According to Accuracy in Media, "All the major media surveys for the past 20 years have shown that 80 to 90 percent of the mainstream media consistently vote for Democrats."

Actually both my wife and I have a handgun in our nightstands. If you are going to own a gun, it is your responsibility to teach your kids about it and teach them it is not a toy.

Children will be in danger regardless, whether guns are in the household or drain cleaner or pointy sticks or railings with vertical posts too far apart. The key, in my opinion, is to encourage local schools to teach children of the danger of firearms and to stay away from them just as they would fire or chemicals with skull-and-crossbones stickers on them. Education, common sense, and good parenting are the best ways to save lives.

In Minnesota, you cannot carry if you have ever been committed as mentally ill/mentally retarded/ever found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental ilness. If this occurrs after your permit is issued, it will become void.

Learning the basics of self-defense and the restrictions on the use of deadly force is part of the AACFI course which I participated in. To use deadly force in the heat of an argument when you have not taken steps to remove yourself from it is illegal and you will be prosecuted for murder. Removing the weapon would not change the demeanor of the person, simply cause them to use a broken bottle, crowbar, etc.

and all democrats being liberal, i can see why that matters [/sarcasm]

such a shame that the terms liberal and democrat seem to be interchangeable. Go watch half the shows on Fox News Network, most notably the O'Reilly Factor, and tell me that guy is a liberal, hell even tell me he supports the Democrats.

I also said relatively conservative. They're far more conservative now than they have been in the 20 years of my lifetime.

Well, yes. Democrats tend to be more "liberal", and Republicans more "conservative", though the definitions have changed through the years.

Soo.. because one cable network is not blatantly liberal, the claim that 80-90% of the media is, is somehow refuted? What? That logic is about on par with claiming that because there are conservative AM radio talk shows (far less available than local network TV), the media is somehow balanced.

I'm shocked that citizens are allowed to carry concealed firearms in USA. Things sure are different on the other side of the ocean. In Norway no one owns a gun, not even the police carries firearms.

I suppose I live in a peter pan fantasy world, and I'm pretty damn glad I do. The Economist states in an editorial that when people can get guns more easily there are more deaths which are caused by guns. There is a research result in 1996 about murders with guns. According to this research, there were two murders in New Zealand, fifteen in Japan, 30 in United Kingdom, 106 in Canada, 211 in Germany. On the other hand, in the USA, there were 9,390 gun related murders (America, 1998). This is a plain fact. Though there is a difference in population between each countries, it seems that there are too many gun related murders in the USA. Firearms-related incidents are taking place even in countries that it is illegal to possess guns. Therefore, it is needless to say that more gun related incidents would be occurring if the government permits gun ownership.

Not all citizens, only those who complete a training course and meet all of the specifications which I outlined on page one.

First off, the US is not Norway or New Zealand or Japan or the UK. Take a look at Switzerland if you want to compare gun-friendly countries of relative size to your own country.

Cigarette smoking kills more people each year, as do automobile accidents, than gun violence does. States which have "shall issue" conceal/carry laws actually experience less gun violence than states which do not. In the United States the police force is not reasonably capable of protecting citizens from crime, they merely investigate and file reports after a crime has been committed. So, without a means of protecting themselves, the public are ripe targets for criminals. When properly trained (licensed), a woman can stand a chance at stopping an attempted rapist dead in his tracks and not just becoming a statistic.

Suggesting that allowing citizens to carry firearms will increase the murder rate is flawed -- in Minnesota zero people permitted to carry a handgun have used it to murder someone not in self-defense. Permit holders do not routinely get into drunken brawls at pubs and shoot it out with other permit holders.

The population was taken into the maths and the numbers doesn't speak in US's favour.


We're suddenly talking about causes of death?.. I thought we were discussing the necessity of normal citizens to carry a concealed gun. You can bagatalize everything by putting it into a bigger picture.

Anyway, I do not wish to discuss this further as we're not going anywhere. I have one opinion, you have another. I just wanted to know the pro-gun arguments as I can't figure out too many on my own ;) Just wanted you guys to know that there is societies that works without guns.

