Let Americans Provide Their Own Security

[SnakeSpirit]

@Call me Frank

You still didn’t address the irony that gun-owners are asking their fellow citizens to trust them with firearms while they themselves don’t trust their government to ensure that those firearms are handled in a safe manner.

Well, it was the government that insisted we have this right to begin with. And even thought it was so important to list it second, right behind freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I don’t see any irony.

@Call me Frank

If violation of Rule 3 results in 80% of gun accidents, shouldn’t those gun owners who support firearms regulations support removing the trigger assemblies of firearms so as to prevent that 80%?

What’s wrong with simply just following the rule? A lot simpler, and just as effective.

@Call me Frank

Those are Jeff Cooper’s Four Rules of Gun Safety, which I couldn’t find any analyses upon (Once again - only a cursory search). But, the immediate problem I see with Rule 3’s statistic is that it lacks clarification. And even disregarding questions about the statistic’s derivation, that would still mean that 20% of firearm accidents happen when Rule 3 is obeyed. Finally, those are Jeff Cooper’s Four Rules of Gun Safety, not The ATF’s Four Laws of Gun Safety. Those rules do seem pretty good and if gun owners are largely willing to follow them, why don’t we codify them into some kind criminal or civil liability laws?

False logic. Violating rule 3 may cause 80%, and violating another rule may be the primary cause while still violating # 3. The final rule also requires a finger on the trigger… for instance.

That this rule is responsible for most firearm mishaps is because guns don’t usually fire themselves. Usually when a gun fires, there is a finger on the trigger. There are some infrequent exceptions. Also, for a gun to fire, it has to be loaded, etc. The rules overlap. Codifying them into criminal or civil liability laws would be a bit cumbersome. Remember the old song? “I didn’t know, the gun was loaded.” And then for an accidental discharge, “witness, X: Did the defendent violate rule # 3 by having his finger on the trigger before he intended to fire? And how are you sure he intended or did not intend to fire?”

@Call me Frank

One could make the resources (both human and financial) argument about any regulatory agency that doesn’t exist, which doesn’t negate its necessity. For instance, if we didn’t have a police department one could argue how much it would cost to create and staff one, let alone equip it, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a police department.

Exactly, we can justify anything… It’s a matter of need. If the need for such an agency were there, like a police force, it would be created. Evidently, the majority does not perceive a need.

[Call_me_Frank]

@SnakeSpirit

Well, it was the government that insisted we have this right to begin with. And even thought it was so important to list it second, right behind freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I don’t see any irony.

How about this - Why should you (the gun owner not in favor of strict/stringent gun control laws) not trust the government? Why should we (those in favor of more stringent/strict gun control laws) trust you? (I don’t mean that as in you, personally, SnakeSpirit)

What’s wrong with simply just following the rule? A lot simpler, and just as effective.

That ‘method’ is reliant upon people being able to control themselves. If everyone were simply willing to follow the rules of living in society, we would have no need for a police force or criminal justice system.

False logic. Violating rule 3 may cause 80%, and violating another rule may be the primary cause while still violating # 3. The final rule also requires a finger on the trigger… for instance.

Mea culpa. But the grand scheme of things is that even with these 4 rules there are still gun accidents (to totally ignore crime, for the moment). Perhaps, if violation of the rules resulted in some kind of punitive action, people would take them more seriously.

That this rule is responsible for most firearm mishaps is because guns don’t usually fire themselves. Usually when a gun fires, there is a finger on the trigger.

Yes, which is another issue I have with the statistic. It is very akin to simply saying that 99% of all shootings involve pulling the trigger (I just whipped up that number for sake of the argument)

There are some infrequent exceptions. Also, for a gun to fire, it has to be loaded, etc. The rules overlap. Codifying them into criminal or civil liability laws would be a bit cumbersome. Remember the old song? “I didn’t know, the gun was loaded.” And then for an accidental discharge, “witness, X: Did the defendent violate rule # 3 by having his finger on the trigger before he intended to fire? And how are you sure he intended or did not intend to fire?”

I’m not sure I see where you’re going with the “I didn’t know the gun was loaded” thing, but if you mean to propose that as a defense for criminal/civil liability in an accidental shooting, I would counter by saying it is you responsibility to know such things.

