GM Truck Club
THE PREMIER CHEVY TRUCK & SUV FORUM
Founded in 2004 ~ We're the #1 Chevy Truck & SUV Forum.
Silverado & Sierra | Tahoe & Yukon | Suburban & Yukon XL | SUV & CROSSOVER
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 Last Post byLast Post by
Results 11 to 20 of 33
  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ahmitchell1 View Post
    Kennesaw,ga actually passed a law that requires every house to have a gun in it. They say since 82 it has lowered the crime rate.
    I cant say as that makes a lot of sense. So if your a felon living there you still can have a gun. They come in your house and make sure that your obeying the law and want to see your gun. what else does this allow them to look for in YOUR house. I dont know of Kennesaw, GA but it almost sounds like a gated community subject to certain terms and conditions. There has to be more to the law than just simply requiring a gun in every house.




    2011 Silverado CrewCab 5.3L*Ram Air Look Cowl Induction Reflexxion Hood*6" Pro Comp Lift*Flowmaster Dual exhaust*Perfect Launch Rear Diff. Cover*Led Smoke Taillights*L.E.D.Smoke 3rd Brakelight*60" L.E.D. Tailgate Bar*Rearview Mirror Reverse Camera and Sensors*Smoke Headlight Covers*Front Bumper Grill Insert*Deezee Black Alum. Diamond Rail covers*20" Ultra Motorsports Rims wrapped with 35.5"B.F. Goodrich Tires*Inchannel Raingaurds*CAI*Bullydog GT Tuner*Alpine Amp*Boss 6x9's*Boston Acoustic Subs*Terrantula Tweeters*Custom Sub box*Red Led Interior Accents*5% Ultimacool duo tint rear window and doors, 20% front doors*Custom Vinyl Graphics*Demolded*Debadged*Painted drums and calipers*
    Future Mods Include: Custom Interior Hydrographics, Electronic Rollup Toneau Cover, 4.56 Gears, Painted rear bumper

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the phantom View Post
    I cant say as that makes a lot of sense. So if your a felon living there you still can have a gun. They come in your house and make sure that your obeying the law and want to see your gun. what else does this allow them to look for in YOUR house. I dont know of Kennesaw, GA but it almost sounds like a gated community subject to certain terms and conditions. There has to be more to the law than just simply requiring a gun in every house.
    Google search it and you can find all the info you want a guy even wrote a book about it. And they don't go check but since it was passed crime dropped 89%. It's a large city as well so it be impossible to check everyone, and of course felons can't own guns.
    2009 chevy 1500 z71 4x4
    2.5 ccm level,2.5 inch rear blocks 305/60/18 coopers stt,Debadged,10 series flow w/dual exit in front or right rear tire, KN CAI, diablo InTune, 18% tint all the way around ,spec-d euro headlights with black housings,winjet smoke LED tail lights,putco LED third brake light smoked, fab fours front bumper with 10k warn winch, RK sports ram air hood
    1965 c10 swb, zz4 350 with the hot cam and fast burn heads and a 780 Holley on top, richmond super street 5 speed,restorod

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RayVoy View Post
    I'm not against guns, or citizens owning guns, I have a dozen myself. What I am against, is untrained citizens carrying these guns.

    The only question that is fair to ask, would a trained police officer have unload his weapon in a manner that endangered innocent bystanders.?
    I tend to agree that training should be mandatory. However, I only support mandatory training as long as it is inexpensive enough and readily available enough soas to be within reach of all law-abiding citizens regardless of income level, as I would not want to see our right to keep and bear arms infringed upon in such a way that only those law abiding citizens who could afford training could have firearms. All too often the people bearing the most risk live in poorer neighborhoods ... where there's an armed criminal element -- so I'd not want to see law abiding citizens living there denied their right to protection just because they could not afford training ... or travel to/from training.

    As for your question about the police officer, I believe a police officer with a gun pointed at him/her (who was seated in the same position as grandpa in that video) might well have discharged his/her weapon in defense of his/her own life and that of others. The litmus test for the use of lethal force for defensive measures is largely (but not always) the same for private citizens (which includes off-duty police officers) and on-duty police officers. That litmus test may be generally summarized as: fear of imminent death or great bodily harm (to oneself or another).

    The officers I know, personally, would have been highly likely to discharge their firearms in defense of their lives and others; they are all concealed carry holders, themselves ... and very active shooters (i.e. practice a lot). The perpetrators entered the establishment and pointed a firearm at innocents -- which immediately met the litmus test for the use of lethal force in defense of one's life (be it one's own or another person's) ... for both private citizen and on-duty LEO, alike. In effect, by pointing a gun at another (which generates a valid fear of imminent death or great bodily harm) the perpetrators declared open season on themselves... by anyone/everyone they threatened in such a manner ... or even a bystander who witnessed it and elected to protect those threatened.
    Last edited by SurrealOne; 07-28-2012 at 12:52 AM.

  4. #14

    Default

    X2 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^



    If at first you don't succeed, get a bigger cheater bar.

