Gun rights supporters who DON'T OWN GUNS check in here!

[Taverner]

I fully support gun rights, and even think we should roll back some laws, like the poorly named "assault weapons ban."

However, I don't want a gun. Never did. Sure they're fun to play with - but so are boats. Doesn't mean I want a boat.

[Tarc]

1. Same here

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Here.

Not sure about scaling back the assault weapons ban, and I do think some reasonable restrictions need to be in place (such as armor-piercing rounds), but for the most part, I support 2nd amendment rights and am not a gun owner.

[johnbraun]

4. You do know that *all* common rifle rounds will rip through a police vest like it's not there, yes?

"Armor-piercing" rounds therefore could be construed as ALL rifle ammunition and guns that could shoot it.

Of course, there are specialized AP rounds, but their expense makes them very unlikely to be used in any crime whatsoever. And making an AP bullet is quite easy.

Please consider what you would do to us Dems with a "ban AP ammunition" statement by forcing us to be apologists for it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. Well, I'll leave it up to people a lot more knowledgeable than myself to write it

But I'm sure there's a way to narrowly-tailor any such legislation.

[bossy22]

10. the legislation is pointless

any round can puncture a vest, especially in standard centerfile rifle calibre.....the assault weapons ban was a solution in search of a problem. Rifles (which include all assault weapons and some other guns) only counted for 2.91% of homicides. also in another study (which i dont have the time to find but if you want i will try to find it) showed that the amount of rounds fired in most homicidal shootins was less then 5 rounds- shooting down the need to curbe "standard capacity" magazines

reasonable restrictiosn would be a prohibited persons list, background check, even a waiting period could be construid as reasonable....but there is nothing reasonable about an assault weapons ban- all it does is ban popular SEMI-AUTO rifles that look like machine guns- but in realiity arent

The media plays into this lie so easily and it is somethin that angers me because most people are unaware of what an assault weapon really is and end up getting brainwashed by the media

if you want more info just ask me and ill be glad to explain more things....i hope this helped

[Taverner]

6. Yes...wouldn't a .375 bullet pierce through just about anything?

My friend had a gun shop and we went shooting things (non living of course) and the rifle I was using could go through cement.

[johnbraun]

8. Exactly. Blanket statements like "ban armor-piercing ammunition!" do nothing but hurt Dems.

[f the letter]

3. Plus one. n/t

[Qutzupalotl]

7. Yep.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

9. I agree, but I don't think having a gun will " save or protect " you

as many gun rights supporters claim. I live in a wild area with bears and mountain lions and don't own a gun, my dog does a great job of warning and protecting us, that said, I support peoples right to own guns.

[johnbraun]

11. Of course guns don't do anything.

That's the realm of the animist prohibitionists.

Having a gun is sometimes helpful. Sometimes it is not.

[Taverner]

12. I don't think it will save or protect you either

Except in very specific circumstances.

[sinkingfeeling]

13. I support the ownership of long guns only, and wouldn't have any type of firearm in my house.

[johnbraun]

14. Would you support a federal ban on handguns? nt

[sinkingfeeling]

16. Hand guns were designed for only a single purpose: to use while committing a crime. I

hear the argument that that 'law abiding citizens' should have the right to own any type of gun they desire. My counter, is that only 15% of homicides occur during the commission of a crime. Over half are because of the trigger being pulled by a friend, neighbor, or family member.

They were all 'law abiding citizens' right up to point they got into an argument with their neighbor, or their girlfriend dumped them, or their wife wanted a divorce, or until somebody cut them off on the freeway, then they reached for that gun and pulled the trigger.

Handguns, which constitute about one-third of all firearms in the US, have been linked to 70%-90% of fatal firearm injuries.<5> - Hargarten SW, Karlson TA, O'Brien M, Hancock J, Quebbeman E: Characteristics of firearms involved in fatalities. JAMA. 1996;275:42-45.

I guess I don't know why people are more concerned with second-hand smoke than with guns. 100,000 are treated each year for firearm injuries at a cost of over $20 billion. More than 30,000 die from fire arms. Yes, I would support a total ban on hand guns, but know it will never happen.

[sergeiAK]

17. You're so wrong it's not funny.

So the police carry handguns to use in the commission of a crime? The stupidity of that statement astounds me.

Only 15% of homicides occur during the commission of a crime? Care to cite that, I thought murder was a crime to begin with, which would bump that a bit closer to 100% than 15%. Friends, neighbors, family members tend to murder each other more often than strangers, as knowing someone is generally a prerequisite to being angry enough to kill them. That also includes gang members killing each other, since they generally know each other.