As far as your line of questioning, I would envision the hearing going more like this:
Prosecutor (to defendant/suspect): Was your finger on the trigger when you shot Mr. Smith?
Suspect/defendant: Yes. (If no, then rule 3 was clearly not violated or he is lying under oath*)
Prosectutor: Did you intend to shoot Mr. Smith?
Suspect/defendant: No. (If yes, that is clearly a crime)
Judgement: Rule 3 was violated. Had his sights been on his target he would not have shot Mr. Smith.
*If we are assuming, for the sake of argument, that all gun owners can be trusted with potentially (and purposefully) lethal weapons, then we should be able to trust them not to lie, right?

Exactly, we can justify anything… It’s a matter of need. If the need for such an agency were there, like a police force, it would be created. Evidently, the majority does not perceive a need.

That could be a logical flaw as well. If I have a rock that I claim keeps away tigers and you don’t see any tigers around while I have this rock, does that mean my rock wards off tigers? (Simpsons reference)

Just because such an agency doesn’t exist does not negate it’s possible necessity. Perhaps it hasn’t been thought of before or people don’t think it would be immediately feasible. If the former, then it only takes someone to think it up, if the latter - well, people have been saying things are impossible for a long time and we sometimes find a way to do them anyway. If it would save lives, perhaps it would be worth trying out.

[BF]

@Call Me Frank

Someone could have a clean crimninal record and could easily qualify to own a gun, this does not mean they are incapable of or unwilling to commit a crime with that gun, let alone are incapable of accidentally shooting someone (IE, they violate Rule 4).

Correct. However, they are not a criminal until they perform a criminal act. We do not have mind police (yet).

If I don’t want Jon Smith owning an assault weapon, there’s nothing I can do. So, I have to trust Smith to be responsible while he doesn’t have to trust the government (which, if I have voted to support it, represents me) to be responsible in making sure he’s responsible.

Here is where I have a disconnect with your arguement. If Smith is a known wacko, I wouldn’t want him to have an “assault weapon” either, in the context of who is regulated, as I have previously posted. However, I have no moral right to prevent Smith from legally obtaining a firearm, just as I have no moral right to tell you what color of SUV you may or may not buy.

The problem there is that it seems that that majority of gun owners whom you say support firearm regulations are only interested in supporting the firearm regulations they want (IE, they wish to self-regulate).

Well, of course. Just like the insurance industry, medical profession, etc. However, with the pointed exception of mandatory storage requirements, firearms do have a number of regulations imposed by both the state and federal government in accordance with (for some) the endorsement of the electorate. In response to your arguement for a regulatory agency, and I think Snakespirit touched on this, can there be shown a need for an agency, say in this case, the Firearms Storage Agency, funded by the federal government, to regulate and monitor safe storage practices in the US? Given the media’s alarmist attitude regarding firearms in this country, one would think that if there was such statistical evidence, we would have heard about it long ago.

In reading over your response to Snakespirit, I see this:

I’m not sure I see where you’re going with the “I didn’t know the gun was loaded” thing, but if you mean to propose that as a defense for criminal/civil liability in an accidental shooting, I would counter by saying it is you responsibility to know such things.

Exactly, and there are criminal and civil remedies for this already on the books, as I have previously posted.

[SnakeSpirit]

@Call me Frank

If it would save lives, perhaps it would be worth trying out.

I agree wholeheartedly, Frank , in fact, wasn’t that the point of the OP?

Thanks for your input. Sincerely, and no offense taken.

[Padeye]

@FinnAgain

In an ideal world, perhaps.
But we don’t live in one of those.
However, most killings occur in inner-city areas where crack cocaine is prevalent and firearms easy to come by. The center found that less than 1 percent of all homicides involving children aged 5 to 19 occurred in or around school grounds or on the way to or from school. The real problem then seems to be not violence in schools but the easy availability of guns.

Perhaps, fewer guns is an answer?

As long as we’re taking it to extremes, why not make sure nobody is armed, rather than everybody?

I’m glad you explained this to me. I might have thought that poverty, crack cocaine and other drugs were the root cause of much violence.

[Call_me_Frank]

@BF

Correct. However, they are not a criminal until they perform a criminal act. We do not have mind police (yet).

Yes, but many gun control laws are preventative in nature. If it were substantially more difficult to acquire a gun it might reduce the instances in which they were used.

