The 2nd Amendment and Gun Control

[RZ1029]

See, around here, if you're at a firing range, chances are you've got one in your waistband and probably another in your truck and probably another one by your bed. But this sure ain't ner Southern Californ-i-a. All joking aside, around here it's really that way, in a lot of ways. It's not uncommon for me to notice other people carrying a pistol just about everywhere.

 

But the range master is right, even if you're carrying, it's (sometimes/often) considered courtesy to tell someone you've got it or if you're pulling it out. I carry pretty much everywhere and will never mention it unless I'm 1) At someones house, and I'll ask their permission to bring it in. They say no, it stays in the truck. 2) Bank or school grounds, for obvious reasons. 3) Firing range, then I inform the range master and usually unload and store it while I'm shooting. 4) Oh, and hospitals, mostly because I just don't see the need for it, and I guess you could call it respect.

 

I'm not very familiar with California's carry laws, and I'm thinking they aren't reciprocal with North Carolina, for some reason.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

Yeah, pretty much anywhere you go proper range protocol forbids drawing from concealment. Most ranges couldn't care less if you're carrying while on the range- they just don't want you using that gun to do your shooting. The greatest number of "whoopsies" tend to happen when drawing or re-holstering (that and cleaning), even to cops, so it's a reasonable and understandable rule- the range, being a business, doesn't want the liability of somebody getting shot on their premises. Add to that the potential for some dope putting a hole in the bench rest, the lane dividers, or any other piece of range property... the higher their repair bills are, the more they charge for an hour on the range. Having an established protocol for handling guns on the range just makes sense.

 

The same generally holds true in any business that handles guns... gun shows, gun shops, pawn shops; if you bring a gun into their store, then it had better either A. remain in its holster, or B. be unloaded and in a case. If the gun is to be sold or serviced, then the gun store employee you hand it to will want to be the one taking it out of the case. Again, it's a safety and liability issue.

 

Practicing draw & fire techniques can be done with snap-caps at home.

[RZ1029]

You're definitely right, drawing and holstering are probably the two most dangerous actions with a pistol. Especially when people don't use a true 'holster'. (IE: their waistband, their pocket, et cetera) I think I mentioned this earlier, but a local guy actually shot his bits and pieces off because he stuck a pistol in his waistband and it went off. It also goes back to the whole 'gun control should be more about education' thing that we were on a page or two back.

 

You also brought up something I completely forgot to mention, with the gun shows and such. After I read that, I thought back and you're right, I don't know that I've ever been in a gun shop where a guy pulled his gun out, even if they were talking about it.

 

EDIT: Scratch that bit about a page or two back, it's pretty far back and I don't have time to find it yet.

Edited January 11, 2011 by RZ1029

[SykesAtherton]

I thought a lot of people knew about the wikileaks articles that disclosed information about US troops killing over 6,000 innocents. My point is that just because soldiers are trained with guns doesn't mean they will use them right. Everyone with a gun might not use it right. Gun control won't always work due to this.

 

Killing innocents you say?

 

When they are fighting an enemy that will actively disguise themselves as civilians and mingle in with the crowd after setting up IED's, or sniping at camps and patrols and abandoning their sniper rifles and pretending to be an innocent local when they are about to get caught, or how about when they hide out in schools and Mosques and hospitals, knowing that the Allied forces aren't allowed to fire on such structures, Or how about when they stitch bombs into dogs and send them off towards patrols.

 

They are fighting an enemy that is USING the civilian population to hide behind. If you are insisting that the US forces are just mowing down innocent people for laughs then you are incredibly uneducated and naive about this war.

[RZ1029]

*cough* Just saying bro... that topic's been covered. BUT, I appreciate you chiming in!

[NinjaGoddessAyra]

I thought a lot of people knew about the wikileaks articles that disclosed information about US troops killing over 6,000 innocents. My point is that just because soldiers are trained with guns doesn't mean they will use them right. Everyone with a gun might not use it right. Gun control won't always work due to this.

 

Killing innocents you say?

 

When they are fighting an enemy that will actively disguise themselves as civilians and mingle in with the crowd after setting up IED's, or sniping at camps and patrols and abandoning their sniper rifles and pretending to be an innocent local when they are about to get caught, or how about when they hide out in schools and Mosques and hospitals, knowing that the Allied forces aren't allowed to fire on such structures, Or how about when they stitch bombs into dogs and send them off towards patrols.

 

They are fighting an enemy that is USING the civilian population to hide behind. If you are insisting that the US forces are just mowing down innocent people for laughs then you are incredibly uneducated and naive about this war.

I agree 100% with Sykes. I hate it when we risk our lives over seas for people who claim that all we're doing is killing innocents over there. They have no idea the Hell that we go through over there, and what we have to do, being away from our families for over a year at a time is not fun. Not to mention I wish more people knew about the ridiculous Rules of Engagement that we have to follow which is really causing the most causualties on our side. It really irritates me how ignorant some people can be.

 

Okay, had to get that off my chest, now back to the topic at hand: The right to bear arms is my right, and I'm not prepared to give that up. I have my permit to carry a side arm with me, and I do it for protection. I don't exactly live in a friendly neighborhood and while I do not want to use it, I'd like to know that I have protection should the need arise.

 

The whole thing about how crime rates go up and whatnot isn't going to be solved by taking away the second amendment. I'm sick of hearing about all these petty arguments from politicians wanting to ban the use of firearms simply to prevent violence. Honestly, imo it's like the whole bs argument against violent videogames. Many people say that violent video games lead to violence but theres never been any proof to that. I think the whole issue is absolutely ridiculous if you ask me -_-

[McclaudEagle]

I think that banning gun ownership would be much more dangerous than if they didn't. The reason for that is that so many American's own firearms, some of which own them for more malicious purposes, such as robbery, murder, etc. Now, if gun ownership was banned, then here's how it would likely play out:

 

Most of the law-abiding citizens would turn over their guns, however, most criminals wouldn't. This would likely create a sharp increase in gun related crime because criminals wouldn't have to worry as much about having their victim putting a gun in their face. Criminals would gain and even stronger upper-hand over the everyday citizen.

[marharth]

Just to let you all know, the debate (at least with US politics) is not about banning guns, its about controlling them.

 

The main thing is magazine size, most liberals in the country want to limit the size to around 10, and conversations want to have a bigger limit.

 

I think that it is necessary for civilians to be somewhat equally armed in firearm power to the military, so I do not support gun control anymore then we already have it.

 

Sure murderers can kill easier, but I think its more important to not have a very small limit due to freedom.