"they were all law-abiding citizens up to the point" Not according to the feds. From http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fdluc98.htm">this link approximately 70% of murderers had a criminal record to begin with. Approximately 50% had felony convictions.

How do you justify your desires with the 2nd Amendment and the established case law? Not to mention how you would plan on implementing such a ban.

[Taverner]

22. The most dangerous weapon on the street today is the criminals bare hands

Bare hands and blunt instruments in those hands cause the lionshare of crimes.

[sinkingfeeling]

24. That means 85% of homicides occur as a act of murder, not during a rape or robbery. Your

link makes no sense.

[sergeiAK]

30. You have to actually read it.

It's a collection of government stats, you'll have to dig through the report a bit. It's a statistics heavy report, and rather poorly written. As for 85% of homicides occurring as a murder rather than as a robbery/rape/other proximate crime, what difference does it make? The victim dies, whether they were killed for their wallet, or killed for their perceived actions against the killer. Dead is dead.

I notice you made no attempt to address the other questions I asked. No surprise.

[bossy22]

18. the problem with your view

is the belief that criminals choose their guns logically- the fact is criminals have what they are able to get their hands on. Ive seen criminals possessing things from regular handguns to a sawed off double barreled shotgun that was from the turn of the century.

then comes into play the law of unintended consequences- if you ban handguns- criminals may go to rifles and shotguns- considerably more deadly weapons- the end result may be more innocent deaths due to such things as buck shot spray, and over penetration. also in a self defense manner- a rifle could fire a bullet that will hit the intruder, go through the wall, and then hit wind up being lodged in the neighbors head (when a handgun bullet would be unable to do this)

it also goes with the suicide arguement. people who choose suicide by gun, dont choose it because they look at the gun as the "most logical choice". The reason they choose it is because it is there and the first thing to come to mind. And usually when they pull the trigger- only they die. No guns lets say, what would an adult do....well i believe an adult would choose the next easiest thing (and quiet possibly much less painful)- CO poisening by turning on your car in the garage and letting the gasses put you to sleep. now here is where the law of unintended consequences is, the gas seeps through the house and kills all 4 other people living their (happened in my town 10 years ago- and actually happens on a all to often basis in communities all across america).

All in all i think banning handguns would just cause criminals and other people to switch to other weapons- some that may be more deadly then a handgun

[Taverner]

21. "if you ban handguns- criminals may go to rifles and shotguns"

Very good point!

[johnbraun]

19. Your view on handguns would be the downfall of the Democratic Party, period.

Please consider that pushing for bans on one small subset of rifles that were quite uncommon resulted in the loss of the House, the Senate, and two presidential elections. Pushing for a handgun ban would be catastrophic to the Democratic Party. I want a STRONG Democratic Party, not one in thrall to extremists that are willing to sacrifice political legitimacy to their own pet causes.

Perhaps you should consider another political party more in line with your views??

[sinkingfeeling]

23. I have every right in the world to my opinions on guns. I am a life-long member of the

Democratic Party and perfer it to the NRA-backed ticket.

You asked if I favored a handgun ban and I said yes. I'm not pushing for anything, and I doubt that trying to renew the 'assault weapons' ban caused George W. Bush or the Congress from 2000-2006.

[johnbraun]

26. Only the NRA backs Dems some of the time too.

[Taverner]

20. BS

They were designed for the army to have as a secondary weapon, that's easy to transport.

[gorfle]

25. This is untrue.

Hand guns were designed for only a single purpose: to use while committing a crime.

This is untrue at face value.

Hand guns, that is modern hand guns, were designed to be an extremely portable means to fire projectiles, and thus project force beyond what one could muster with their bare hands. They are a simple tool.

Some people use these tools to commit crimes. Others use them to protect themselves from crime. Either way, they are simple tools that function as reliable, portable, concealable force multipliers. They can be used for good or ill.

[Speck Tater]

15. I used to enjoy target shooting.

I had several good target rifles and one very nice target pistol. That was a long time ago, though. I haven't owned a gun for the last 35 years or so, but I would not want someone telling me I was forbidden to own one again if I chose to.

[FtWayneBlue]

27. I gave up gun ownership years ago,

primarily out of the fear they would be instruments of destruction to myself or members of my family.

However, as I see our country slide further into fascism, I am beginning to think widespread gun ownership may be needed for protection from a person's own government.

[johnbraun]

28. You are to be commended for realizing that gun ownership is not for you.

Many other people are not able to make that decision, when they realize that they are not someone that should be around guns.

Of course, there are many others that own and operate firearms safely and sanely with no threat to self or others. I'm just saying that firearms ownership is a personal decision and definitely not for everyone, and it is the mature individual that realizes that of themselves.

[geek_sabre]

29. right here.