Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Really? In GA you have to take a course in safety before you can buy?<< Not according to this site: <a href="http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/f/gunlaw_ga.htm" target="_blank">http://crime.about.com/od/gunl awsbystate/f/gunlaw_ga.htm</a>
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << Yes, so why are the Liberals so quick to legislate away "our" rights to defend outselves. >> Guns are a very poor "defensive" weapons, in my opinion. They are purely offensive in nature. I don't mind people making the argument that guns have a role to play in society, but lets get the terminology straight. Using words like "defense" completely mischaracterizes the primary use of firearms -- to kill things with offensive firepower. In the circumstances where guns are an appropriate defensive response, you have more than likely already been engaged by someone with a similar weapon. People have probably already died or already been wounded. Just having a sidearm available isn't likely to prevent the initial engagement. If you act in "self-defense" before you are engaged, it becomes more of a pre-emptive strike that is much harder to justify from a legal standpoint. You would have to be able to show opportunity, capability, and intent of the aggressor to successfully support your claim that a first strike was the right thing to do in self-defense. There are very few circumstances where you would be able to show this to justify taking the first shot in self-defense.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It also says: "Registration of handguns? No" So it looks like on 2 of the 3 things RT mentioned, KT is wrong on his state's laws.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<That's good in my opinion. Would you object to having all states adopt similar provisions?>> My honest answer here is that I believe its up to the individual citizens in their respective states to decide how they want to handle gun ownership. I don't think its my place to legislate what the good people of Virginia should do or not. <<In GA you have to take a course in safety before you can buy? And you have to register the gun?>> Georgia has extensive gun ownership laws. I know personally because I wanted to buy a new glock and discovered all the "red tape" I have to go through just to buy one. First off, ALL guns in Georgia MUST be registered. So no leeway there. You don't have to take a gun safety course if your going to just purchase a gun to keep in your home. In Georgia you have a right to carry a gun on you as long as its not covered up. Otherwise its considered to be a concealed weapon. You can get a concealed weapon permit but that is only granted through our court system ( with background checks and signing off from the local police/ Sheriffs Dept ). Since 911 the concealed weapons laws in Georgia have been significantly tightened. So basically only police, security and private investigators are granted concealed weapons permits. Also in Georgia your vehicle is considered to be an extension of your home. So you are allowed to keep a gun in your vehicle. A crazy thing with Georgia gun ownership laws is that you can use a gun as long as I belive over the age of 16. But you have to be over 18 to purchase ammunition. Whenever you purchase a gun in Georgia a background check must be preformed.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Guns are a very poor "defensive" weapons, in my opinion. They are purely offensive in nature. I don't mind people making the argument that guns have a role to play in society, but lets get the terminology straight. Using words like "defense" completely mischaracterizes the primary use of firearms -- to kill things with offensive firepower.>> In my opinion, the students at Virginia Tech died because they were denying the ability to adequately defend themselves.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "You don't have to take a gun safety course if your going to just purchase a gun to keep in your home." One huge and obvious flaw in Georgia's gun regulations.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "In my opinion, the students at Virginia Tech died because they were denying the ability to adequately defend themselves." The died because some nut job was intent on killing as many people as possible befor ehe killed himself. Period. End of discussion. Are you seriously suggesting that all 30 students should have been armed? Further, by extension, are you suggesting that we all should be walking around with sidearms? I'm distantly related to Wyatt Earp, for what little that's worth. Still and all, the Old Wild West became passe for a reason.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Here is the Georgia's law. <a href="http://www.seajayservices.com/gfodl//gunlaw.cfm" target="_blank">http://www.seajayservices.com/ gfodl//gunlaw.cfm</a> I think what you might be getting stuck on is the fact that Georgia does not require ALL guns to be registered. That is a loophole created for collectors of antique guns. However according to the law any gun taken from your home or property ( which includes bringing a gun to a shooting range ) must be registered.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Are you seriously suggesting that all 30 students should have been armed? Further, by extension, are you suggesting that we all should be walking around with sidearms?>> What I am suggesting is that that campus represented a place where all guns were banned. But we had one person who was not in compliance with the law who killed those students, who were in compliance with the law. A law that took away those students right and ability to adequately defend themselves against such an attack. What I'm suggesting is that all the "law" did was to prevent those deceased students the ability to adequately defend themselves. We had an instance in Atlanta a month ago when some nut came into the CNN building and killed a woman. That person was shot and killed by an armed CNN security guard.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <First off, ALL guns in Georgia MUST be registered. So no leeway there. > Um, KT, from your link in #169: " Registration of firearms Georgia does not require the registration of firearms owned by citizens to be registered with the police or sheriff. However dangerous weapons must be registered in compliance with the GCA of 1968." It defines "dangerous weapons" thusly: "Dangerous Weapons are defined in Georgia as; sawed-off shotgun, sawed-off rifle, machine gun, dangerous weapon, or silencer" Am I missing something?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Am I missing something?>> Yes, according to Georgia law all guns are registered at the point of sales to the individual purchasing that gun (this falls under the sales laws). The serial number associated with that gun is registered with the State of Georgia with to the gun owner.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Here's one for the pro gun owners. A high school here in Southern California closed today because one of its students is missing, along with all of the family weaponry. Is that a nice phrase or what? Family weaponry. <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/state/article_1664590.php" target="_blank">http://www.ocregister.com/ocre gister/news/state/article_1664590.php</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Is that a nice phrase or what? Family weaponry.>> The family that slays together stays together...
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I also found this for Georgia: <a href="http://www.milliron.net/CCRP/gagunlaw.htm" target="_blank">http://www.milliron.net/CCRP/g agunlaw.htm</a> At the summary at the top it says: "Registration of Firearms No" Then lower down it says: "Georgia law specifically provides that the application form "shall not require non-pertinent nor irrelevant data" from the applicant "such as serial numbers or other identification capable of being used as a de facto registration of firearms owned by the applicant."
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << We had an instance in Atlanta a month ago when some nut came into the CNN building and killed a woman. That person was shot and killed by an armed CNN security guard. >> So, you cite an example where the presence of guns were not an adequate defense to prevent a death. Your example also involves the presence of a hired security agent with the sole responsibility to respond in the event of a security breach. Just having random citizens carrying around weapons without any specific authority to use them or prerequisite training to adequately employ those weapons is not an effective "defense" measure. Again, guns are offensive weapons and not defensive in nature. Their purpose is to kill things. The presence of guns does not prevent death. Guns enable killing, not vice versa.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Let me ask those of you who are aguing aginst guns in the home... (I expect none to answer but I'll ask anyway...) Who of you that are against owning a gun have ever been PERSONALLY, you or your immediate family members, threatened driectly by a gunman (or woman) as the case may be?