I wonder, how many deaths are the people who actually go through the hassle of getting a liscense for their gun responsible for? I imagine it's not as many as the people who don't. Besides, even if you take guns out of the picture people are still going to murder each other, guns just make it easier. That said, I would prefer responsible adults carrying legal firearms rather then taking them out of the picture entirely.

I'm talking accesability of weapons. They are aperantly everywhere. If someone feel they need a gun to kill someone it would be abit too easy to steal one.

And the risk that someone with a license will use their guns to kill someone in a moment of rage.

That's funny, considering that you conveniently ignored the parts of my reply which dealt with benefits of "normal citizens" (that is technically inaccurate, since people who carry are trained) carrying firearms. If you don't want to discuss it, and instead just lay down some "we don't need guns"-elitist line, suggest that Americans are mindless war-mongering savages, and ignore any sort of rebuttal, you may want to consider whether you should bother posting on this thread in the first place.

The facts are that in the long run availability of guns for personal protection to trained and certified law-abiding citizens lowers the violent crime rate in any given state where it has been tried. On the other hand, Washington D.C. was the murder capitol of the US while also having the most strict gun control laws in place in the country. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that in the US flimsy gun control laws simply do not work to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, and in fact only put law-abiding citizens in even more danger of being brutally victimized with little chance of protecting themselves.

I believe in the second amendment. I also think that CC permits are a good idea if a good class that teaches firearm safety and has you demonstrate you know how to use the firearm safely and you can hit what you are aiming at

okay once more into the breach- and I will try to remain objective-

First- despite eddie izzard's assertions, guns are objects- while I can shoot someone with a gun, I can also bash them over the head with a brick- a gun is a tool that makes killing things more easy- this is not a question of whether guns are bad, it is a question of whether you trust a citizen to have one--

Second- last time I checked it was the law in Switzerland that EVERYONE (all adults) had to have an assault rifle and 24 Rounds of ammo in the house at all times. I recently read in, i think it was in national geographic, that every yoear the swiss cantons all have a "shooting fest " where a huge percent of the populace between the age of 10 and 80 spends a good week competing in shooting events! the pictures showed people hanging their rifles on coatracks in Restraunts! they have incredibly low gun crime, so it is obviously not the guns that are at fault--- In switzerland, military service and firearms proficiency is mandatory- and the mindset is such that the gun is viewed as what it is, a dangerous tool that must be treated with respect... that , I believe is the key, RESPONSIBILITY

three- on the issue of responsibility there seems to be a push, world wide to mitigate responsibility and protect people from themselves- drugs are dangerous, so the U.S. gov criminalizes them and fights a loosing war on drugs for 20 years killing who knows how many people on both sides and making it hugely proffitable. guns are dangerous so they start adding restrictions to them "to protect people" bullshit- the "bad guys" still take the drugs, and still have the guns, while honest citizens do not- law enforcement is reactive- it cannot be everywhere- so the question is, do you rely on them to protect you, mitigating your responsibility, or do you take responsibility for your own protection? Personaly- I feel that you should be able to own and carry any gun you want if you are responsible and law abiding, BUT THE KEY IS THAT YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS- if you O.D. on heroin, well that is your fault, if you shoot someone you go to prison to await execution, if you have kids and Guns in the same house YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EDUCATING THEM.

Re: I completed my Conceal/Carry class today!
 

sigh....

wouldn't it be nice if there was a ferderal licence then you could travel the country. Someday man someday.

Congrats on passing the test.

You must feel much less afraid now.

Nice spin but not true. Members of the Swiss military are required to keep their weapons at home.

Even all those weapons at the ready didn't stop a gunman from going on a shooting spree killing 14 people in Zug, Switzerland.

Yes, having a gun will give you a nice, albeit false, sense of security.