    Current:
    1999 GMC Sierra SLT Z71 | 5.3 "Vortec" | Spectre "Cold Air Intake" | TransDapt TBS | Hypertech 30005 Tune | 2005 Chevy Tail Lights | Denali headlights | Grill Mounted Fog Lights | AWS Bug Shield | 265/70/16 Futura Scramblers | Boss HD Speakers | 2005 Overhead Console | Flowmaster Super 40 mufflers 2N1O | Mostly stock-ish
    Future:
    Bigger Amp Alternator | Electric Fans | Transmission Fluid cooler | Paint (Halfway there)| Interior Restoration/Upgrade with newer model parts | Window Visors (In channel) | Tint | Low-Profile Tool Box | LEDs throughout stock cab locations (68% Done) | And whatever is spurr of the moment
    CVN-69 "IKE-ATRAZ" AIR/V-2 Gear Dawgs

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SurrealOne View Post
    I tend to agree that training should be mandatory. However, I only support mandatory training as long as it is inexpensive enough and readily available enough soas to be within reach of all law-abiding citizens regardless of income level, as I would not want to see our right to keep and bear arms infringed upon in such a way that only those law abiding citizens who could afford training could have firearms. All too often the people bearing the most risk live in poorer neighborhoods ... where there's an armed criminal element -- so I'd not want to see law abiding citizens living there denied their right to protection just because they could not afford training ... or travel to/from training.

    As for your question about the police officer, I believe a police officer with a gun pointed at him/her (who was seated in the same position as grandpa in that video) might well have discharged his/her weapon in defense of his/her own life and that of others. The litmus test for the use of lethal force for defensive measures is largely (but not always) the same for private citizens (which includes off-duty police officers) and on-duty police officers. That litmus test may be generally summarized as: fear of imminent death or great bodily harm (to oneself or another).

    The officers I know, personally, would have been highly likely to discharge their firearms in defense of their lives and others; they are all concealed carry holders, themselves ... and very active shooters (i.e. practice a lot). The perpetrators entered the establishment and pointed a firearm at innocents -- which immediately met the litmus test for the use of lethal force in defense of one's life (be it one's own or another person's) ... for both private citizen and on-duty LEO, alike. In effect, by pointing a gun at another (which generates a valid fear of imminent death or great bodily harm) the perpetrators declared open season on themselves... by anyone/everyone they threatened in such a manner ... or even a bystander who witnessed it and elected to protect those threatened.

    Well said and I totally agree with the part bout inexpensive training, that would help get a lot more people better trained to us theirs weapons. I know a few guys who could use a couple classes

  6. #16
    Jr. Mechanic
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central Nova Scotia
    Posts
    108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SurrealOne View Post
    I read the news report on this several days ago. The firearm used for defensive purposes was a .380 ACP caliber weapon and the lead did, indeed, go into the robbers. Both lived, too; the police picked them up in the hospital in which they had sought treatment.

    RayVoy
    As for your 'only in America' comment, you're right. Only in America do we have a right within our Bill of Rights that allows us to stand up and be hereos rather than being forced into being victims. After all, the police can't protect you right then and there; when seconds count they are minutes (or tens of minutes) away. All they can do is avenge you (if you're dead) or go after someone who victimized you (if you lived); neither actually protects you at a time when you need it. By comparison, Canada forces its citizens to be victims since it doesn't empower them to meet force with force to defend themselves (or others) from criminals. That's quite sad. I firmly believe that a population that is not empowered to protect itself by meeting force with force ... is a population of subjects ... not citizens. (If my history serves me correctly, in Greece -- where the term 'citizen' originates -- citizens were required to have swords and shields and also required to participate in the army to defend the city state if they were to have the right to vote.)

    Consider also that criminals WILL find a way to get weapons, even if they are illegal to possess -- as a criminal cares nothing for the law. Thus, it makes no sense to deny sane, drug-free, law abiding citizens who have no history of domestic violence the ability to meet threats of imminent death or great bodily harm with lethal force ... when the criminal element that cares nothing for the law, might well be doped up, and quite probably has a violent history ... and will most likely have weapons.
    You are Soooooooooo Right Sir.

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SurrealOne View Post
    I tend to agree that training should be mandatory.

    As for your question about the police officer, I believe a police officer with a gun pointed at him/her (who was seated in the same position as grandpa in that video) might well have discharged his/her weapon in defense of his/her own life and that of others. .
    The point I want to make, is that the police officers (because of their training) would not discharge the weapon as quickly as the untrained citizen and would certainly not spray the room with lead.

    This is a discussion that I can not win, so I am not going to try. The "freedom" of your 2nd amendment has been over zealously used to allow citizens to carry, in my opinion. It reminds me of the "old west" movies, but in those, the cowboys had to check their guns at the sheriff's office.

