I'm looking at joining any local organization that participates in the Civilian Marksmanship Program, which then allows individuals to purchase surplus military rifles. The cheapest option I found locally is the Virginia Citizen's Defense League. I looked through their website and it seems like it's all political and no mention of their CMP activity. Is anyone here a member? Do you have to actually attend their meetings to be a member? I just want to get into the CMP program, and I really could care less about their politics - which seem to be a bit extreme to me.

Yes, I'm a VCDL member. No, you do not have to go to the meetings. I only go to one or two meetings a year because that's all my schedule will allow. But you don't ever have to go. And their policies aren't that extreme.

When is the CMP going to start surplussing some AR-15

I have some info: they're wankers.

VCDL is mostly a state-level self-defense rights organization, but it is CMP affiliated. One of the Executive Members is the CMP point-of-contact, I can't remember who it is at the moment. But he can direct you to area shoots.

We're having at meeting at the Mason Government Center in Annandale this Thursday. Come on by and see what VCDL is like and meet people. Fun and social, and you will make the CMP contact that you are looking for and have the opportunity to learn all kinds of things that might interest you. Afterwards many of us go get a burger at a nearby restaurant.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2009 10:03PM by Spacy.

This is not the same thing as the parade workers of the Vorginia Defense Force is it?

Quote

This is not the same thing as the parade workers of the Vorginia Defense Force is it?

No...not even loosely affiliated.

VCDL is not a militia organization, a shooting club, or anything like that. We are a political activist group.

To the original poster: What, specifically, do you think is "too extreme" about the VCDL's positions?

Although narrowly focused on gun rights, we support the liberty and freedom of law-abiding Virginia citizens.

If that's extreme, then I'd say we could use some more extremism around here.

As far as AR-15's and CMP...it won't happen. AR-15's are not military issue rifles so CMP cannot get "surplus" AR-15's...there's no such thing. The military issues M-16's and M-4's. As select-fire weapons, those will never be authorized for resale to the public.

Sailorcurt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> VCDL is not a militia organization, a shooting
> club, or anything like that. We are a political
> activist group.
>
> To the original poster: What, specifically, do
> you think is "too extreme" about the VCDL's
> positions?
>
> Although narrowly focused on gun rights, we
> support the liberty and freedom of law-abiding
> Virginia citizens.
>
> If that's extreme, then I'd say we could use some
> more extremism around here.

Before this turns into a raging debate on gun ownership, you did actually answer my original question, for which I thank you. You're not a shooting club, which is what I'm looking for. I shot a friend of mine's M-1 Garand, I'd like to get one of my own, the CMP is the cheapest way I've seen to get one.

As for "too extreme" I simply disagree with the VCDL's philosophy. The front page has newspaper articles saying that they're getting rid of every nugget of gun control. I do believe in gun control. I don't think that everyone should have a gun. I find Virginia's firearm resale laws to be lacking -the mislabeled "gunshow loophole". Criminals will get a gun anyway they can I realize that, but the loophole is one avenue, and there is no mention of any sort of work on closing that. The write ups on the gun owner unfriendly list are clearly biased and go on to levels of personal attacks rather than sticking to the fact about each establishment. In my opinion, you lose credibility for doing so. You don't have any gray area, it's black or white. friendly or unfriendly. No account (granted, i didn't read through the whole list, this is based on a couple of reviews) is taken if it's a business decision, rather than they disagree with your rights to carry firearms. I personally would leave an establishment if someone was open carrying. So maybe they figured that they'd have more people like me patronizing their establishment rather than people who are open carrying, or carrying concealed.

You are fighting for my rights, but they are rights I don't quite believe in. People also fight for my abortion rights, which I don't quite believe in either. Like I said, they are extreme views to me. You may not think so, which I have absolutely no problem with.

First, a disclaimer: I am a long-time member of VCDL, one of the staff bloggers at the VCDL Blog, "The Sentinel", and a gun rights activist. I DO NOT officially speak for VCDL leadership, only for myself. I do not claim to represent them, but I want to make clear that I am "affiliated" with the organization.

