-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Guns Rights Zealots--Shoot Down this Idea
- Thread starter InTheLight
- Start date
The last gun on my wish list. Preferably an old Colt lever-action.
WoBut my personal advice for home protection is a 1911 .45, with the 8-round clip. There are several companies that make them. Or a pump-action shotgun, sawed off to the legal limit of 18".
Against trigger locks.
Mine too! Used one for years in the Corps. Just as I got out they were switching over to the Barretta 9 mil.
I want a Henry 30/30. http://henryrepeating.com/rifle-3030.cfm
Last edited by a moderator:
Can you scope it?
The 1911 has a classic charm, and some intangible value that many of us who have used it in the service seem to hold onto concerning it. There are also a ton of ways to personalize. There's also a lot of concealment options for them.
Any firearm needs to be shot often for the person to get comfortable and proficient with it. If you are not willing to do that you are better off not carrying at all.
Plus, it's best to find one that fits your hand and shooting style.
A shotgun is a good option for home defense and a good tool to have in your arsenal.
Any firearm needs to be shot often for the person to get comfortable and proficient with it. If you are not willing to do that you are better off not carrying at all.
Plus, it's best to find one that fits your hand and shooting style.
A shotgun is a good option for home defense and a good tool to have in your arsenal.
That's one of the deceptive statements that began to make the rounds this past weekend in a desperate effort to undermine the NRA suggestion.
While there was an officer assigned to the campus, he was NOT on campus at the time and had to rush to the school to respond AFTER the shooting event began AND AFTER someone managed to call 911 AND AFTER 911 relayed that shots were being fired. So that took a couple of minutes at least - which is a very long time in this type of event:
"Neil Gardner, who was stationed at the school but was not there when gunmen attacked, told the Daily News on Friday that he also supports a ban on assault weapons."
Furthermore, you will notice that he took shots from behind his patrol car (i understand it was from a distance of about 60 yards) while one of the shooters was outside - the shooter had already been inside shooting people and had probably come outside to see if anyone had responded yet. The officer did not try to enter the building to stop the killing through the same entrance or another entrance because of the response procedures of the day. In those days, the protocol for an active shooter event was to wait for backup and go in with a large number of officers for the sake of officer safety. In the wake of the Columbine massacre and other similar events, officials realized that waiting to enter the killing zone only increases innocent casualties and does not typically enhance officer safety because many active shooters commit suicide as soon as they encounter any armed resistance.
From a tactical standpoint, someone in the building who is armed has a MUCH better chance of ending an active shooter event quickly than someone who has to come into a building through known access points (doorways, etc.) well after the event is underway. After murdering a few people, there is a momentum of carnage where it is clear there is no turning back for the shooter. And, especially if the good guy/gal with a firearm is not in uniform, there is an element of surprise/uncertainty as to who might be the greatest threat in the area, giving the responder a small advantage in what is, overall, a no-win situation.
The biggest issue is proximity. You have to be near one of these events - ready to respond quickly - to make a difference. If it is going to take a couple of minutes to respond, dozens of innocents may die.
Of course having people ready to respond is no guarantee of success, but it is certainly better than a near guarantee of failure in a situation where there is a "gun free" zone with no armed security on site.
That's why it is good for some citizens to be trained and armed. They don't have to charge into a shooting situation that has already begun and try to figure out who is the aggressor and who is not. It largely solves the issue. In schools, it would be best to have a police officer in uniform as the face of deterrence and select responsible, armed and trained, personnel who conceal/carry (known to the officer) so that they can work together in an active shooter event.
From 1973 to 2008 50 million human beings slaughtered by abortionists.
In that same time frame 528,045 human beings were killed by firearms.
Maybe we need a little perspective here.
In that same time frame 528,045 human beings were killed by firearms.
Maybe we need a little perspective here.
And how many were killed in automobile accidents? After all, cars (like guns) are pieces of machinery that may be dangerous if misused.
