Women and Guns

[RedassSkychic 0]

Quote

Quote

I do not own a gun, but I plan to get my concealed handgun license when I turn 21, mainly because AggieDave has his in his truck, and when I am sitting in there and/or driving it I could get in trouble without one.

It's a shame that the law requires you to be age 21.

You dont have to be 21 to own a gun, only to conceal carry it. For me, there's no purpose in having one because I dont hunt or shoot for recreation.

"If toast always lands butter-side down, and cats always land on their feet, what happens if you strap toast on the back of a cat and drop it?" --Steven Wright

[Amazon 7]

Yes I own guns.. in the plural.

I do hunt..

I do travel alone to VERY out of the way places and have been an NRA member for a very long time.
I carry primarily for the two legged varmints but some of the places I go to, human beings are not always necessarily at the very top of the food chain.

Would I take another human beings life.. hard decision.... one that ANY gun owner that answers its for personal protection had better consider long and hard.
The finality of pulling that trigger has many repercussions legally and morally, and only you can answer it for yourself.

[JohnRich 4]

Excerpted from the news, Knoxville, TN:

"6 News looked at the fastest growing group of people getting gun carry permits in Tennessee and discovered they're packing in their purses... According to the Tennessee Department of Safety, in 2000 about 2,500 women were issued handgun carry permits. In 2002, that number jumped four fold, to 8,314 new permits. And in 2003, another 6,256 permits were issued to women... "

Full Story Here

[Tinkerbelle 5]

I own a gun, a 45 mm. I bought it for my own personal protection because I had a stalker who scared and threatened me. I went to lots of shooting ranges to learn how to use it properly, 2 to the chest, 1 to the head. I posted my sillouettes on my front door so that anyone who entered my apartment would know if I ever pointed it at them I was serious about shooting it, knew how, and that I had learned to be very accurate! I think it is important as a female to have a means of protecting myself since there are so many bad guys out there who may think just 'cause you're small, they can pick you up, throw you over their shoulder, and carry you off for their own use and abuse!
I feel better having and carrying a gun. It makes me feel safe and larger than life! I believe in that saying "better judged by 12 than carried by 6"! Although I would want to be sure I was judged by 12 impartial folks, rather than perhaps some on this forum who may not judge me fairly!
Say since you're into guns, John, do you know John Storey who owns "The Storey Parachute Works"? He runs the Chute-n-Shoot there in Texas. He and his wife are very good friends of mine! I think the World of them and visa-versa!
I think it's funny and also kinda scary that there in Texas at the DZs after everyone is all liquored up in the evenings, those who are into guns always bring them out to show off! This I find to be quite arrogant and downright dangerous! This killed a guy in Alaska when one accidently went off! Gotta be careful with those things... so many of them are specifically made for killing people, which they do quite effectively and most often accidentally! If a gun is mentioned in the first act, it always has to go off before the last, often killing some innocent person, if only accidenty! I am pretty sure that more people have been killed accidentaly by guns than were supposed to be stopped by the people who bought them for protection!
Also, once you bring a gun into the equation, suddenly the stakes are raised! While it may be unlikely that you will be shot and killed by a gun ordinarily, if you own one, those statistics suddenly become more likely and significant! Fire arms have an uncanny way of summoning other firearms in opposition. Fire begets like fire! If you carry one, you are probably far more likely to be harmed by one, one way or another!
So be careful John!
Tink

Rehab is for quitters.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I do not own a gun. I don't feel I need one. I probably have a false sense of security, but I do not go out in bad neighborhoods alone, and I live in a nice place.

Angela.

It's true that many people victimized by gun violence are themselves involved in criminal exploits. (This helps to account for the number of gun-related deaths in this country -- it is said that many people who are killed are themselves criminals, like drug dealers in inner cities.)

However, I doubt that the majority of women who are victimized in crimes like rape suffer that way because they went into "bad areas." Don't lots of rapes happen in places where women have every right and reason to be, like mall parking lots, etc.? Robberies too.