Shooting clubs tend to be relatively expensive. One of the advantages to joining a group like VCDL is that we don't have range facilities to keep up or other overhead costs, which is why you can join for only $25.

If you're only looking for CMP affiliation, something like VCDL is a good, inexpensive way to go. If you're looking for a shooting club, that's a whole different animal.

I'm sorry to hear that you support gun control. It always saddens me to see gun owners who only support the parts of the shooting community that they personally approve of.

I only found this forum through google news alerts and I don't know the policy about debating the issues, but I think these issues are very important for gun owners to discuss freely and without rancor so I hope that the moderators will allow a bit of a discussion here.

The "gun owner unfriendly list" IS pretty black and white to those of us who take the safety of ourselves and our families seriously. Either the business supports our right to provide for our own defense while patronizing their business or they don't. The reasons for that don't really interest me...only the result does. Those prone to violence don't see "no guns" signs and decide not to do violence there because it would be against the wishes of the management. I'll be just as disarmed in that establishment whether the policy is based upon deep-seated hoplophobia or nothing more than a business decision. Establishments that preclude us from exercising our fundamental rights are "gun owner unfriendly" and I will not patronize them. Most gun owners appreciate this list so that they are not caught unawares.

You don't believe that everyone should have a gun...but you should? Who gets to decide? You? That's the thing about rights...they apply to everyone equally unless vacated through due process of law.

VCDL does not advocate doing away with restrictions on gun ownership by criminals and the mentally unfit. However, VCDL recognizes that many of the controls purportedly designed to prevent criminals and the mentally unfit from owning guns do no such thing and serve only to increase the costs and inconvenience of gun ownership.

The faux "gun show loophole" is a prime example. You seem to understand that it has nothing to do with gun shows. Current federal law only provides that background checks be conducted by licensed dealers. It doesn't matter whether that licensed dealer is operating at a gun show, a storefront or out of his livingroom, NICS checks are required. Likewise, NICS checks are not required...indeed, not even ALLOWED...to be conducted by private citizens, regardless of where they transfer their personal property. This was an intentional provision of federal law and was included for a pretty basic reason.

How, specifically, would you enforce a law requiring background checks on private individuals? Do you know how many guns I have or what types? When I inevitably pass them down to my kids (as several of them were passed to me from my father), how will anyone know about it? Obeying a law requiring private citizens to conduct background checks would require one of two things: VOLUNTARY compliance, or an iron-clad registration scheme.

Registration is a non-starter. Every time a registration scheme has been implemented anywhere in the world, confiscation of some sort or another has occurred shortly after. Registration would never pass in the US and, if it did, would meet with massive non-compliance.

So, we're left with voluntary compliance....which is pretty much what we have now. Any private citizen can go to a gun shop and ask them to transfer a gun for them. Most gun shops will do it...for a fee.

And it would have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the guy in the dark alley selling stolen guns from his trunk, or the criminal stealing it himself...which is how the VAST majority of crime guns get into the hands of criminals.

I don't think VCDL has any problem at all with legitimate efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals...what they have a problem with is laws that have no hope of impacting crime one iota, but would only to serve to make gun ownership more expensive and difficult for the law abiding.

Sorry for the dissertation, but these complicated issues don't lend themselves well to sound bites.

Another piece of "food for thought". I posted about this on the VCDL blog this morning:

Quote

Over the past few years, more and more states have gone "shall issue" on carry permits...a couple have begun issuing concealed carry permits for the first time and one state stopped requiring permits to carry concealed at all.

We've seen a proliferation of open carry movements throughout the states.

More and more states are reciprocally recognizing each other's permits.

The ban on carry in National Parks was repealed.

"Castle Doctrine" and "Stand your Ground" are becoming the law of the land, state by state.

Millions of new guns have been purchased by law abiding citizens and gun ownership is at an all-time high.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

And what has been the result of the proliferation of gun ownership and carry in this country? The FBI reports that violent crime decreased AGAIN in 2008, continuing the trend that began in the early 90's.

Gun control is not crime control, it's citizen control...and it flies in the face of liberty.