Here is where I have a disconnect with your arguement. If Smith is a known wacko, I wouldn’t want him to have an “assault weapon” either, in the context of who is regulated, as I have previously posted. However, I have no moral right to prevent Smith from legally obtaining a firearm, just as I have no moral right to tell you what color of SUV you may or may not buy.

I’m not proposing a system where those seeking firearm ownership must be ‘elected’, per se. It’s just that in order to sit on the school board, for example, and administrate the beauracracy of a school district (something that doesn’t generally involve taking power of life and death over individuals) one must be elected by the citizenry. However, in order to acquire a device which is intended to give you the ability to take the life of a living being (and in the case of handguns, that is almost invariably a human life) one must just go to a gun store.

Basically, my problem with the current system is that it seems to me like our elected officials must pass through a tighter screen than those wishing to own firearms.

It’s essentially the same as my comparison to car ownership and gun ownership. I must pass two tests, register my vehicle, and have insurance (in PA) before I can own a car but I just have to be 18 and with a clean record to purchase a gun. It seems to me that cars, devices intended to transport you from point A to point B, are more regulated than firearms which are devices intended to injure or kill living beings.

Maybe this is a better way of explaining it. If I want to have the power to approve the salary of the head groundskeeper of the Chambersburg school district I must be elected by popular vote. If I want to walk down the street, stop someone, and take the power of life or death over someone using a gun, I just have to buy one. Why is it that local elected officials who have very little direct power over someone’s life must pass a fairly rigorous test (the election) in which they try and prove they are the right person to do the job and yet those seeking to easily decide who dies just have to buy a gun? (Which is not to say that all gun owners are out to kill people, but you cannot say that no gun owners are out to do that)

If cars and elected officials, things not intended to take lives, are, comparitively, so heavily regulated maybe guns should be too.

Well, of course. Just like the insurance industry, medical profession, etc. However, with the pointed exception of mandatory storage requirements, firearms do have a number of regulations imposed by both the state and federal government in accordance with (for some) the endorsement of the electorate. In response to your arguement for a regulatory agency, and I think Snakespirit touched on this, can there be shown a need for an agency, say in this case, the Firearms Storage Agency, funded by the federal government, to regulate and monitor safe storage practices in the US? Given the media’s alarmist attitude regarding firearms in this country, one would think that if there was such statistical evidence, we would have heard about it long ago.

Well, I don’t know if anyone has been calling for a FSA, but I believe the call for tighter gun regulations (which one could argue would include stronger storage regs) has been around for quite some time.

[Call_me_Frank]

@SnakeSpirit

I agree wholeheartedly, Frank , in fact, wasn’t that the point of the OP?

Thanks for your input. Sincerely, and no offense taken.

I don’t mean to be overly argumentative, but I think that asking armed citizens to guard potential terrorist targets from attack has the potential to do more harm than good. I think that asking people to store their firearms in secure, locked containers has less potential for unintended repercussions.

[SnakeSpirit]

Getting back to the OP, and making a rejoinder to some recent posts:

I believe that American citizens can, by properly carrying firearms, do a better job of providing our security against terrorism than the police or military.

First, the police and military can’t be everywhere all the time, and deployments for special purposes take a big bite out of our income in the form of additional taxes. Try calling 9-1-1 some time and see how long it takes to respond to an emergency. The police and fire departments and ambulance corps are doing a good job, with what they have, but they have limitations. They are human. Cars can only go so fast. Etc.

Now, by “properly carrying firearms” I mean safely. Right now the individual states govern how easy it is to access a gun. Here in Hawaii, it takes a minimum of two weeks, under any circumstances (even a private sale), to acquire any firearm. With instant background checks, it’s a little draconian, but it’s institutionlized.

In order to acquire a pistol, one must take either a safety course or a more advanced firearms training course that includes safety. I think that is reasonable, for the same reasons Frank states. In fact, I would prefer the required training for all firearms, along with testing. We could fund this easily enough with some of the money we waste on false security alert scrambles.

Firearm storage is a no-brainer, and would be covered in the safety courses. When I had firearms they were secured better than my car, and better than my other valuables, as it should be, IMO.

The next step is to approve concealed carry licensing country-wide. There have been no additional problems from licensed carriers of weapons in the 34 states that have instituted “shall issue” concealed carry, much to the dismay of the gun-banners who predicted “shootouts in the streets.”