A gun could be the only thing that will save your life if you are broken down on the way somewhere, and someone, er, predatory shows up to take advantage of your isolation and helplessness. Say two really seedy characters show up when you're waiting for AAA to come and change your flat tire. That might be the right time to have a little "baby Glock" like the one mentioned in an earlier reply. The "baby Glock" in 9mm or even better .40 cal. provides 9 or 10 rounds of heavy defense that could keep a woman (or a man) from being either carjacked, raped, robbed or murdered. It's not all about whether you LIVE in a bad area, or HANG OUT in a bad area. Bad things can happen to average people in really mundane places.

That said, I think it is unfortunate when people do allow themselves a false sense of security -- particularly when a person acknowledges right up front that it probably is false. What is the use of allowing oneself to feel secure when one knows that it's not necessarily true?

Not everyone is cut out to own and/or carry a weapon like a handgun for personal defense: it's a personal choice. But I think that those who won't when they could should be circumspect, and realize that there is a resulting difference between themselves and those who go about daily life armed -- in terms of what they can expect will happen IF they are ever attacked. These are the choices we make, and will end up having to live with.

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

ok i am going to tread litly since i am a guest on this board. First off the AR15 was origionaly replacment for the m14 back in the 70's. And yeah it shoots a 5.56, or .223 round, but that is a casuatly producing weapon. that is alot of powder behind a small bullet in return the terminal bulistics of that size round of contact is devistating.... in other words the bullet will flip, turn, slide and do all kinds of stuff when it hits a body. AKA round in a tthe heart level and cound exit at the sholder.

The point is that the AR-15 is not a "military" rifle, or that would be what the military uses. It is a semi-auto, and thus no different from the Mini-14 in terms of function or lethality. I also don't really believe the claim that bullets go sproinging all over the place when such a high-velocity round enters a body. I lump this with the supposed "fact" that the AR-15 round "tumbles." I work with a guy who believed strongly that the bullets fired by the AR-15/M-16 tumble IN FLIGHT! I could not reconcile why one would believe that a rifled bullet fired from a 1/14 twist barrel would not have gyroscopic stability in flight...

Quote

The Ar15 is very very easy to modify to fullauto. I have seen it done and could easly repeat the process in maybe 15 minutes. The same thing does for a SKS a weapon the is semiauto, but can be easly modified to be fullauto. You can but conversion kits for bothe of these weapons for about 20 dollars at any gun show.

Not only do I completely doubt the veracity of the claim that "the AR-15 is very very easy to modify to full auto," I will state unequivocally that it is ILLEGAL in the strongest sense to sell, purchase, or even conspire to acquire materials for use in converting a semi-auto gun to full auto in the United States of America. You would do serious time in prison for attempting or effecting such a modification.

Quote

Those weapons are fun to shoot, yes, they are easy o operate, yes, but they are not hunting weapons.

A gun being a "hunting weapon" is not the only defense for why a civilian would want or need to own one.

Defense against predatory HUMANS is a valid reason.
So is the hobby of competitive (or even non-competitive) target shooting.

Quote

By the way when the military designes a weapon it is not designed to simply shoot bullets, it is designed to create the largest casuality as possible aka to kill you on contact. Just cause a round is small does not mean it can not be leathal. the reson the 30 cal is not used by the army any more, besides snipers, is cuase it is over kill and hard to control.

Incorrect. The stated reason for the U.S. using the 5.56 NATO round is that rather than kill a target, it is more likely to severely wound a target, necessitating more of the combat force to come to his aid, and that takes them out of the fight. Two guys may have to carry a guy who's been hit with 5.56mm: can they still fire their weapons as they do so?

Quote

so basicaly i feel that those weapons are not needed in peoples homes. It is just my opinion. I think it is an educated opinion but it is just mine. you can agree or disagree thats your progiative. Also please dont think that i am trying to be argumentive or anything like that, im just trying to get some facts out that you may not know as of yet.

