Notices
The Basement Non-Honda/Acura discussion. Content should be tasteful and "primetime" safe.
View Poll Results: CCW...yes or no?
Yes
74.29%
No
8.57%
I couldn't give a rats ass.
17.14%
Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll

CCW...YAY or NAY?

Thread Tools
 
Old Mar 10, 2008 | 06:30 PM
  #61  
James3370's Avatar
James3370
aka Heywoodjablowme
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,562
Likes: 0
From: Nashville, TN
Default

Originally Posted by useless
It's cliche but if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.

Please explain your opinion that people with ccw are in more danger. I don't see it.
i think his opinion stems from the fact of the "perceived safety" that the gun provides & that me having this "perceived safety" makes me more prone to place myself in dangerous situations...cause i'm armed

that is like saying that because my car has 120 on the speedo & will do that speed, that i drive that fast everytime i am on the roads.....

which is the biggest load of horseshit
Reply
Old Mar 10, 2008 | 06:51 PM
  #62  
SlowRolla's Avatar
SlowRolla
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
From: Florida
Default

I changed my mind. You would need a gun in this situation:
Reply
Old Mar 10, 2008 | 06:54 PM
  #63  
jconeab's Avatar
jconeab
got the nuts
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 4,939
Likes: 0
From: emerald city
Default

where was that one thread a couple weeks ago where there was a debate about guns and someone showed an article which showed the two women getting raped in their house then suing the police for not coming fast enough...
Reply
Old Mar 10, 2008 | 07:20 PM
  #64  
KirkLS's Avatar
KirkLS
Wannabe ///M3 owner
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,616
Likes: 0
From: Northern California
Default

I see where Spanky is coming from. I'd rather have the gun and not need it for sure. I mean, if I'm armed and somebody comes up and put a gun to my head then yea I'm probably going to give them my wallet because I'm not going to risk reaching for my gun and getting my head blown off. But in the case like James described at least you're protected. People with CCW commit a very small percentage of crimes. I'd much rather that people be allowed to arm themselves as long as the situation is right. I'm sure LA has the same rules as far as you cant be a felon, convicted of battery, spousal abuse etc
Reply
Old Mar 10, 2008 | 07:22 PM
  #65  
cpvdh's Avatar
cpvdh
Member
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,869
Likes: 0
From: OR
Default

Originally Posted by rebeld
i see you still havent gotten it through your head that those who want to commit a crime will have a gun regardless if someone says its wrong or not


and as for the age to carry ... its 21
without ideals there cant be progress

Originally Posted by James3370
wether you believe it or not, "safety" is not a perceived feeling...it is a reality
but whether or not guns actually provide more safety is what i think is percieved


Originally Posted by useless
Please explain your opinion that people with ccw are in more danger. I don't see it.
if you are carrying a gun you are always in a situation where something could go wrong
i am rarely even around a gun, so a situation like that cant even occur

Originally Posted by James3370
i think his opinion stems from the fact of the "perceived safety" that the gun provides & that me having this "perceived safety" makes me more prone to place myself in dangerous situations...cause i'm armed

that is like saying that because my car has 120 on the speedo & will do that speed, that i drive that fast everytime i am on the roads.....

which is the biggest load of horseshit
not quite

i dont think you place yourself in more situations than you need to, im not trying to argue that people with guns are more ballsy or anything like that

i am trying to say that the likelyhood that a gun ever affects my life is increased by me having a gun, not decreased
Reply
Old Mar 10, 2008 | 07:27 PM
  #66  
spanky's Avatar
spanky
I go duffy on dem bitches
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 28,248
Likes: 0
From: Gonzales, Louisiana
Default

Originally Posted by jchoi
where was that one thread a couple weeks ago where there was a debate about guns and someone showed an article which showed the two women getting raped in their house then suing the police for not coming fast enough...
I posted it. http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/ka...rotection.html

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."
The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]
In the Warren case the injured parties sued the District of Columbia under its own laws for failing to protect them. Most often such cases are brought in state (or, in the case of Warren, D.C.) courts for violation of state statutes, because federal law pertaining to these matters is even more onerous. But when someone does sue under federal law, it is nearly always for violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (often inaccurately referred to as "the civil rights act"). Section 1983 claims are brought against government officials for allegedly violating the injured parties' federal statutory or Constitutional rights.
Reply
Old Mar 10, 2008 | 07:28 PM
  #67  
spanky's Avatar
spanky
I go duffy on dem bitches
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 28,248
Likes: 0
From: Gonzales, Louisiana
Default

Originally Posted by cpvdh
if you are carrying a gun you are always in a situation where something could go wrong
i am rarely even around a gun, so a situation like that cant even occur
:rofl:

you should stop driving cars, taking showers, etc. everything in this world could make something go wrong. imo, i feel more comfortable carrying a gun than i do driving a car? why? because i'm in 100% control of my gun. i'm not in 100% control of what happens when i'm on the road.
Reply
Old Mar 10, 2008 | 07:30 PM
  #68  
spanky's Avatar
spanky
I go duffy on dem bitches
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 28,248
Likes: 0
From: Gonzales, Louisiana
Default

Originally Posted by KirkLS
I see where Spanky is coming from. I'd rather have the gun and not need it for sure. I mean, if I'm armed and somebody comes up and put a gun to my head then yea I'm probably going to give them my wallet because I'm not going to risk reaching for my gun and getting my head blown off. But in the case like James described at least you're protected. People with CCW commit a very small percentage of crimes. I'd much rather that people be allowed to arm themselves as long as the situation is right. I'm sure LA has the same rules as far as you cant be a felon, convicted of battery, spousal abuse etc
Exactly. I don't think anyone is silly enough to think they can fight back against someone who already has a gun trained on them (although under certain situations it could happen) but having the ability to protect ones self is much worse than the contrary.
Reply
Old Mar 10, 2008 | 07:33 PM
  #69  
spanky's Avatar
spanky
I go duffy on dem bitches
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 28,248
Likes: 0
From: Gonzales, Louisiana
Default

Originally Posted by cpvdh
i am trying to say that the likelyhood that a gun ever affects my life is increased by me having a gun, not decreased
so you think no one should have the right to carry a gun on them just because YOU don't think you need one?
Reply
Old Mar 10, 2008 | 07:35 PM
  #70  
KirkLS's Avatar
KirkLS
Wannabe ///M3 owner
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,616
Likes: 0
From: Northern California
Default

Originally Posted by cpvdh
i am rarely even around a gun, so a situation like that cant even occur
Seriously? So you dont think anyone around you ever has a gun? Well hopefully you never have to find out. Because if something happens you'll be a sitting duck. If you're content being a sheep then thats acceptable. I'd much rather be the lion though. I hope there's a lion there to help you if you're unfortunate enough to have something happen to you
Originally Posted by spanky
Exactly. I don't think anyone is silly enough to think they can fight back against someone who already has a gun trained on them (although under certain situations it could happen) but having the ability to protect ones self is much worse than the contrary.
Exactly. I'm not even saying that I'd draw my weapon in every situation. If its a bank robbery I may not. Be a good witness and get descriptions if possible. But if my life or someone else's life is in danger well then the game changes
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:02 AM.