It works for Switzerland, where a significant component of the civilian populace is trained and armed, it can work for America, too.

When concealed carry is approved here, I’d be willing to get a gun again, and do my part to make the country safer from terrorists.

[BF]

@Call Me Frank

It seems to me that cars, devices intended to transport you from point A to point B, are more regulated than firearms which are devices intended to injure or kill living beings.

If I want to walk down the street, stop someone, and take the power of life or death over someone using a gun, I just have to buy one.
Well, I don’t know if anyone has been calling for a FSA, but I believe the call for tighter gun regulations (which one could argue would include stronger storage regs) has been around for quite some time.

Addressing the car anology, firearms have been a part of the American culture since it’s inception. Automobiles were highly regulated once they became mass-produced because the primary mode of transportation in the early 1900’s was the horse. They even taxed bicycles. And once again, driving is a privilege, not a constitutional right.

You can replace the gun in the second sentence with: baseball bat, machete, screwdriver, hammer. In order to buy a gun, you still need to pass the NCIS, if you go through an FFL dealer.

Of course the call for tighter gun regulations has been around, for oh-, the last twenty years? Brady and company have been trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. IMHO, if they expended half the energy they’ve used to ban guns and focused on inner city problems, they’d see a pretty significant drop in the crime rate.

[catsix]

Call Me Frank said:
It seems to me that cars, devices intended to transport you from point A to point B, are more regulated than firearms which are devices intended to injure or kill living beings.

Course you know, if you did license guns the same way that cars were licensed, you’d only have to have a license to use that firearm on a state owned right of way, don’t you?

Anyone without a driver’s license can drive a car all they want provided they are on private property and have the permission of the property owner to do so. The one and only thing that they must carry insurance, register the car, and have a driver’s license in order to do is take that car out and use it on a public street.

You’d also have to recognize that every single state would be forced to give full faith and credit to every other state’s usage licenses, which they currently do not. I for one would love to see national reciprocity. Then I would have just as much right to defend myself from crime while vacationing in New Jersey as I currently enjoy in Pennsylvania.

Also, this ‘test’ that you propose? Who will devise it? A lawmaker who knows nothing of firearms, or a firearms expert? What will it consist of?

[Call_me_Frank]

@BF

Addressing the car anology, firearms have been a part of the American culture since it’s inception. Automobiles were highly regulated once they became mass-produced because the primary mode of transportation in the early 1900’s was the horse. They even taxed bicycles. And once again, driving is a privilege, not a constitutional right.

This is an argument that gets into legal ground with which I’m not terribly familiar. But here’s how I look at it: The 9th Amendment says

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I believe that that means that you are entitled to other rights not specifcally outlined in the constitution, so just because Amendments XIX or XX aren’t “Y’all can have automobiles” doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not a right.

The big question I have is what is the legal difference between a right and a privelege (in this specific instance)? On what basis may the state discriminate in regards to distribution of licenses? I don’t believe that they can single out people for no reason and decide that they are denied the right to drive. They must have a reason to take your eligibility away. If you pass the test you may drive, if you fail you may not. If you violate the driving laws in a grievous fashion your license is subject either to suspension or invalidation.

How does this compare to the ambiguously, guaranteed right of firearm ownership? Just with a driver’s license, all (of legal age) may ‘apply’ for firearms ownership. By apply, I mean buy or begin the waiting period (if your state has one). But there are restrictions on this right. You must be able to pass the CBC. It also seems that, in some states (namely Hawaii), you must first pass a safety course. Presumably, if you fail that test you may not purchase a firearm. Also, if you do committ a crime that would disqualify you from gun ownership I believe your right to own a gun is taken away in that instance.

It seems to me that if the government can take away your right to own firearms for various reasons, or set essentially arbitrary age/waiting limits before you may by them, that the line between privelege and right becomes blurred.

You can replace the gun in the second sentence with: baseball bat, machete, screwdriver, hammer. In order to buy a gun, you still need to pass the NCIS, if you go through an FFL dealer.