Good show. I've had mine for some time here in Texas. For those of you who don't own firearms. I suggest that you get with a friend who is either x-military or grew up with them and go shooting a few times. The cert. class is good, but it's not going to give you enough familiarity with a semi-auto to feel comfortable using it. Particularly under pressure. I have also seen many seemingly experienced semi-auto owners who were at a loss when the weapon jammed. These are things you should know, and practice responding to. There is nothing wrong with a revolver. Maybe they don't look as cool, but they will not fail you.

The 9mm you mentioned is a good choice. My advice is buy the smallest frame model you can. My full size 9mm sig. is mostly my truck gun. Too big to carry in a pocket. My pocket gun is a Kel-Tec 32 cal. Really small, and gives 7 rounds, very accurate. No, not as much knockdown, but it fits in a jean's pocket, and it's a lot more powerful than the lint that would normally be in there while my 9mm sits in the truck lockbox. A good compromise between the two is a 380 auto which is essentially a 9mm short. As far as 45 cal goes, there is nothing more wonderfull to shoot. I have a nice gov. model colt, and when I want to scalp 'em at the range out she comes. There is not a lot of difference between the practicallity of the 9mm and the 45 when it comes to daily carry. Go to a gun show, don't be shy, ask questions. The people there are really nice, and love to be helpful. They will respect you for stepping up, and know a lot.

Don't pay any attention to those who criticize you for taking advantage of your constitutional right. You do make their community safer. That is proven in study after study.

Conceal/Carry class? shit in PA all you needs is like 30 dollars and a background check that takes about ten days. Granted I/ve been shooting and hunting my whole life so I feel I am qualified but dam some people have no idea how to handle a gun and they can get on ass easy as i did.

Damn, PA is loose on their requirements. I checked the sheriff's web page and all you need is an operators license and $20.

Out of state applicants also have to include a copy of their states CCP.

" the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed"
Bill of Rights 2nd Amendment *not negotiable*
it's not about deer hunting !!
Gun control is about disarming law abiding citizens.

try this test: www.a-human-right.com

ps: congrats on your CCW

This is not true. If you didn't have a gun, only the police and military would have a gun. Therefore there would be less black market guns that had been stolen from gun owner’s houses. Therefore less guns in the hands of bad guys. You think most guns in the hands of "bad guys" are brought from overseas or something? No, they are stolen out of your house.

The reason you don't hear about all the good things that happen with guns like thieves getting shot is because it doesn't happen that much. Most thieves don't break into a house when people are there. They wait until you are on vacation and go steal your guns, sell them on the black market, and then that weapon is used to commit crimes.

I also do not see where your government is trying to take away your guns. All they are doing is trying to make it harder to get a gun. If you should have a gun and are a good person it isn't hard at all to get a gun. Show me where someone is trying to take your gun away. I would like to see it.

I saw a 20/20 once where some scientists did a study by having gun owners with children who have been taught gun safety put them in a room with a gun on the table. 9 of 10 children picked up the gun and pointed it at a sibling while unsupervised. Some pulling the trigger.

Here is what I have found.


http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/suicide/risks.htm

http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/ar...ves/crimes.htm


http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/ar...es/childrn.htm

I think these speak for themselves.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The second ammendment only deals with the right to bear arms in the context of a regulated militia, not individual ownership.

Re: Re: I completed my Conceal/Carry class today!
 

Only three states with carry laws (shall-issue or not) have more strict guidelines than Minnesota. So, it's pretty safe to say that anywhere that anyone can carry, someone with a Minnesota carry license can carry.

You are absolutely wrong. It was determined by the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment applied to individuals, NOT to an organized militia like the National Guard.

Try reading and participating in the "Gun Control" thread on politics before you start throwing around nonsensical statements or "facts".

No, I'm pretty much right.

Oh, and I'll post where it's appropriate. I didn't start this discussion, and I'm not going to sit quietly by and watch the "facts" get abused by you or anyone else.

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."
U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia.

The other thread
 

Well, since this thread has been hijacked and since we have a perfectly good thread on gun control over here in weapons this thread is now closed. No sense in anyone repeating themselves in 2 places.

Please continue in the other thread.