Sailorcurt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you're only looking for CMP affiliation,
> something like VCDL is a good, inexpensive way to
> go.

Excellent point, and I will take that under advisement. I'm not against your group or anything like that, I simply disagree with some of their ideas

> I'm sorry to hear that you support gun control.
> It always saddens me to see gun owners who only
> support the parts of the shooting community that
> they personally approve of.
>
Once again, black and white. I find that in life there is very few times when there is 100% agreement with the whole of a group. Does every republican or democrat agree with the entirety of their party's platform? Does every catholic agree with everything that the Vatican comes out with? Does every student agree with everything their political science professor says?

> I only found this forum through google news alerts
> and I don't know the policy about debating the
> issues, but I think these issues are very
> important for gun owners to discuss freely and
> without rancor so I hope that the moderators will
> allow a bit of a discussion here.

Discussion/Debate is a loose term in FU. More like screaming and asshattery and trolls.
>
> The "gun owner unfriendly list" IS pretty black
> and white to those of us who take the safety of
> ourselves and our families seriously. Either the
> business supports our right to provide for our own
> defense while patronizing their business or they
> don't. The reasons for that don't really interest
> me...only the result does. Those prone to
> violence don't see "no guns" signs and decide not
> to do violence there because it would be against
> the wishes of the management. I'll be just as
> disarmed in that establishment whether the policy
> is based upon deep-seated hoplophobia or nothing
> more than a business decision. Establishments
> that preclude us from exercising our fundamental
> rights are "gun owner unfriendly" and I will not
> patronize them. Most gun owners appreciate this
> list so that they are not caught unawares.
>
I see your point. In a binary world, they only allow/disallow guns.

> You don't believe that everyone should have a
> gun...but you should? Who gets to decide? You?
> That's the thing about rights...they apply to
> everyone equally unless vacated through due
> process of law.
>
Ah, but once again, someone gets to make decisions on you all the time. Who decides if you get to pass that english class? Who decides if you're getting that loan? Who decides that if you don't fill out your car registration form in triplicate at the DVM, you don't get to process the title? Decisions about you are made for you all the time. Why should this be any different? Rights are rarely applied equally.

> VCDL does not advocate doing away with
> restrictions on gun ownership by criminals and the
> mentally unfit. However, VCDL recognizes that
> many of the controls purportedly designed to
> prevent criminals and the mentally unfit from
> owning guns do no such thing and serve only to
> increase the costs and inconvenience of gun
> ownership.
>
Yep. Along with the expired assault weapon ban, which did nothing but make high capacity magazines exorbitantly expensive. I could purchase a 17 round glock magazine all the way up until the day it expired.

> The faux "gun show loophole" is a prime example.
> You seem to understand that it has nothing to do
> with gun shows. Current federal law only provides
> that background checks be conducted by licensed
> dealers. It doesn't matter whether that licensed
> dealer is operating at a gun show, a storefront or
> out of his livingroom, NICS checks are required.
> Likewise, NICS checks are not required...indeed,
> not even ALLOWED...to be conducted by private
> citizens, regardless of where they transfer their
> personal property. This was an intentional
> provision of federal law and was included for a
> pretty basic reason.
>
> How, specifically, would you enforce a law
> requiring background checks on private
> individuals? Do you know how many guns I have or
> what types? When I inevitably pass them down to
> my kids (as several of them were passed to me from
> my father), how will anyone know about it?
> Obeying a law requiring private citizens to
> conduct background checks would require one of two
> things: VOLUNTARY compliance, or an iron-clad
> registration scheme.
>
> Registration is a non-starter. Every time a
> registration scheme has been implemented anywhere
> in the world, confiscation of some sort or another
> has occurred shortly after. Registration would
> never pass in the US and, if it did, would meet
> with massive non-compliance.
>
The swiss have gun registration. Granted, every able male has a rifle and a sig saur in the house. They've never had a problem at all with registration. Israel is similar.