First off, I believe the effective killing radius of a bladed instrument is something like 20 feet. What’s the effective range of a run of the mill pistol? Secondly, that is assuming you go through a FFL dealer. It seems like you don’t have to, in some instances. From your link:

When a transaction takes place between private (unlicensed) persons who reside in the same State, the Gun Control Act (GCA) does not require any record keeping. As noted in FAQs B1 and B2, which are posted on this Web site in the “Firearms” section, a private person may sell a firearm to another private individual in his or her State of residence and, similarly, a private individual may buy a firearm from another private person who resides in the same State. It is not necessary for a Federal firearms licensee (FFL) to assist in the sale or transfer when the buyer and seller are “same-State” residents. Of course, the transferor/seller may not knowingly transfer a firearm to someone who falls within any of the categories of prohibited persons contained in the GCA. See 18 U.S. C. §§ 922(g) and (n). However, as stated above, there are no GCA-required records to be completed by either party to the transfer.

Bolding mine.

[Call_me_Frank]

@catsix

Anyone without a driver’s license can drive a car all they want provided they are on private property and have the permission of the property owner to do so. The one and only thing that they must carry insurance, register the car, and have a driver’s license in order to do is take that car out and use it on a public street.

Not so fast, catsix! There are two things, offhand, that require you to have valid insurance, registration, and license:

1. Drive on a public road
2. Buy a car

You’d also have to recognize that every single state would be forced to give full faith and credit to every other state’s usage licenses, which they currently do not. I for one would love to see national reciprocity. Then I would have just as much right to defend myself from crime while vacationing in New Jersey as I currently enjoy in Pennsylvania.

Well, I don’t see why they’d be forced to recognize other states’ licenses, as a matter of law, but there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, I would support standardization of gun control laws. Hawaii seems to have a better system than PA.

Also, this ‘test’ that you propose? Who will devise it? A lawmaker who knows nothing of firearms, or a firearms expert? What will it consist of?

I don’t immediately recall having actually proposed a firearms test, but I do that (forget things) from time, so if you can quote the section of the post in question, I can clarify more specifcally on what I did or did not mean.

[BF]

@Call Me Frank

Secondly, that is assuming you go through a FFL dealer. It seems like you don’t have to, in some instances.

That’s why I ended that sentence with, if if you go through an FFL dealer. In California, they have enacted legislation that prohibits sales between private individuals without a transfer via an FFL, who conducts the NCIS. Most other states have no regulations concerning transactions between private citizens.

It seems to me that if the government can take away your right to own firearms for various reasons, or set essentially arbitrary age/waiting limits before you may by them, that the line between privelege and right becomes blurred.

And therein lies the crux. I think the general consensus is that the BOR lays out a general plan, however, specific aspects of that plan can be regulated by state or federal government to a point. A case in point is the free speech amendment and the regulation of it by making it against the law to shout Fire! in a movie theater.

[catsix]

Call me Frank said:
2. Buy a car

Momsix teaches elementary school. One of her students, in the sixth grade, is an eleven year old girl. This girl is blind, has been since birth, and always will be blind.

She owns a car. The car’s titled in her name and was left to her by her grandfather. She can also drive that car all she wants, on private property. It doesn’t have to have a state registration or inspection, and she doesn’t have to have a driver’s license to do it. What she will never be able to do is drive that car, legally, on a public street. Doesn’t make it any less ‘hers’.

Well, I don’t see why they’d be forced to recognize other states’ licenses, as a matter of law, but there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, I would support standardization of gun control laws. Hawaii seems to have a better system than PA.

Is that because Hawaii requires testing and licensure to even purchase a firearm and does not issue concealed carry permits at all?

From Packing.org
Although provisions are on the books, licenses are seldom granted. In fact, nobody can remember anyone, except one police department civilian worker, ever receiving one. We hoped to change that in early 1998, but it didn’t work out! For Hawaii laws, check out the Hawaii Revised Statutes.

If you agree with those gun laws, which by the way are some of the most prohibitive in the country, you are no friend to gun owners.

Also, I am not aware of any ability by another state’s police to ignore the fact that I have a valid Pennsylvania driver’s license and charge me with driving without a license should I be pulled over in one of their states. Are they just allowed ot ignore the valid license issued by another state if they want, or are they forced to recognize it?

I don’t immediately recall having actually proposed a firearms test, but I do that (forget things) from time, so if you can quote the section of the post in question, I can clarify more specifcally on what I did or did not mean.

Well you did liken it to driver’s licensing, and I do remember that testing is required in every state in order to obtain a driver’s license.

[Call_me_Frank]

@catsix

Momsix teaches elementary school. One of her students, in the sixth grade, is an eleven year old girl. This girl is blind, has been since birth, and always will be blind.