It is true that you are entitled to your feelings that civilians should not own "assault weapons" such as the AR-15. I think it's important, though, to delve into WHY you feel that way. What such a question inevitably leads to is the exposure of the fact that people who make that claim often do so with lack of regard for the fact that functionally, the guns they say we shouldn't have are no different from the guns they feel it IS alright for us to have. That is irrational.

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Apparently now, simply because I'm a man, makes everything I say "politicizing".

Your gender is not an issue. Your tendency to turn anything into an argument and your tendency to politicize the topic of guns is the issue.

Quote

So I take it that you would not be in favor of laws which allowed you to own particular guns only if you could prove to some government agent that you "needed" them. You would be in favor of freedom of choice, for citizens to decide for themselves whether or not to own firearms, for any reasons they choose, and which ones they should be allowed to own

Quote

You can join the military and use guns to fight and die for your country at age 18, yet you can't be trusted to fight for your own life until you are age 21. Go figure...

Quote

It's too bad that your government doesn't trust law-abiding people to safely own firearms, because of the criminal acts of just two people.

Pick one. Any of them are politicizing.

Idunno, I see those replies as germain to the subject, and fairly addressing things that various WOMEN said in response to the POLL about their reasons why they do or do not own guns.

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Tinkerbelle 5]

True, a gun can serve to protect you as long as you know that of you brandish it, you'd damned well be ready to use it, else if someone thinks you are not serious, they will just take it away from you and use it on you instead. If you are going to point a gun, you have to be ready to shoot whatever or whomever you point it at, else it just increases your own risk of being harmed!
Tink

Rehab is for quitters.

[Tinkerbelle 5]

John, I am worried about you!
You seem way too in to this gun stuff?!
Have a nice day!
Tink

Rehab is for quitters.

[JohnRich 4]

Note to readers: This thread was started in the "Women's" forum, and discussion was limited by the moderator. That moderator has now apparantly decided to rid the woman's forum of the topic, and has thrown it over here into Talkback, for everyone.

Now that I am allowed to respond, here is my reply to someone who previously posted in the Women's forum:

Quote

The AR15... is a casuatly producing weapon. that is alot of powder behind a small bullet in return the terminal bulistics of that size round of contact is devistating.... in other words the bullet will flip, turn, slide and do all kinds of stuff when it hits a body. AKA round in a tthe heart level and cound exit at the sholder.

What you are describing is a function of the bullet type, and has nothing to do with the firearm itself. The AR15 remains, just like any other semi-auto rifle.

The reason 5.56mm rounds tumble, is because the center of balance is to the rear of the bullet, because of its pointy shape - there is more mass in the back end, than in the front end. But that's a characteristic of all bullets. So once again, this is nothing unique.

Hunting ammo has a hollow point or soft lead tip, allowing it to mushroom on contact. However, the Geneva Convention prohibits this kind of ammo in military applications. So what you get is a "full metal jacket" of copper, which prevents expansion. So the bullet has no other choice but to tumble.

So this argument of yours really doesn't distinguish AR-15's in any way as being too dangerous for civilians. Your argument is really about the type of copper clad ammo.

It's still a bullet that delivers less energy on target than typical hunting rounds. This is called kinetic energy, and is a function of the bullet weight and the velocity. The .223 military rounds are either 55 grain or 62 grain, with a velocity of about 3,200 feet per second (fps). A .30-06 has a 150 to 175 gr. bullet, traveling at 2800 fps. Thus, the .223 has only about half the kinetic energy of a .30-06. Furthermore, the .223 when it's slowed down out to 500 yards or so, has no more hitting power than a .22 rimfire. It just doesn't have the killing potential of larger calibers, so this is not a reason to ban the rifle that shoots it, nor the ammo itself.

Quote

The Ar15 is very very easy to modify to fullauto. I have seen it done and could easly repeat the process in maybe 15 minutes. The same thing does for a SKS a weapon the is semiauto, but can be easly modified to be fullauto. You can but conversion kits for bothe of these weapons for about 20 dollars at any gun show.

Commercial manufacturers like Colt have modified their AR15 designs so that it is not easy to convert to full auto. To do it you need specific knowledge, special parts, and a machine shop. That's not "easy". Furthermore, doing so without the permission of the BATF is a crime subject to 10 years in prison.

And if someone really wants to, they can convert nearly any semi-auto rifle to full-auto. This is not sufficient justification to ban semi-auto rifles.

Quote

Those weapons are fun to shoot, yes, they are easy o operate, yes, but they are not hunting weapons.

Actually, while not used for big game, they are used for varmint hunting, like prairie dogs.

Quote

By the way when the military designes a weapon it is not designed to simply shoot bullets, it is designed to create the largest casuality as possible aka to kill you on contact.

There are others who say that wounding is preferable to killing, because that takes more soldiers off the battlefield; the person who is shot, and two more to carry him to an aid station. So wounding can actually be preferable to killing.

Quote

Just cause a round is small does not mean it can not be leathal. the reson the 30 cal is not used by the army any more, besides snipers, is cuase it is over kill and hard to control.

The .30 caliber is more likely to produce incapacitating wounds. All kinds of Army studies prove this. It is hard to control only on full-auto, but for aimed fire, it beats .223 hands down.

Another reason the switch was made to .223 was simply; weight. A soldier can carry more ammo for less weight.

Quote

so basicaly i feel that those weapons are not needed in peoples homes. It is just my opinion. I think it is an educated opinion but it is just mine. you can agree or disagree thats your progiative.

I think the basis for your beliefs is incorrect, and therefore the conclusion you've reached based upon those incorrect beliefs is also incorrect.

Quote

oh one more thing.... those guns i listed earler are not "machine guns" they are assult riffles or submachine guns. A michine gun is something like a m249, saw, or M60.

The official definition of a "machine gun" is one that fires multiple bullets with a single pull of the trigger. Submachine guns are still machine guns. They are just called "sub" because they shoot smaller cartridges, rather than full-sized cartridges.

The AR-15 is only an "assault rifle" by the political definition, which has nothing to do with the rate of fire. So-called "assault weapons" were banned in the political field, because they look like military firearms. And the specific features which makes them an "assault weapon" are a bayonet lug, flash suppressor, and/or folding stock. Note that all of those things are simply cosmetic features which have nothing to do with how "deadly" a firearm is. No one has ever been killed by a flash suppressor, bayonet attachment point, or a folded stock. Once again, this is insufficient justification to ban a class of rifles.

John Rich

[skybytch 273]

Quote

That moderator has now apparantly decided to rid the woman's forum of the topic, and has thrown it over here into Talkback, for everyone. Now that I am allowed to respond...

Point #1 - I didn't move it.

Point #2 - You were never not "allowed" to respond. You'd have had to have been banned from that forum for that to be true, and you weren't.

Don't assume.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I own a gun, a 45 mm.

Um, that would be a .45 caliber, not a 45 mm. 45 mm would shoot bullets about 1.8 inches in diameter, and civilian firearms are limited to a maximum of one-half inch diameter.

You say you learned how to shoot it well, so you should have learned the correct nomenclature for it along the way too.

Quote

I think it's funny and also kinda scary that there in Texas at the DZs after everyone is all liquored up in the evenings, those who are into guns always bring them out to show off! This I find to be quite arrogant and downright dangerous!

As long as they unload them and exercise safety precautions, it's not a problem. If someone is uncomfortable around them, they can move somewhere else.

I don't see anything "arrogant" about it. Just because someone has a gun doesn't mean that they think they are more important than others. Guys just like to show off their toys, be it new parachutes, motorcycles, or guns.

Quote

so many of them are specifically made for killing people, which they do quite effectively and most often accidentally!

Incorrect. The number of intentional homicides with firearms far exceeds the number the accidental deaths.

Quote

I am pretty sure that more people have been killed accidentaly by guns than were supposed to be stopped by the people who bought them for protection!

So maybe you should get rid of the firearm you bought, since you think it's more likely to kill yourself, than the guy who was stalking you. Don't you think it's a bit contradictory to say something like this, right after admitting that you bought one yourself for personal protection?

Quote

Also, once you bring a gun into the equation, suddenly the stakes are raised! While it may be unlikely that you will be shot and killed by a gun ordinarily, if you own one, those statistics suddenly become more likely and significant! Fire arms have an uncanny way of summoning other firearms in opposition. Fire begets like fire! If you carry one, you are probably far more likely to be harmed by one, one way or another!

Yep, you should be talking yourself out of your own gun ownership. Lions and tigers and handguns, oh my! 80 million people own guns. It's a miracle they haven't all killed themselves off...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

John, I am worried about you! You seem way too in to this gun stuff?!

I'm also "way into" skydiving - are you worried about me being dangerous in the air, or to myself?

I'm also "way into" hiking and camping - are you worred about me getting hurt in the middle of nowhere, and be unable to get help?

Just because I talk a lot about something, doesn't mean I'm a danger to anyone, or myself.

[wmw999 2,447]

First, it's no one's business but my own whether I own a gun, and why. Really.

I'm all in favor of responsible, educated (in gun stuff) people owning guns. I think we do a damn poor job, as a society, of ensuring that it's responsible, educated people who own them.

For that matter, we do a damn poor job, as a society, of educating many of our children on the other weapons they have (those would be their sex drives and sex organs).

Whom does the responsibility fall on? It's easy to say the parents, where it does. But the problem is that the parents aren't usually the ones who pay the consequences when the kids (or former kids) mess up. Most crimes aren't committed by juveniles.

If many of the criminal guns out there are stolen, whom were they originally stolen from? Responsible, law-abiding people, most likely. Just ones who were either victims of crime when they weren't home to defend themselves, or who just weren't careful enough with the gun cabinets and the like.

It's easy to say that the NRA is providing education. It is. On the other hand, it's not always accessible, and it comes with a decent dose of politicization (at least the class I took did). And I haven't seen any NRA education campaigns publicized in high-crime areas, where they might be useful to help fight crime at the source.

Might be because I don't live in one, but I used to work there, and they sure had a stronger presence among the white men than in the barrio and other ethnic neighborhoods where I worked.

I think it's better to fix a problem at the source than it is to apply a patch. And if you don't think it's your problem because you're a responsible gun owner (this is the rhetorical "you," not the John Rich "you"), well, it is. Because some day it might be your unoccupied house that's broken into, and your guns that are put into the criminal gun pool.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[airtwardo 7]

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

I think it's funny and also kinda scary that there in Texas at the DZs after everyone is all liquored up in the evenings, those who are into guns always bring them out to show off! This I find to be quite arrogant and downright dangerous!

***

Ya know...
I thought that about a couple Western DZ's
when the bongs and glass pipes were being
'showed off' in the parking lot.



Those who are into DRUGS
always bring them out to show off!
This I find to be quite arrogant and downright dangerous!



...And HEY!
What the heck is this deal by the POOL?!

Those who are into BOOBIES
always bring them out to show off!
This I find to be quite arrogant and downright dangerous!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

• Quote

[SkydiverRick 0]

I think it's better to fix a problem at the source than it is to apply a patch. And if you don't think it's your problem because you're a responsible gun owner (this is the rhetorical "you," not the John Rich "you"), well, it is. Because some day it might be your unoccupied house that's broken into, and your guns that are put into the criminal gun pool.

Wendy W.

