203 replies to this topic

[Wyn6]

Here in Texas, you may own AND carry in your vehicle (plain-sight law) a gun without a permit or license to do so. We do have concealed carry licenses, but that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about having a requirement (not the only requirement) that you must take a course followed by a range and written test, which must be passed, in order for you to be licensed to OWN, not carry, ANY firearm.

This law does not exist anywhere in these United States.

[KingCracker]

there are irresponseable people out there that give gun owners a bad name but i refuse to associate myself with them.I follow the law and holster my weapon securely. I know how dangerous firearms can be so every owner should treat them as such.

Wyn6, on 08 January 2013 - 16:45, said:

Here in Texas, you may own AND carry in your vehicle (plain-sight law) a gun without a permit or license to do so. We do have concealed carry licenses, but that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about having a requirement (not the only requirement) that you must take a course followed by a range and written test, which must be passed, in order for you to be licensed to OWN, not carry, ANY firearm.

This law does not exist anywhere in these United States.

not all states are like that in TN you need a permir regardless.

Wyn6, on 08 January 2013 - 16:45, said:

Here in Texas, you may own AND carry in your vehicle (plain-sight law) a gun without a permit or license to do so. We do have concealed carry licenses, but that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about having a requirement (not the only requirement) that you must take a course followed by a range and written test, which must be passed, in order for you to be licensed to OWN, not carry, ANY firearm.

This law does not exist anywhere in these United States.

not all states are like that in TN you need a permir regardless.

[alpha2beta]

KingCracker, on 08 January 2013 - 16:17, said:

Not true in the U.K they had over 6000 gun crimes last year.You wont hear them complaining about that though,they'd much rather complain about us.

So guns are banned and they're still having gun crimes. Oh wow.

[TheLegendOfMart]

35 gun homicides compared to 11,400~

[Richteralan]

alpha2beta, on 08 January 2013 - 16:48, said:

So guns are banned and they're still having gun crimes. Oh wow.

Guess reading is not your forte.

Nobody said banning guns can completely eliminate gun crimes.

[alpha2beta]

TheLegendOfMart, on 08 January 2013 - 16:49, said:

35 gun homicides compared to 11,400~

But other crime rates are higher. Liking stabbings, riots, beatings and so on. And the US is a much bigger place.

[ILikeTobacco]

TheLegendOfMart, on 08 January 2013 - 16:33, said:

I seem to remember you lecturing me about not knowing the facts. Where do you think your Castle Doctrine came from.

We have the right to defend ourselves using REASONABLE FORCE. We can't just kill someone for a laugh like you lot seem to do.

Which means, according to the government, if a gunman attacks you, you have to just take it and not defend yourself using reasonable force. Nobody here is in denial about that so why are you?

[Xerax]

muggerfugger, on 08 January 2013 - 15:40, said:

yeah lets all pretend your post made any sense, or had any relevance.

Just like your comment in the OP.

[Mainer82]

It sounds like he didn't check to make sure he had the saftey on... something you should always do. I would never carry a chambered round if it did not have a safey as some guns don't.

[+Blank]

Xerax, on 08 January 2013 - 17:01, said:

Just like your comment in the OP.

You not agreeing with something doesn't mean it makes no sense or isnt related. I could paint you a diagram on how it is and connect the dots for you if you'd like since you have troubles.

[ILikeTobacco]

Richteralan, on 08 January 2013 - 16:51, said:

Guess reading is not your forte.

Nobody said banning guns can completely eliminate gun crimes.

No, they are just saying that only criminals have the right to have them, considering laws have no bearing on the actions of criminals.

muggerfugger, on 08 January 2013 - 17:03, said:

You not agreeing with something doesn't mean it makes no sense or isnt related. I could paint you a diagram on how it is and connect the dots for you if you'd like since you have troubles.

Need me to do the same since your seem to be having trouble yourself?

alpha2beta, on 08 January 2013 - 16:54, said:

But other crime rates are higher. Liking stabbings, riots, beatings and so on. And the US is a much bigger place.

Nobody wants to hear about how historical records show that gun bans result in higher crime rates in the US.

[Richteralan]

ILikeTobacco, on 08 January 2013 - 17:04, said:

No, they are just saying that only criminals have the right to have them, considering laws have no bearing on the actions of criminals.

Need me to do the same since your seem to be having trouble yourself?

No. Nobody is saying that.

By your flawless logic, we should not ban anything. DUI? Well why ban alcohol, criminals have the right to have them.

Bomb ingredients? Well why ban those? Criminals have the right to have them.

You guys are such cowards.

[TheLegendOfMart]

ILikeTobacco, on 08 January 2013 - 16:59, said:

Which means, according to the government, if a gunman attacks you, you have to just take it and not defend yourself using reasonable force. Nobody here is in denial about that so why are you?

We don't have gunmen attacking us every day like paranoid Americans believe thats going to happen to them, guns are few and far between in the UK and they are usually very outdated and usually in a poor state of repair, the ordinary criminal (for the want of a better word) won't have a gun, you can get 5 years in prison just for being in possession of a gun, its not worth the risk.

I'm not saying the UK is perfect, we have high crime rates for a country of our size but I feel more safer without every man and his dog having a gun without a clue how to handle it properly.

I don't believe shooting someone is reasonable force.

[ILikeTobacco]

Richteralan, on 08 January 2013 - 17:06, said:

No. Nobody is saying that.

By your flawless logic, we should not ban anything. DUI? Well why ban alcohol, criminals have the right to have them.

Bomb ingredients? Well why ban those? Criminals have the right to have them.

You guys are such cowards.

Nobody said not to ban anything. Right now, the argument is ban all semi auto weapons. That broad description happens to include every weapon besides a bolt action rifle which are just about pointless for self defense purposes. Hence, the argue, without realizing it, is that people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves.

[Richteralan]

ILikeTobacco, on 08 January 2013 - 17:09, said:

Nobody said not to ban anything. Right now, the argument is ban all semi auto weapons. That broad description happens to include every weapon besides a bolt action rifle which are just about pointless for self defense purposes. Hence, the argue, without realizing it, is that people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves.

You guys are so entrenched into your own idea, own world, just like AJ.

But of course, let the straw man do his work.