5000 rifles turned in in Maryland?

[cybersnyder]

Sorry, second good bye, couldn't leave just yet...

Remember that the moderates are the key to the pro-gun agenda. Go too hardcore with the pro-gun cries and it pushes the moderates to the gun control side. Defend your rights, but keep in mind that some battles are best not fought. Unfortunately, there's a lot of wiggle room in the first part of the 2nd "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State," everyone knows the second part.

I guess what I'm saying is that if you alienate yourself too much you could end up with the rights stripped away.

Thanks and enjoy shooting!

[SquirrelNuts]

I hope the people that have given their rifles to these people will have them returned.

Selfdfenz,

I also hope that they get their guns back. I am afraid that they will not. I can see them saying "we will return the guns when they have all been fingerprinted." So the next logical question will be "How long will that take?" And the answer will be some vague "The firearms printing process is a very delicate, and time consuming matter. The Nazis still have not returned the firearms they confiscated like us half a century ago." Ok, ok, they might leave off the last part! Does anyone else see them keeping these rifles for a LOOOOONG time?

-SquirrelNuts

[tyme]

I do "get it". I'm comfortable with the fact that there aren't concealed carry permits here. I have no problem with Indiana allowing you to carry. I just don't buy into the logic that guns = peace.

You admitted that you'd feel safer with a glock(!) late at night. Here you claim that you're comfortable in a situation where others can't have what you yourself want. That's definately a rock-solid opinion there. You recognize a need to carry a firearm, yet you're more comfortable when you and others are deprived of that right? Outstanding! Your indoctrination has been a success!

[jdthaddeus]

Cybersnyder, you are still welcome to stay. Some may percieve that you are trying to annoy because you refuse to discuss any of the points we have brought up. I give you the benefit of the doubt and would like to see you hang out some more. A main question is: Do you really think that lack of a CCW law keeps bad guys from carrying guns? Baltimore and DC have the highest murder rates in the nation along with the strictest gun laws.

Your fears are unfounded about CCW laws, and we have 31 States with CCW to show you the evidence.

"I have a 6 year old daughter and I'm more comfortable with the fact that she can't get a loaded gun. ....My daughter is far more likely to discover a pistol at the ready and shoot herself than I am ever likely to need a weapon to defend myself."

That is your choice. But do you know for a fact that your daughter is "more likely to find the gun and have an accident", or have you been listening to the anti-gun false statistics about 'children and guns'?
There are around 2.5 million uses of guns every year in America to stop crimes, and a few dozen young children killed. Looking at those numbers I would say you are much more likley to use your gun to defend your family, than have an accident. Do you know how honestly rare it is for this type of gun accident to happen? There are many other things you need to worry about around the house first, like a dresser tipping and falling on your child.

When I was 7 years old, I mowed laws to start saving up for my first rifle. By 8 years old I had my own rifle in the corner of my room. This was only in the 1980's, not that long ago. My parents told me not to load it without their permission, and I obeyed. I was taught gun safety and I followed the rules. There was no mystery in the gun because any time I wanted to look at one, all I had to do was ask. I will do the same with my kids.

"If there was a real background check and some limitations on carry - do you really need a handgun at a high school sporting event?"

Once again, this shows your unfactual attitude about carrying guns. A bad person is going to carry a gun to a high school event whether or not it is legal. A parent with a CCW should carry a gun to protect the kids around. It seems that your general vision of a person with a CCW is that they could "go off' at any time and start shooting people. This is not the case. Studies of CCW holders in Florida found that they are LESS likley to commit a crime than a police officer. Do you trust police officers to carry guns?
What you need to do is research CCW more and get the facts. You are making your decision based on emotion and soundbytes from anti-gun media. Get the facts, then make a decision.



You may be more comfortable in your delusion that the person next to you on the road is not carrying a gun because it is illegal. But you need to realize that the criminals out there are carrying them all around you and they don't care if it is illegal.

[Keith_Yorktown]

I just don't buy into the logic that guns = peace.

Nobody every said that guns = peace...

Guns = self defense...

Consider this...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=3893

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, the author of the Tyranny of Good Intentions, wrote about author and professor Joyce Lee Malcolm and her book Guns and Violence. Malcolm provides evidence that firearms actually reduce violence:

National polls of defensive gun use by private citizens indicate that as many as 3.6 million crimes annually are prevented by armed individuals.
As many as 400,000 people each year believe they saved a life by being armed. Contrary to Handgun Control's propaganda, in fewer than 1 percent of confrontations do criminals succeed in taking the gun from the intended victim.
Thirty-four percent of felons said they were scared off, wounded or captured by victims who turned out to be armed.