    And, please understand.............I do not mean to offend, just an outsider's view.
    Ray

    '09 Avalanche LTZ - Black
    '05 Envoy XL (sold)

  8. #18
    Master Mechanic
    KyleZ71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    York and Wilkes Barre, PA
    Posts
    871

    Default

    Here's another story of how concealed carry saved the day.
    http://updatednews.ca/2012/07/27/gun...grocery-store/
    Objects in mirror are losing

    2003 Chevy Silverado Z71, 5.3L, K&N 57 series, 2.5'' Flowmaster Super 10 series dual exhaust , Corvette Servo, McNew Automotive Dyno tune, SS gauge cluster, Extang Trifecta Tonneau, Pacesetter shorty headers, Goodmark cowl hood, Sony Xplod speakers, Kenwood DDX-470 exhaust tips, 16" Ultra Badlands polished wheels, Pirelli Scorpion ATR .

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RayVoy View Post
    The "freedom" of your 2nd amendment has been over zealously used to allow citizens to carry, in my opinion. It reminds me of the "old west" movies, but in those, the cowboys had to check their guns at the sheriff's office.

    And, please understand.............I do not mean to offend, just an outsider's view.
    I'm not offended and I don't see this discourse as an argument. Rather, I see it as a discussion and am enjoying it -- hopefully that's how you see it, too.

    As it pertains to concealed carry being over zealously used, citizens with valid concealed carry permits:
    • Comprise about 1% of the population in states that have 'shall issue' laws
    • Have no felony or domestic violence convictions
    • Have no history of mental illness or drug addiction
    • Passed a background check and have prints on file with the Authorities
    • Passed mandatory training that covers the use of firearms -and- applicable laws
    • Are statistically far more law-abiding than the general public


    Gun purchases are at an all time high across the last 40 years in the U.S.A. At the same time violent crime is at an all time low across the last 40 years in the U.S.A. While I don't draw a cause/effect relationship between the two like some would, I also do feel there's a relationship that is, if anything, indirect. I actually think shows like NCIS and Bait Car ... coupled with cameras becoming ever more ubiquitous ... play a larger role in deterrance than guns do -- as criminals are less likely to commit violent crimes when they believe/feel they are more likely to get caught. However, when such deterrants fail to deter criminals ... dialing the police fails to keep people from being victims. Guns in properly trained hands ... provide a solution.

    Also for your consideration -- when you see massacres like Virginia Tech, Columbine, etc -- consider that in many cases they are posted no-carry zones. If you were a 'smart criminal', wouldn't you commit your crime in a place where you KNOW you will have the upper hand and in a place you KNOW there won't be armed citizens to shoot back?

    Columbine was a K-12 school, which makes it a no-carry zone per federal law. Virginia Tech was a university that elected to post no-carry signage and deny law-abiding citizens the ability to carry ... without taking any action to make sure criminals couldn't carry. Look at the results. Could lives have been saved in both cases if an armed citizen had been present and elected to defend him/herself and others? Possibly ... if armed citizens could have legally carried in both places -- but they couldn't.

    Arizona has actually introduced legislation to hold entities accountable for your safety if they deny you the right to protect yourself by posting no-carry signage. It's not passed, but it makes sense. Why? Because often entities post such signage to get insurance breaks ... but would be less prone to do so if they had to have metal detectors and guards at every entrance like airports do -- to make sure that EVERYONE was disarmed (and not just the law-abiding citizens who abide the no-carry signs ... which criminals ignore). The expense would outweigh the insurance break the entity received ... and thus entities wouldn't sell people's rights to personal safety out from under them for an insurance break. Food for thought...
    Last edited by SurrealOne; 07-28-2012 at 10:28 PM.

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SurrealOne View Post
    I'm not offended and I don't see this discourse as an argument. Rather, I see it as a discussion and am enjoying it -- hopefully that's how you see it, too....
    Equalily enjoying the discussion.

    As you indicated, you know we don't have carry rights, if we did, I'd be the first to apply. We have 2 sets (probably considered 3 sets) of rules with regard to ownership. We just relaxed the rules around long gun ownership, but the rules around handgun and military style automatic weapons are still very restrictive.

    After carefully review, we can own a handgun, but you must have a transportation permit if you want to move it outside the house. the transportation permit will only allow it to be taken to a range, or for repair. Heck, long guns are not treated a lot differently. We are free to move them outside with a valid hunting license; when the license is no longer valid, the gun owner needs a transportation permit to move it outside the home.
    Even at home, the weapons must be locked and the ammo separately locked.

Similar Threads

  1. Dad Shoots Daughter's Laptop
    By Red Z71 Max in forum The Coffee Shop ~ Chit Chat
    Replies: 10
    Last: 02-12-2012, 07:37 PM
  2. turkey shoots
    By Tim Harris in forum Sports & Outdoors
    Replies: 1
    Last: 06-12-2011, 08:47 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last: 04-26-2010, 06:40 AM
  4. Arrests in armed robbery - Cincinnati Enquirer
    By ChevyFan in forum Chevy Blazer Forum (GMC Jimmy)
    Replies: 0
    Last: 05-12-2008, 10:31 AM
  5. Armed resident sends Wright County burglars fleeing; 2 nabbed - Minneapolis Star Trib
    By ChevyFan in forum Chevy Tahoe Forum (GMC Yukon, Cadillac Escalade)
    Replies: 0
    Last: 04-19-2008, 10:46 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •