	03-31-2009 10:01 AM
7AT Question	sbkim	Engine & Drivetrain	5	03-06-2009 02:22 PM

04-22-2009, 07:38 PM	#8 (permalink)
GeneralZod Base Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: So Cal Posts: 8 Drives: 1995 240 Rep Power: 17	[QUOTE=arcticreaver;61195]and in regards to the shooting rule, my buddy is in Irvine, CA but i didn't ask which shooting range.QUOTE] I live in southern california and have been to outdoor ranges on multiple occasions and there is no two-man rule whatsoever. I honestly cant speak for indoor firing ranges though.

04-22-2009, 08:13 PM	#9 (permalink)
frost Retired admin Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Winterfell Posts: 106,613 Drives: Your Wife Crazy Rep Power: 0	I don't have overly strong opinions on guns, but I'll throw my .02 in anyway. When you wanted to drive, you had to prove competency, i.e. a road test. Why? Because you could kill someone. However, you can just go buy a gun. I believe to purchase a gun, you should have take both a knowledge test, and a physical test to show competency and gain a license. And I'm not talking about concealed weapons permits, I mean buying a gun at all.

04-22-2009, 08:53 PM	#14 (permalink)
frost Retired admin Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Winterfell Posts: 106,613 Drives: Your Wife Crazy Rep Power: 0	A couple common arguments: 1. When the right to bear arms was established, arms were rifles where you had to load black powder carried in bags and stuff it. There were also no cars. 2. The problem with taking away guns is that law abiding citizens will get their guns taken away, while criminals will retain guns. Thoughts?