Even more telling, in the 17 states and the District of Columbia without concealed-carry permits (the suburbs in which the sniper is thriving) enjoy an 81 percent higher rate of violent crime. Dr. Roberts reports their restrictive gun laws produced 1,400 more murders, 4,200 more rapes, 12,000 more robberies and 60,000 more aggravated assaults.

And to everyone else...

Not everyone is on the same page, when I first came here I had some rather novel notions of what "reasonable" restrictions I could support.

Through the efforts of people on here to educate and debate me on those topics, I've changed my opinion of nearly everything I once thought "reasonable."

So give him some time, and perhaps we'll see him turn around.

[Baron Holbach]

"...right of the people to keep and bear Arms..."

Definition of the word, "bear": "to move while holding up and supporting." Source: Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1979.

Unfortunately, I live in Maryland, a "may issue" state, where it is virtually impossible for the ordinary, law-abiding citizen-resident to obtain a concealed carry permit, unless that person has been a victim of violence such that he fears for his life and may be a repeat victim, may soon become a victim of violence, works for an armored car company that carries plenty of cash, is a private detective, or where his line of work exposes him to dangerous people who might intend him harm. In the instant where a person has been a victim of violence and may encounter the threat in the future, he must prove he was a victim, may become a victim, or show with sufficient reason that he may become a repeat victim.

It is a sorry state of affairs when the state of Maryland, or any other "may issue" state, requires that the only way a law-abiding citizen-resident can qualify for a concealed carry permit is to be a victim of violence or show sufficient reason to fear becoming a victim. And how is one to show he or she is a victim of violence or fears becoming a victim if he or she is already a victim but lies dead in the morgue?

Nationally, Maryland ranks among the highest in violent crime. In fact, Maryland has ranked number one in the nation the past six years straight for robberies. It currently ranks number three in violent crime and number three in murders.

http://mcdl.org/crime2000.htm

At Maryland's current violent crime rate, it may eventually evolve to where a majority of Maryland's citizen-residents become victims of violent crime; therefore, and ironically, qualifying the majority of its citizen-residents for concealed carry permits.

[John/az2]

You don't have the RIGHT to be confortable.
You don't have the RIGHT to be free from fear.

You DO have the right to create an environment where you CAN feel comfortable and free from fear, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.

This is called personal responsibility, a fairly foreign concept in our society today.

[AZ Jeff]

Cybersnyder wrote:

“What I am saying is that in my part of the country, in suburban Maryland, I'm happy that there isn't a concealed weapons permit. The reason is that the people that would "carry" here are not the people you would want to have firearms. That said, there are times when I hit an ATM late at night and would like to have my Glock under my coat.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Cyber, you are contradicting yourself. You say you don’t want people to carry concealed weapons in Maryland, and yet you say there are times you feel you personally would like the ability to do so. You cannot have it both ways!

Secondarily, did it ever occur to you that there already ARE plenty of people carrying concealed weapons in your locale? They are called CRIMINALS! Allowing legal concealed carry won’t increase the number of CRIMINALS that carry, it will only even the odds by allowing law abiding citizens the right to self defense.

I think you need to put more thought into the whole issue of personal responsibility and self defense……….

[Gary H]

Folks, you haven't noticed that this is a "cyber" "Sniper"?

These folks always paint themselves as moderates. None of your posts will change any opinion. No facts will take hold. This person comes on and tells you what they are and you ignore the warning.

[Oleg Volk]

I thought he was referring to a Snyder conversion of the Enfield Musket

[cybersnyder]

Ok, let's recap...

I'm not against gun ownership. I'm not against concealed carry. But I'm not going to rally to repeal the "may carry" status in Maryland. If Ehrlich is elected and pushes that through, I won't fight it in any way as long as there is a real training program required and a background check, of course. That's what I mean when I say I'm happy with the lack of concealed carry in Maryland. I guess I should have said, that I'm comfortable with the lack of concealed carry and I don't think that it is a solution to violent crime in the area.

I think a better solution to take care of violent crime would be for the judiciary to not be so damn liberal. It seems like they send a message of "we'll let you off because you had a bad childhood." There seems to be little value held in personal responsibility and consequences for your actions.

Now comes the issue of self-defense. You have the right to protect yourself. Gotta admit that it's a little crazy that you have to be a victim of violent crime to get a permit in Md.

