Firearms. Yea or Nay?

[blue]

I guess Im the exception that enjoys the time spent doing target practice. I can hold my own shooting against better rifles, and I take pride in that skill.

Shooting is a skill, shouldnt shooting with a lesser firearm be commended?

[Puckstop31]

I guess Im the exception that enjoys the time spent doing target practice. I can hold my own shooting against better rifles, and I take pride in that skill.

Shooting is a skill, shouldnt shooting with a lesser firearm be commended?

Sure... But are you just learning to compensate for a less accurate rifle? LOL

Like my new deer rifle... Savage 110 in .270 Win. The "book" says use a 130 grain bullet. I am using 150. Why? I want to ensure a clean and instant kill. Bigger bullet increases the chances of that happening. BUT, that means I need to get a better feel for bullet drop over standard ranges. It is going to drop more. After a few hours on the range (and a sore shoulder) I feel I am ready. Sure, I could buy a better scope (I have a flat 3x9) but I also work for living and pay cash ONLY. LOL

This is not to say the savage is not accurate.... I am just using ammo that is not the "book" type.

Errrr, what was my point? LOL Oh yeah, to pick on Dan.

AK's drool.

[sparks19]

Errrr, what was my point? LOL Oh yeah, to pick on Dan.

AK's drool.

LOL I'm starting to second guess the offer to have both of you visiting in the same house LOL.

[Hellow]

I say yes to guns, one county in my state has a law that states that you must own a gun within your household or pay a fine. The crime rate has dropped dramatically there. I say the only use for guns is self defense, you really shouldnt use them for anything else.

[Cinder & Smoke]

... one county in my state has a law that states that
you must own a gun within your household or pay a fine.
The crime rate has dropped dramatically there.

From the cited website:

KENNESAW, Ga >>>

"He said the law in its final form has many loopholes,
so not everyone is required to own a gun.

"There are many outs," he said. "When you look at it,
almost anyone could fit into one of the exempted groups."

Kennesaw Police Chief Dwaine Wilson said
no one has ever been prosecuted under the ordinance.
Among those exempt are residents "who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms
as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine."
Others exempt include the physically and mentally disabled,
paupers and those convicted of a felony.

The law contains no clause addressing punishment for violating the law."
Source: http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

[JenBKR]

From the cited website:

KENNESAW, Ga >>>

"He said the law in its final form has many loopholes,
so not everyone is required to own a gun.

"There are many outs," he said. "When you look at it,
almost anyone could fit into one of the exempted groups."

Kennesaw Police Chief Dwaine Wilson said
no one has ever been prosecuted under the ordinance.
Among those exempt are residents "who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms
as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine."
Others exempt include the physically and mentally disabled,
paupers and those convicted of a felony.

The law contains no clause addressing punishment for violating the law."
Source: http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

Good to know. Sounds like such a strange law to me.....I was sort of wondering how they would enforce it.

[Puckstop31]

Good to know. Sounds like such a strange law to me.....I was sort of wondering how they would enforce it.

Indeed a tough one to enforce. Maybe not make it a law. Perhaps the city government could recommend firearm ownership?

Either way, it should be pretty safe to say that criminals might think twice before doing their deeds in such a place, no?

[blue]

Errrr, what was my point? LOL Oh yeah, to pick on Dan.

AK's drool.

Next time we make it to the range Ill have to save the paper, my groups with his scoped Bushmaster AR 15 are better then my AK and his groups with his own rifle. Hopefully he can find the same scope he had on his old AR for his new AR.

Alot of moose and bear hunters use larger grain bullets then what is booked for their rifles.

[blue]

For the consideration of the anti gunners.

A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2008, AND THEREAFTER



Control Criminals Not Guns



Every time there's a highly publicized shooting, out go the cries for stricter gun control laws, and it was no different with the recent murder of Philadelphia Police Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, in a letter to the state congressional delegation demanding reenactment of the federal assault weapon ban, said, "Passing this legislation will go a long way to protecting those who put their lives on the line every day for us. É There is no excuse to do otherwise."



Gun control laws will not protect us from murderers. We need protection from the criminal justice system politicians have created. Let's look at it.