She owns a car. The car’s titled in her name and was left to her by her grandfather. She can also drive that car all she wants, on private property. It doesn’t have to have a state registration or inspection, and she doesn’t have to have a driver’s license to do it. What she will never be able to do is drive that car, legally, on a public street. Doesn’t make it any less ‘hers’.

It would be possible to eliminate such loopholes in the case of gun ownership.

Is that because Hawaii requires testing and licensure to even purchase a firearm and does not issue concealed carry permits at all?

I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear earlier. When I said “Well, I don’t see why they’d be forced to recognize other states’ licenses, as a matter of law” I was referring to other states’ hypothetical gun licenses.

If you agree with those gun laws, which by the way are some of the most prohibitive in the country, you are no friend to gun owners.

As a matter of fact, I am friends with several gun owners. But yes, I am in favor of stronger gun control laws in the country. I’m particularly fond of German gun laws, which make Hawaii’s pale in comparison, I believe

Also, I am not aware of any ability by another state’s police to ignore the fact that I have a valid Pennsylvania driver’s license and charge me with driving without a license should I be pulled over in one of their states. Are they just allowed ot ignore the valid license issued by another state if they want, or are they forced to recognize it?

I believe that this argument is resultant from my unclear statement from earlier.

Well you did liken it to driver’s licensing, and I do remember that testing is required in every state in order to obtain a driver’s license.

I didn’t say there had to be a test, although it’s not a bad idea. My point was to demonstrate the disparity between regulations on automobiles and those on firearms.

[Call_me_Frank]

@BF

That’s why I ended that sentence with, if if you go through an FFL dealer. In California, they have enacted legislation that prohibits sales between private individuals without a transfer via an FFL, who conducts the NCIS. Most other states have no regulations concerning transactions between private citizens.

And that would be a strong case for standardization of gun laws across the states.

And therein lies the crux. I think the general consensus is that the BOR lays out a general plan, however, specific aspects of that plan can be regulated by state or federal government to a point. A case in point is the free speech amendment and the regulation of it by making it against the law to shout Fire! in a movie theater.

Right, in that instance the law finds that shouting “Fire!” in a theatre is an irresponsible, inappropriate use of your right to free speech, so they have outlawed it.

If so inclined, a legislative body could also find that storing one’s gun in a fully loaded, fireable condition under one’s* pillow is an irresponsible and inappropriate method of storage.

[SnakeSpirit]

Although provisions are on the books, licenses are seldom granted. In fact, nobody can remember anyone, except one police department civilian worker, ever receiving one. We hoped to change that in early 1998, but it didn’t work out! For Hawaii laws, check out the Hawaii Revised Statutes.

(It’s Taking Longer Than We Thought!)

However, this last month we got a brand-new police chief who isn’t as scared and is more intelligent than the last one.

Hope Springs Eternal. :rolleyes:

Another however:

Hawaii gun laws suck big time, and the implementation thereof is worse.

For instance, to acquire a firearm AFTER a 14 day waiting period you get to pick up the permit from the downtown PD (only). Then, you have ten days to acquire the weapon and register it, or you lose the permit.

To take possession of the firearm, you must:
[ol]
[li]Acquire the weapon from the seller, via use of the approved permit,[/li][li]IMMEDIATELY, transport the weapon to the P.D. for registration and inspection, with no stops for lunch, donuts or other errands,[/li][li]Go through the rigamarole at the Main Downtown office of the P.D., even if you and the dealer live 30 miles out in the country, like I do,[/li][li]After satisfying the police that everything matches, you must IMMEDIATELY drive home and place the weapon in approved storage, with no stops to get milk for the kiddies or anything.[/li][/ol]

So, if you have a full-time job it means taking at least a half-day off.

These are the same Honolulu P.D. who about a year ago attempted to apprehend an armed suspect in a pick up truck and discharged over 200 rounds at the suspect and into the truck without ever hitting the suspect but wounding a passenger…

go figger.

[SnakeSpirit]

In the wake of the recent terrorist attacks in the Soviet U… oops, in Russia, Russians are making appointment with their physicians, gathering the required documents, and generally doing all they can to arm themselves against terrorists.

Or so says my local newspaper…

I didn’t know Russians could even privately own guns!

WTF?

SnakeS