Would a restricted carry be acceptable? Permits are issued, but you can't carry in public places like stores, resturants, malls, etc. You can carry in your car and when you're out at night getting gas. I could support that.

[Oleg Volk]

In short, you'd guarantee disarmed victims in ever public area for the benefit of any homicidally inclined psycho? And add to that guns left relatively un-secured in vehicles. Oh, and since concealment is required, how would one get a gun off the person and into storage without being seen? Hmmm...PLEASE re-think the implications.

[cybersnyder]

Yeah, I know there are implications. I really don't have a good answer other than if you are going to one of those places, you just don't carry. I think a restricted carry would have a much better chance of passing in Md.

[SW9M]

The Luby's mass murders is what tipped the scale for us in the United State of Tejas.

Gun free zone=Designated hunting areas

Edited for below:
Gun free zone=Bambi slaughter zone

[Oleg Volk]

And it would be also less than useful. Here's an example: carry is legal in TN but illegal in most restaurants. So if we are out for dinner with family, we better hope that Luby's Cafeteria scenario doesn't happen. No law will stop a nut but this type of prior restraint criminalizes normal peaceful behavior and puts normal, peaceful humans at risk of victimization.

What is it with this desire to control what other people can or cannot do, as long as they don't hurt others? If I carry one gun or three, I am still no threat to anyone. If Mr. Lone Nut wants to harm others, will he read the laws and say "Ok, I will murder everyone I see tonight...but I better do so where concealed carry is legal...wouldn't want to break a law while...wait, I will be breaking the law against murder already, so never mind lesser restrictions!"

[cybersnyder]

Does any state have a restricted carry law? In PA you can carry, but no firearms are allowed in the courthouse. I think that's the only restriction. I think there is a federal restriction placed on post offices as well.

[cybersnyder]

Restricted carry is the only thing that would stand a chance of passage in Md. At least you would be able to protect yourself during the high probability instances. Sure it's playing the odds.

[archeryfanatic]

Glad to see ya back Cyber.
You're probably right- restricted carry has a better chance of being accepted and is better than current situations right now. But it still makes little sense to me. Carrying a concealed weapon is like carrying a spare tire in your car- never know when you gonna need it!

[Oleg Volk]

"High probability instances"? Hmmm...

High probability instance is going to be wherever the law-abiding people are disarmed by law.

"If you need a gun to go someplace, don't go." -- we avoid situations where we need guns. If we know we need guns and can't run away for some reason, then we need big guns (rifles, machine guns, cannon) and lots of similarly armed friends. Pistols, being puny but relatively posrtable, are for those cases when you anticipate no trouble.

Tell me, what kind of instances would you consider to correspond to "high probability" of needing a sefensive weapon?

[cybersnyder]

High probability:

- Going to the ATM or bank deposit late at night
- Trails at night. There are a lot of trails around Columbia, MD.
- Basically, the solo trips at night when you're going to a less public place.

Oleg, are you from TN? I was curious if carry is restricted in bars. You just mentioned restaurants. You have to admit that liquor plus firearms isn't the best combination.

[Oleg Volk]

Not legal to carry where alcohol is served. That means I can't have dinner at a Thai Restaurant because they serve beer. I don't drink alcohol at all...yet I can't legally carry there.

- Trails at night. There are a lot of trails around Columbia, MD.

And yet many parks are off limits...your bad luck if you run into a hugry bear or a cougar.

[Keith_Yorktown]

You never know where mayhem will strike...

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/West/10/1....ap/index.html

Two men were arrested Thursday for allegedly kicking a man in the head repeatedly in a videotaped brawl that erupted after a weekend youth football game.

Joe Saracho, 32, and his brother Gino, 25, were booked on charges of assault with a deadly weapon, said Los Angeles County sheriff's Lt. Al Grotefend. The deadly weapon was their feet, he said.

...

"They had us way outnumbered," team parent Desi Tubbs told KCBS-TV. "They separated anybody who wanted to get in there to stop the fight and beat them up. It was about five or six guys."

And one responsible person with a firearm could have ended the fight without firing a shot...

Sure, there's also the chance that someone could have used a gun to hurt someone, but it looks like the idiots were doing just fine without them.

[Drjones]

Repeat after me, children, "POLICE STATE." SIG HEIL!!!

Methinks the time for a revolution could be nearing...

See my sig...

[Russian Furry]

Do I smell a troll???

Hmmm..... sure smells like one...

[cybersnyder]

Nah, not a troll. Just a little more left of right.