According to former Philly cop Michael P. Tremoglie's article "Who freed the cop-killers?" for the Philadelphia Daily News (5/8/08), all three murder suspects had extensive criminal records. Levon Warner was sentenced in 1997 to seven and a half to 15 years for robbery, one to five years for possessing an instrument of crime and five to 10 for criminal conspiracy. Howard Cain was convicted in 1996 on four counts of robbery and sentenced to five to 10 years on each count. Eric Floyd was sentenced to five to 10 years in 1995 for robbery, rearrested in 1999 for parole violation and later convicted in 2001 for two robberies. If these criminals had not been released from prison, long before they served out their sentences, officer Liczbinski would be alive today. So what's responsible for his death: guns or a prison and parole system that released these three criminals? Tremoglie cites other examples of criminals, with convictions for violent crimes ranging from robbery and assault to murder, who were paroled and later murdered police officers.



A New York Times study (4/28/06) of the city's 1,662 murders in 2003-2005 found that 90 percent of the murderers had criminal records. A Massachusetts study reported that on average, homicide offenders had been arraigned for nine prior offenses. John Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime," reports that in 1988 in the 75 largest counties in the U.S., over 89 percent of adult murderers had a criminal record as an adult.



A few days after the murder of Liczbinski, Governor Rendell told a news conference, attended by state elected officials and top law enforcement officials, "The time has come for politicians to decide. You have to decide whether you're on their side -- the men and women who wear blue -- or whether you're on the side of the gun lobby." Instead of saying "whether you're on the side of the gun lobby," Rendell should have said "whether you're on the side of the criminal and the courts, prosecutors, prisons and parole boards that cut soft deals with criminals and release them to prey upon police officers and law-abiding citizens."



If there is one clear basic function of government, it's to protect citizens from criminals. When government failure becomes so apparent, as it is in the murder of a police officer, officials seek scapegoats and very often it's the National Rifle Association and others who seek to protect our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. We hear calls for stricter gun control laws when what is really needed is more control over criminals.



There are many third-party liability laws. I think they ought to be applied to members of parole boards who release criminals who turn around and commit violent crimes. As it stands now, people on parole boards who release criminals bear no cost of their decisions. I bet that if members of parole boards were held liable or forced to serve the balance of the sentence of a parolee who goes out and commits more crime, they would pay more attention to the welfare of the community rather than the welfare of a criminal. You say, "Williams, under those conditions, who'd serve on a parole board?" There's something to be said about that.



Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

[lizbud]

Here's a true gun nut & a dangerous man.

http://www.theindychannel.com/slides...88/detail.html

[JenBKR]

I say yes to guns, one county in my state has a law that states that you must own a gun within your household or pay a fine. The crime rate has dropped dramatically there. I say the only use for guns is self defense, you really shouldnt use them for anything else.

What?? Am I reading this right? You are saying that there is a county that has a law that if you do not have a gun in the house you have to pay a fine? I'm sorry, but I think you have that wrong. They can't make a law like that.....

Here's a true gun nut & a dangerous man.

http://www.theindychannel.com/slides...88/detail.html

Wow...really scary. Imagine how the neighbors must feel knowing that they were living so close to all of that...

I am conflicted on the subject of guns. I don't like them personally, but I don't have a problem with hunting. My husband hunts and has guns in the house, but they are kept in a locked cabinet, unloaded. We don't even keep the bullets in the house. Guns just make me nervous...but I think that if they were outlawed at this point, criminals would be the only ones to have them.

[Puckstop31]

What?? Am I reading this right? You are saying that there is a county that has a law that if you do not have a gun in the house you have to pay a fine? I'm sorry, but I think you have that wrong. They can't make a law like that.....

It may sounds crazy... But if something is 'stupid', but works, then it is not stupid.

http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

Granted, I do not see this working in the "big city", but out in flyover country, it works just fine.

Guns just make me nervous...but I think that if they were outlawed at this point, criminals would be the only ones to have them.

The only way to conquer a fear is to face it. Perhaps have your hubby take you to a range one day? Guns do not load, aim or fire all by themselves. Properly handled, they are no more dangerous than any other tool. (Except of course to the intended target, but that is another discussion.)

[Edwina's Secretary]

What?? Am I reading this right? You are saying that there is a county that has a law that if you do not have a gun in the house you have to pay a fine? I'm sorry, but I think you have that wrong. They can't make a law like that.....

Sadly it is true...

And if a county passed a law saying everyone who lives in that county must smoke cigarettes or pay a fine? Cigarettes are legal and serve the same purpose as guns -- killing.

Everyone would be in an uproar. But gun owners have a very, very powerful lobbying group.

[Puckstop31]

Here's a true gun nut & a dangerous man.

http://www.theindychannel.com/slides...88/detail.html

Good. But, whay are you so quick to judge? Hopefully he is still innocent until proven guilty.

If he ends up being convicted (he probably will, the mortar is almost certainly not legal), a good example of criminal control.