Originally Posted by 732002 (Post 3072906)

The fact is that five six shot guns don't have the firepower of one thirty round clip in a "assault" rifle. And the person with the assault rifle can carry extra clips and reload in seconds.

Originally Posted by elchivito (Post 3072970)

While it may be a small point to those who are anti-gun, in a discussion it's always a good idea to use correct terminology. You give away your ignorance of shooting by using the term "clip".

Please, it's a 30 round magazine, not a clip.

A magazine feeds rounds into the chamber of a gun. A clip is used on some weapons to feed rounds into the magazine. (M1 Garand for example).

In short, a clip loads a magazine
a magazine loads a GUN

Originally Posted by jplinville (Post 3072953)

Because I'm an argumentative prick when it comes to the topic of gun control. ;)

Blanket statements about gun owners don't make an argument...it's like saying all black people are criminals because there's a high number of their color in prison. It's a stupid argument, and a stupid comment.

Originally Posted by t walgamuth (Post 3072980)

I guess you have a problem admitting I have made an accurate point even though it has little to do with gun control.

Admitting you are an argumentative prick is a step in the right direction though!:P

Originally Posted by Diesel911 (Post 3072908)

I am not sure what narcissism is all about but 8000 people out of "As of December 1, 2012, the United States had a total resident population of 315,005,000, making it the third most populous country in the world. It is a very ... " compared to the total population seems small.

Certainly small enough not to evoke a reaction of fear in Me.
Since I have already had one Car Accident where I was badly and partly permently injured I would have to think that is a more likely method of Me getting killed.

"Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder[1] in which the individual is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity. This condition affects one percent of the population.[2][3] First formulated in 1968, it was historically called megalomania, and it is closely linked to egocentrism."

Looking at the above definition I have to say it does not fit Me. I mean I am sitting here wearing Pants, Coat and Shoes I bought from a 2nd had Store (the Shoes were new). This hardly projects an image of a Vain person trying to effect even a powerful look or prestige.

If you passed Me on the Street and I had not shaved fore 4-5 days and I frequently don't do that; in My normal state of dress I more resemble a Homeless Person (except that I am clean).

I frequently wear Camouflage Pants or Coats of other Military attire (I know what you are thinking; no Arm Bands:D).
I suppose that might be interpreted as trying to project Power.
But, those Clothing suit My Life Style; old House, old Cars, Old Truck and so on.

When I joined the Army in 1970 I went in as a Medic so My job would not be to have to Shoot or maim anyone even though I have had a Fire Arm since I was about 9 years old.
So if I wanted to kill Folks I missed out on My Chance.

I have absolutely no moral scruples about defending My life or Limb or the same for someone else’s I want to protect.

But, like I said in the other post I don't fear the Common People (gun owners or not) are going to do harm to Me of My Family.
Ya, I know logically that it is not impossible for something bad to happen but I don't let that get into me emotionally to cause a Fear reaction; flight or fight.

And, I am certainly not going to let the Media jerk My emotions arond and pull My strings like a Puppet.

Originally Posted by davidmash (Post 3072878)

Secondly all guns should be required to be locked up when not in use.

All guns should be secured in a certified safe when not in use.

Originally Posted by toomany MBZ (Post 3072996)

Fine by me if the bad guy breaking into the house will wait while I open the safe and unlock my self defense weapon so I can shoot him, or at least have a fair fight.

Will the gun police be able to enter your home and check to see if the weapons are locked up?

Originally Posted by elchivito (Post 3072970)

While it may be a small point to those who are anti-gun, in a discussion it's always a good idea to use correct terminology. You give away your ignorance of shooting by using the term "clip".

Please, it's a 30 round magazine, not a clip.

A magazine feeds rounds into the chamber of a gun. A clip is used on some weapons to feed rounds into the magazine. (M1 Garand for example).

In short, a clip loads a magazine
a magazine loads a GUN

Originally Posted by davidmash (Post 3073008)

Fine, I am defining use as being used for it's intended purpose: defense and deterrence.

When you are home in proximity to the weapons they may be out and about. When the guns are alone, they need to be locked up in a secure safe.

Originally Posted by jplinville (Post 3073026)

How will this be enforced? Without a warrant, cops are not allowed in the house to check for compliancy. That means that you'll need to be home if the government wants to give a cursory check...which means you'll be compliant as long as you're home.

Laws are rarely the causation for people to do right...it's the consequences that do it. In the case of this nutjob in CT, consequences didn't stop him, even though he knew there were laws preventing him from doing what he did.

Originally Posted by davidmash (Post 3073041)

See post #232. We have already discussed this in the other thread.

Nope the laws did not affect the shooter. It is possible had there been more stringent laws in place that it would have affected the the mother and that the shooter would have ended up not getting access to the weapons. Same for the fireman shooter. Perhaps had their been more stringent sales laws that the gunman would not have gained access to a gun he should not have had.

I agree that consequences are the reason for compliance. That is why I want to see harsh penalties for non-compliance. That will encourage compliance.

Originally Posted by davidmash (Post 3072878)

That is why person to person sales with out a back ground check should be banned. Lets give the hammer analogy crap a rest OK. A hammer is not a gun. The firemen were not killed with a hammer. The kids in the various school shootings were not killed with a hammer. They were killed with a gun. So lets deal with the guns first and then we can deal with the hammers if they indeed pose a problem.


Two simple things should take place.

Guns should be issued with titles of ownership and any sales should require back ground checks and transfer of title. If you sell a gun with out a check or transfer the gun with out the check it is still your gun and you are responsible for it.

Secondly all guns should be required to be locked up when not in use. If your gun is stolen you better have been mugged (that would be ironic huh) or your safe better have it's door blown off. If your gun is stolen and you did not take the necessary safe guards then your butt is liable for the use of the gun.

What's the big deal?

Yep, there are exceptions to every rule. No one knows if he wanted to use a gun and could not so he relied on a fire. Possible he was a pyromaniac and fire would have been his first choice.

All guns should be secured in a certified safe when not in use.

Originally Posted by jplinville (Post 3073050)

Only by the law abiding and those not insane...