> So, we're left with voluntary compliance....which
> is pretty much what we have now. Any private
> citizen can go to a gun shop and ask them to
> transfer a gun for them. Most gun shops will do
> it...for a fee.
>
> And it would have absolutely no effect whatsoever
> on the guy in the dark alley selling stolen guns
> from his trunk, or the criminal stealing it
> himself...which is how the VAST majority of crime
> guns get into the hands of criminals.
>

> I don't think VCDL has any problem at all with
> legitimate efforts to keep guns out of the hands
> of criminals...what they have a problem with is
> laws that have no hope of impacting crime one
> iota, but would only to serve to make gun
> ownership more expensive and difficult for the law
> abiding.
>
But in some cases, gun control is aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. you made a blanket statement above about how gun control is bad (or you disagree with it, i'm paraphrasing). In some (or many) cases, a legitimate gun control issue gets distorted through the legal process. It's fortunately/unfortunately how the system works. I've found very few things that involve the government that don't make it more expensive and difficult for those who follow the law.


> Sorry for the dissertation, but these complicated
> issues don't lend themselves well to sound bites.
>
> Another piece of "food for thought". I posted
> about this on the VCDL blog this morning:
>
> Over the past few years, more and more states have
> gone "shall issue" on carry permits...a couple
> have begun issuing concealed carry permits for the
> first time and one state stopped requiring permits
> to carry concealed at all.
>
> We've seen a proliferation of open carry movements
> throughout the states.
>
> More and more states are reciprocally recognizing
> each other's permits.
>
> The ban on carry in National Parks was repealed.
>
> "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand your Ground" are
> becoming the law of the land, state by state.
>
> Millions of new guns have been purchased by law
> abiding citizens and gun ownership is at an
> all-time high.
>
> Etc. Etc. Etc.
>
> And what has been the result of the proliferation
> of gun ownership and carry in this country? The
> FBI reports that violent crime decreased AGAIN in
> 2008, continuing the trend that began in the early
> 90's.
>
Can the decrease in crime be legitimately tied into an armed populace, or are they two coincidental statistics? If it was decreasing during the early 90's, then you've got 8 years of Clinton's anti-gun policies to blame for that fact(which as I mentioned above, were worthless, but anti-gun individuals will tout those statistics ad-nauseum). The early 90's is when the "slacker" generation came into being. You can blame it on lazy kids without enough "umph" to get off their ass and go out and rob someone. Unless there is any kind of correlation between the two, then it's just as legitimate as the increase in global temperatures being directly linked to the decrease in carribean style pirates over the past 400 years.

I'm not anti-gun, nor am I for taking your guns away. I really don't care all that much about it. It's like someone telling me that Notre Dame sucks because they lost to Michigan. I don't care about ND football. It doesn't matter to me. You have your views, I have mine.

Quote

Once again, black and white. I find that in life there is very few times when there is 100% agreement with the whole of a group. Does every republican or democrat agree with the entirety of their party's platform? Does every catholic agree with everything that the Vatican comes out with? Does every student agree with everything their political science professor says?

And that's why I didn't say you HAVE to agree with me...just that it saddens me.

Quote

Ah, but once again, someone gets to make decisions on you all the time. Who decides if you get to pass that english class? Who decides if you're getting that loan? Who decides that if you don't fill out your car registration form in triplicate at the DVM, you don't get to process the title? Decisions about you are made for you all the time. Why should this be any different? Rights are rarely applied equally.

But none of the things you mentioned are rights...and that is a major difference. With that said, however, I would agree that many rights have been infringed over the years by a runaway government. Does a track record of accepting unconstitutional infringements justify the next one? I say no. We shouldn't be accepting further infringements on our rights because they've been infringed in the past, we should be demanding not only no future infringements, but a roll-back of the past ones as well.

As far as Israel and Switzerland...Switzerland only recently instituted an official registration and not at the behest of its own government, but to comply with a free travel treaty. It remains to be seen whether this will cause problems, but Switzerland did not have a registration per se before enactment of the "Schengen Treaty in 2008. I'd be willing to bet that, over time, Switzerland will either be forced to abandon the treaty, or that registration scheme will come back to bite them. It just hasn't been around long enough to know for sure yet. If it does turn out to be a non-issue, it will be the first time in history.