If limiting a piece of machinery's design capability is the key to safety (think: mag capacity), then maybe all vehicles should be required to be governed to 45mph for the public's good.
If limiting a piece of machinery's design capability is the key to safety (think: mag capacity), then maybe all vehicles should be required to be governed to 45mph for the public's good.
Last edited by a moderator:
Many are glad this old man was packing back in July of this year at the interenet cafe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwrgvqlc8DA
Blessings...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwrgvqlc8DA
Blessings...
But, few know that many are glad when possibly lives are saved through the actions of others, such as this old man. Situtations, such as this one are rarely in the national spotlight. Only if a negative light can be contrived, will there be any attempt to cover this side of gun ownership by most media outlets.
Those two will think twice before going to another Internet cafe for the same purpose. They, too, will probably choose a gun-free zone for their next target.
I've considered it but haven't yet----I'd have to take it to a gunsmith and I believe there's a scope mount made for the top eject style---maybe one day
But those were "fetuses" not real human beings. :tear:
As I have said before, the real problem is a lack of respect for human life, not guns. And it begins with the abortion issue, not with gun control.
Oh, how we need a revival.
Just wanted to run this by you guys
Keep in mind----I am not in favor of so called "Gun Control" as heard from our elite politicians and media advocates
BUT
Do any of you see a problem coming up in the future with---all of the craze over firearm purchases made in lew of the Newtown & Columbine incidents----the "new" firearm owners and THEIR self control------I mean--whos to say who in the general public who feels like they MUST purchase a firearm for self defense---somewhere down the line taking the gun they purchase for self defense and using it for some sort of other senseless shooting???
See what I'm saying??
I'm all for mandatory gun education courses for everyone, whether you own or plan to own, or plan to never own a gun of any type. No registration required; just make it a one- or two-day required course in all schools, workplaces, etc.
But no, Blackbird, I don't see what you're saying. Because if I did, then I'd have to wonder the same thing about people buying cars and vans, knives, large quantities of fertilizer, radio-controlled cars, etc, etc. Which means I'd have to start living my life in fear, and I refuse to do that.
But no, Blackbird, I don't see what you're saying. Because if I did, then I'd have to wonder the same thing about people buying cars and vans, knives, large quantities of fertilizer, radio-controlled cars, etc, etc. Which means I'd have to start living my life in fear, and I refuse to do that.
Jack Matthews
New Member
Sales of guns go up in the wake of mass shootings because people are stupid and believe every rumor that comes down the pike. You would think, after years of rumors about taking your guns away never coming to pass, that people would know better. It's been the best marketing tool gun manufacturers and retailers have ever used.
Right wingers are always talking about personal responsibility for behavior, though they do not seem to be interested in applying that to gun ownership or gun sales. If guns fall into the wrong hands, then someone is responsible for that happening. If there are heavy financial penalties for gun sellers when the source of a gun is traced, or gun owners are held responsible when their guns are used in committing a crime, the rate of shooting deaths will plummet.
Right wingers are always talking about personal responsibility for behavior, though they do not seem to be interested in applying that to gun ownership or gun sales. If guns fall into the wrong hands, then someone is responsible for that happening. If there are heavy financial penalties for gun sellers when the source of a gun is traced, or gun owners are held responsible when their guns are used in committing a crime, the rate of shooting deaths will plummet.
Jack, your rant ended, for me, at the word "stupid". Your position would be like saying the guy who sells computers is complicit in wire fraud, if the computer falls into the wrong hands.
Guns are manufactured for the purpose of shooting projectiles with the intent of injuring or killing people. Cars are not built to be weapons. Furthermore, in order to operate a car you must take extensive driving instruction, pass a permit test, pass a driver's license test, and be licensed to drive. Your car must be registered and licensed by the state and you must carry liability insurance.
Why not take the gun/car analogy all the way? How about we apply the same requirements for gun ownership? Extensive training and licensing of operators? Registering and licensing of firearms?
Oh, I didn't think so....