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

The Ar15 is very very easy to modify to fullauto. I have seen it done and could easly repeat the process in maybe 15 minutes. The same thing does for a SKS a weapon the is semiauto, but can be easly modified to be fullauto. You can but conversion kits for bothe of these weapons for about 20 dollars at any gun show.

Not only do I completely doubt the veracity of the claim that "the AR-15 is very very easy to modify to full auto," I will state unequivocally that it is ILLEGAL in the strongest sense to sell, purchase, or even conspire to acquire materials for use in converting a semi-auto gun to full auto in the United States of America. You would do serious time in prison for attempting or effecting such a modification.

The post-ban (1994 Act) AR-15 can indeed be modified to fire full-auto (one depression of the trigger fires many rounds [ATF definition]), without the need for the M-16 auto sear or bolt carrier.

However, full-auto fire is the only thing it will do (it's not selectable), and it is of course unlawful.

It's a simple modification. PM me if you're curious.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[bnacrazywoman 0]

I own one and know how to use it.

BN

[LGreg34 0]

I am single. I own two and am licensed to carry a concealed weapon. One Smith and Wesson revolver, one Browning BT99 for trap shooting. My place of business is in a not so great side of town and we have been broken into or vandalized several times. That's why I got the license to carry. I wasn't about to walk into that office alone first thing in the morning, someone still be there and not have some form of defense. I have no desire to be a victem of any sort. I'm glad this was brought up because it reminds me that I need to go practice!! I also trap shoot when I can find someone to go with me (not often enough). The hand thrown deals don't much appeal to me (not enough challenge) but going to a gun club is a lot of fun!

I do think it is important to know how to carry and use weapons safely. When my kids were young (4 and 7 at the time), their father and I took them out, filled up a 5 gallon bucket with water and shot it with a 44 magnum, just to show them the effect, and to exemplify the fact that there can be no mistakes. They are not toys and can be deadly!! After that, periodically, at the dinner table, we would go over scenarios such as: "what would you do if you were over at a friend's house, their parents weren't home, and your friend brought out a gun to "show" everyone"? My children are now 20 and 23. We had NO occurances of non respect of deadly weapons. My point being, if you are going to have weapons in the house and have children, you MUST teach them repect of those weapons as early as possible.

[bsoder 0]

Quote

My point being, if you are going to have weapons in the house and have children, you MUST teach them repect of those weapons as early as possible.

More than that, REGARDLESS of whether YOU or I have guns in our homes, the parents of our kids' friends might. My guns are locked up, but my kids are also "gun-proofed" as much as I can make them, since there's no guarentees they won't be exposed to one somewhere else. People who won't teach their kids anything about firearms other than making them the forbidden fruit are more of a concern to me.

[LGreg34 0]

Exactly, and lets face it, if a kid is really curious, they WILL find a way to get into things, locked or not. Therefore, education is absolutely necessary IMO.

[skygirl1 1]

well.............my first career was a police officer....then I became a maximum security prison guard in a male prison.............I don't trust anyone when it comes to my safety.........it is up to me to save my own life.........and there are some real dandies out there..............I guess I became paranoid when I became an officer.........there is no differance in a male owning a gun versus a female....
A gun is not deadly..........the person owning the gun is..........and as far as anyone owning a gun for self-defense..........make sure you check the laws in the state in which you live.........self-defense laws differ...........if you shoot someone whom enters your home and you are in immenent danger for your life or the life of your family..........and you shoot....you can still be charged and go through criminal proceedings until you are cleared.....in some states you can still be convicted.......you may not serve jail time.........just be careful and check your state laws and penal code system for your state.

be safe people

skygirl1

" Mean people SUCK!"

[JohnRich 4]

Kentucky news:

"Ponytails and manicured nails are becoming a more common sight at shooting ranges, indicating a turning tide for the gun industry. The historically male-dominated shooting sport is becoming less foreign to females as more women flock to gun classes and target practice..."

Full story: Daily News