Israel's gun restrictions would probably surprise you. While it is true that many citizens are members of the IDF and are authorized firearms ownership in that capacity, for general citizens who are not IDF members, firearms ownership is very tightly controlled. Saying that it "isn't a problem" in Israel is very much a matter of perspective.

Be that as it may...

Quote

But in some cases, gun control is aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

But does it work? Much like with shooting, it doesn't matter much where it's aimed, what matters is where it hits. There have been numerous studies done on the efficacy of gun control and not one of them has been able to identify a single gun control law that has reduced crime.

If there was any evidence whatsoever that any of these restrictions actually hit the targets they are supposedly aimed at, I'd have to think long and hard about my position. The fact is that they simply don't do what their proponents claim they will do.

Quote

Can the decrease in crime be legitimately tied into an armed populace, or are they two coincidental statistics?

Excellent question. I can't prove definitively that the decrease in crime is related to relaxation of gun control laws...but there is a VERY strong correlation. Yes, the Brady bill was enacted in 1993 and the so-called "assault weapon ban" was enacted in 1994, but the decrease in crime was already well underway at that time and neither of those acts had any discernible effect on the pre-existing trend. What did happen in the late '80's and early 90's that corresponds to the decrease in crime? Well, in 1986 there were 9 states that were "shall issue" or unrestricted for concealed carry permits...15 states had no provisions for concealed carry at all. In 1990, there were 16 shall issue states and 14 no issue states. By 1995 28 states were shall issue or unrestricted and only 8 did not allow concealed carry at all. By 1999, the numbers were 31 shall issue, 2 no issue.

The current downward trend of violent crime began in 1991. Neither the Brady act, nor the Assault Weapon ban, had any impact on the defensive use of firearms by citizens...they were, in my opinion, irrelevant to the causes of the trend and, so, had no impact on it.

With that said, I'm the first to admit that correlation does not equal causation. The correlation that I pointed out does not "prove" that increased rates of defensive firearm ownership and carry caused the corresponding decrease in crime rates.

But what an analysis of the crime rates proves definitively is that increased gun ownership and relaxed gun control laws do not cause INCREASES in crime.

If liberalizing the laws doesn't result in a detrimental impact on society, why shouldn't they be liberalized?

If gun control laws don't decrease crime...and they demonstrably do not...then why enact them? All they do is create criminals from otherwise law abiding citizens who don't comply either due to ignorance or principle, and complicate the lives of people who aren't a danger to society to begin with.

The bottom line is that there need be no justification for liberty. What needs justification is infringement of that liberty...and, in this case, the justification simply isn't there.

A gunowner who supports gun control is like a chicken who supports Colonel Sanders.

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A gunowner who supports gun control is like a
> chicken who supports Colonel Sanders.

Or it could be like a carowner who is in favor of having laws in place to not give just everyone the ability to dangerously own a car.

Did I mention how much I just love the cute pink guns on the market? They're to die for - literally! teehee

I'm a member of VCDL. We get together with other heavy set rednecks and talk guns. I get such a hardon during the meetings.

one track mind conservatives are funny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did I mention how much I just love the cute pink
> guns on the market? They're to die for -
> literally! teehee



.
Attachments:

Ah, the discussion has degenerated into a name-calling fest.

So as long as nobody cares what my views are, I'm able to get into their CMP program, and someone is willing to actually work with me on improving my accuracy, I'm willing to join. Thanks for your honest answers.

You're welcome, and you're right, we don't have to agree 100% to show some mutual respect.

I don't live in Northern Virginia (I'm in the Tidewater area), but I have no doubt that there are people up there who'd be willing to help you work on accuracy.

A good, growing resource for making connections with other Virginia Gun Owners is the VA Gun Owners forum.

Heck, I'd be happy to meet you half-way sometime if you're willing to travel a little. I'm sure we can find a public range to use somewhere in the middle of the state. I'm an NRA certified instructor for basic rifle, pistol and shotgun.

If you're interested, I believe my username on these posts is linked to my VCDL blog e-mail address, if that doesn't work for you, you can contact me through the contact form on the VCDL blog or through the "Contact Me" link on my personal blog.

Scott,

I absolutely support your right to your opinions, whether I agree with them or not, but I was curious about one statement you made:

" I personally would leave an establishment if someone was open carrying. "

Why is that? As a gun owner and shooter, surely you understand that the open-carrier presents no threat to you or anyone around you. What is it that makes you uncomfortable in that scenario?

---------------------------------
Who knows from whence he came, and who knows where he goes, dot dot dot.

FoolSmacker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Why is that? As a gun owner and shooter, surely
> you understand that the open-carrier presents no
> threat to you or anyone around you. What is it
> that makes you uncomfortable in that scenario?


Really? Is there any type of background check someone who chooses to "open carry" has to endure, outside of when the weapon was first purchased, provided they were even the first purchaser and bought it from a dealer? Is there any type of mandatory training involved to open carry? How can someone be assured that someone who chooses to "protect themselves" by open carrying has even one iota of training or ability to effectively operate that weapon? Are they schooled on the art of weapon retention? Are they even physically fit enough to operate the weapon?

At least someone with a concealed carry permit must demonstrate a few of these principles. In my opinion, open carry is dumb, and many people who choose open carry are doing so to "look tough."

If I'm ever in a situation where I may actually have to defend myself with the use of a weapon, I am not going to show my hand right off the bat. Concealed carry is far more tactically sound, IMO.

hmmm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FoolSmacker Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Why is that? As a gun owner and shooter, surely
> > you understand that the open-carrier presents
> no
> > threat to you or anyone around you. What is it
> > that makes you uncomfortable in that scenario?
>
>
> Really?

If you believe otherwise, please show some evidence of how
open carrying people in Virginia have proven to be a threat.
(I'd be somewhat interested in other places, too.)

> Concealed carry is far more tactically sound, IMO.

On the one hand, I'd rather not show my cards, either.
On the other hand, criminals tend to avoid situations where
people are obviously armed -- and I'd rather not find myself
in a situation where I have to make a "tactically sound" decision.

So I think there is a place for both concealed and open carry.

I think of a gun sort of like a tie. Sometimes I like to project
an image by wearing those things. However, "bad ass" is never the
image that I am trying to project. In both cases, the perception
is in the eye of the beholder. Not everyone sees a gun as you do.

Mostly I prefer to carry concealed.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2009 04:08PM by Spacy.

If you believe otherwise, please show some evidence of how
open carrying people in Virginia have proven to be a threat.
(I'd be somewhat interested in other places, too.)

> Concealed carry is far more tactically sound, IMO.

On the one hand, I'd rather not show my cards, either.
On the other hand, criminals tend to avoid situations where
people are obviously armed -- and I'd rather not find myself
in a situation where I have to make a "tactically sound" decision.

Exactly.

Open carriers simply are not a problem. The only recent case I can think of where an open carrier fired his gun was the one in the convenience near Richmond where a guy carrying a "western style revolver" stopped a hold up, shot the bad guy and saved at least one life if not several.

Fearing open carriers is irrational based on historical evidence.

As far as the second point...most bad guys look for soft targets. As many times as I've heard the canard about them just shooting the open carrier first, I've never seen a story of it actually happening. I'm sure it has once or twice, but it hardly seems to be the threat it's made out to be.

Personally, I'd prefer never to have to use my gun for anything other than poking holes in paper at the range. If there is a decent chance (and I believe there is) that a bad guy would see that I'm armed and make the tactical decision to look for a softer target, I'd say that's a pretty good "win" for me.

Some people won't get concealed carry permits because of the principle involved. The idea of having to pay a fee and ask permission of the government to exercise a constitutionally protected right just rankles some people. Although I have a permit and don't necessarily share that view...I can understand it perfectly.

hmmm Wrote:
>
> Really? Is there any type of background check
> someone who chooses to "open carry" has to endure,
> outside of when the weapon was first purchased,
> provided they were even the first purchaser and
> bought it from a dealer? Is there any type of
> mandatory training involved to open carry? How
> can someone be assured that someone who chooses to
> "protect themselves" by open carrying has even one
> iota of training or ability to effectively operate
> that weapon? Are they schooled on the art of
> weapon retention? Are they even physically fit
> enough to operate the weapon?

Wow, it must suck to be that pessimistic. I choose to believe a few choice facts: The OC is a law-abiding citizen, since criminals prefer that their victims not be forewarned of their intentions. Someone who is confident enough around firearms to be comfortable displaying one on his waist has probably put quite a few rounds through it at the range. I also choose to believe that the OC has a certain amount of common sense, and knows the limits and limitations of his holster, as far as retention. He also realizes the resposibility of carrying a weapon, and is mindful of his surroundings. This common sense also extends to physical fitness. An 85-pound octegenarian is not going to be strutting around with a .454 Casull. It would be an uncomforable carry, and a ludicrous defense weapon.


> At least someone with a concealed carry permit
> must demonstrate a few of these principles. In my
> opinion, open carry is dumb, and many people who
> choose open carry are doing so to "look tough."

That's your opinion. Some people like to open carry for many reasons. Maybe they do it to look tough. Immature, perhaps, but not illegal. More likely, the political aspect described by Sailorcurt. Or perhaps they like to frequent establishments that serve alcohol, where concealed carry is not permitted.

> If I'm ever in a situation where I may actually
> have to defend myself with the use of a weapon, I
> am not going to show my hand right off the bat.
> Concealed carry is far more tactically sound, IMO.

I prefer concealed carry, personally. Keeps things simpler.

---------------------------------
Who knows from whence he came, and who knows where he goes, dot dot dot.

If we stripped suicides off the 'death by firearms' tally, how would the US compare to other countries?

formerhick76 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If we stripped suicides off the 'death by
> firearms' tally, how would the US compare to other
> countries?


I would like to know the answer to this too. (And before anyone says "Look how many people are offing themselves with guns, lets ban them," look how many people have killed themselves by jumping in front of metro trains recently. We should get rid of the metro becuase it is so dangerous.

And as for gun registration: In germany they instituted gun registration in the 70's. 20 million guns were to be registered. The number they got: 3 million. The owners refused to register the other 17 million.

Quote

If we stripped suicides off the 'death by firearms' tally, how would the US compare to other countries?

It doesn't really matter. There are too many variables for any of those comparisons to mean anything.

Different cultures have differing propensities toward violence. The Japanese have very low rates of violent crime, but astronomical rates of suicide...just as one example. One of the most unique things about the US is the fact that we have so many people from so many different cultural backgrounds spread across so large a physical area. We have subcultures in the US that are more prone to violence, by orders of magnitude, than others.

Also the differences in reporting methods between countries make international comparisons meaningless. For example: In the place where Great Britain used to be, they don't report a homicide as a homicide unless there was a conviction. We report homicides as soon as it is determined that the person died of unnatural causes...even in cases where it was self defense...those are classed as "justifiable homicide" but are still lumped in with the homicide statistics.

In Japan, if someone is shot, stabbed or beaten, but makes it to the hospital and dies there, it is often classified as "natural causes" to keep their violent crime numbers down. Their justification is that they didn't die from the wounds they received, they died because their heart stopped or they stopped breathing...perfectly natural, right?

There are countries with strict gun control but extremely high violent crime rates, countries with strict gun control and very low violent crime rates, countries with little gun control and high crime, etc.

Which proves only that gun control has very little to do with violent crime at the macro level...but on the micro (read "individual") level, gun control can make all the difference in the world between being oppressed, or free; between surviving a violent attack, and being helplessly victimized.

Gun control is not about crime. Heck, gun control isn't really even about guns. It's about control, pure and simple.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it."
-- H.L. Mencken

" If one word rings out, and echoes around the world, when America is mentioned, that word is Freedom. But what does freedom mean? It means that hundreds of millions of ordinary human beings live their lives as they see fit -- regardless of what their betters think. That is fine, unless you see yourself as one of their betters,"
--Thomas Sowell

And re: gun owners who support gun control that doesn't affect them and their chosen guns/shooting sports:

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
--Thomas Paine