For some in U.S., guns are a hobby like any other

[davepc]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080312/ts_nm/usa_guns_collectors_dc_3

DOUGLAS, Arizona (Reuters) - An odd contraption in retired firefighter Alex Black's cluttered garage looks a bit like the hand winch at the top of a well. In fact, it is a machinegun.

Turning the shiny brass handle spat out a withering hail of bullets that transformed modern warfare.

"You march in to battle in straight lines against this, and nobody comes back," said Black, standing beside the hefty, carriage-mounted Colt Gatling Gun, which he restored over the course of a decade.

Black, who lives in this sleepy ranching town on the Arizona-Mexico border, is one of millions of gun collectors in the United States, where authorities estimate that there are more than 200 million firearms held in private hands in a country of 300 million people.

The American affinity for guns may puzzle foreigners who link high ownership rates and liberal gun ownership laws to the 84 gun deaths and 34 gun homicides that occur in the United States each day and wonder why gun control is not an issue in the U.S. presidential election.

The owners are not just urban criminals and drug dealers. There are hunters and home security advocates, and then there are the gun collectors.

Gun owners - Not just urban criminals and drug dealers.

nice.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EricTeri]

3. No you're not "just saying"

You're attempting to equate gun ownership, a protected right which does not violate the rights of another, with a sick disgusting crime which violates the rights of the most innocent among us.

[mike_c]

4. struck a nerve, huh...?

One person's "hobby" can be the ruination of someone else's life. All those victims of gun violence didn't have their rights violated?

"You have the right to die."

[shireen]

6. oh! you are so right! It's just so terribly dangerous ....

Like cars. What a dangerous hobby, tinkering with cars. Plough one of those hot rods into a crowd of people, and they could do a whole lot of damage. We really need a ban on cars.

[bossy22]

22. that actually happened

in maryland 2 weeks ago- 7 people died :(

[shireen]

47. yes,i remember that ... that was very tragic. nt

;(

[Vini_Vidivici]

114. YES, that is.........

....tragic. Unfortunately, there will always be bad or irresponsible people out there doing bad, irresponsible things with the tools that modern technology affords us. Such is the human condition.

[EricTeri]

7. Well yes - being equated to the most vile of criminals...

...simply for exercising my rights is rather offensive.

The vast majority of gun owners NEVER use their guns in a manner to violate another's rights. Those who do, are called "criminals".

Gun owners are NOT criminals and gun ownership does not violate ANYONE'S rights. I defy you to prove otherwise and since you cannot, I demand and expect an apology for your offensive and erroneous comparison.

[virginia mountainman]

9. Mike, I wonder...

Does your penis equate to you being a Child Molester???

That is the same thing your saying to us....

[SteveM]

12. Not my nerve(s). How has gun collecting ruined anyone else's life?...

Do you have data for this, or are you speculating?

[iverglas]

28. seeing as you ask

How has gun collecting ruined anyone else's life?...

No more than someone having a serious communicable disease has ruined anyone else's life, I guess.

Of course, if you're Typhoid Mary and decline to take measures to avoid passing that disease on ... well, some might say that her having a serious communicable disease ruined some other lives. But of course it was the disease, not her decision to do nothing to stop someone else from catching it, that was at fault, right?


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060214/gun_collectors_060214?s_name=&no_ads=

Meanwhile, four of 40 guns stolen from an Oshawa, Ont. gun collector almost two weeks ago were found Friday, and two had been recovered before that. The whereabouts of the rest of Ken Foster's high-value weapons collection is still unknown.

The retired 67-year-old had been in the hospital recovering from a stroke when the thieves kicked in his back door to get to the guns.

The incident is one of a number of gun thefts to hit collectors in the area in recent months. On Friday, a Mississauga, Ont. collector lost 45 firearms in a break-in.

Well, they turn up from time to time.

http://www.thestar.com/article/298680

Jan 30, 2008 04:30 AM

The gun used to shoot and blind a TTC bus driver two years ago has been shuffled between criminals, Toronto police said yesterday, and is implicated in four other crimes, including the 2003 murder of youth worker Kempton Howard.

The 9mm Browning, shown at right, that claimed Jaime Pereira's sight, after he stopped his bus to break up a fight between warring groups, was also used in two attempted murders in Toronto and another in Durham, police said.

... The Browning that disabled Pereira was stolen initially from a legal owner in Canada, police said. While they continue to investigate the exact origins of the weapon, officers have only been able to trace it back to Howard's murder. Howard, who mentored youngsters in a community centre near his home, was gunned down on the ninth floor of his family's apartment building on Dec. 13, 2003.

... "Guns are highly transportable and concealable," Barsky said. "It probably could have been moved around on a TTC bus."

Ah, the perils of having one of the best public transit systems in the world ...

Those collectors wuz just having fun. And Typhoid Mary was just breathing.

[EricTeri]

29. The problems in those cases

were the actions of the criminals - period. That they were stolen from a collector is irrelevant.

BIG difference between that and someone knowing they have a deadly and communicable disease and intentionally going out and ensuring it is transmitted.

[iverglas]

31. Yes! I said!

And the problem in the case of Typhoid Mary was the dirty germs -- not the fact that she spread 'em around!

BIG difference between that and someone knowing they have a deadly and communicable disease and intentionally going out and ensuring it is transmitted.

Hmm. How 'bout if you just come to visit me and I don't bother mentioning I have typhoid? Not my damned fault if you get sick, let alone if someone else catches it from you; you're the one came to visit and stole my germs and passed 'em on.

Hell, how about if you break into my house and blow your nose in my hanky and catch those germs and pass 'em on to the clerk at the 7-11 -- when I could easily have taken the nice drugs that cured my disease so there were no germs for you to catch? Not my fault the 7-11 clerk catches her death and dies. I can have carry a fatal disease if I feel like it.

I can also have a moat around my house with alligators in it if I feel like it, surely. And if someone trespasses on my property and steals my alligators and turns them loose in a kiddie wading pool ... not my fault, I'm not to blame, I'm an innocent victim devoid of any responsibility to anyone else in the community and society I choose to live in. Just like those charming firearms collectors and other firearms owners whose toys have killed and harmed so many children and other living things.




Gather 'round while I sing you of Wernher von Braun,
A man whose allegiance
Is ruled by expedience.
Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown,
"Ha, Nazi, Schmazi," says Wernher von Braun.

Don't say that he's hypocritical,
Say rather that he's apolitical.
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.

Some have harsh words for this man of renown,
But some think our attitude
Should be one of gratitude,
Like the widows and cripples in old London town,
Who owe their large pensions to Wernher von Braun.

You too may be a big hero,
Once you've learned to count backwards to zero.
"In German oder English I know how to count down,
Und I'm learning Chinese!" says Wernher von Braun.

Tom Lehrer, That Was the Year That Was

[gorfle]

111. I agree entirely.

I can also have a moat around my house with alligators in it if I feel like it, surely. And if someone trespasses on my property and steals my alligators and turns them loose in a kiddie wading pool ... not my fault, I'm not to blame, I'm an innocent victim devoid of any responsibility to anyone else in the community and society I choose to live in. Just like those charming firearms collectors and other firearms owners whose toys have killed and harmed so many children and other living things.

I agree with your statement exactly.

If you are owning property in a legal, responsible manner, and you keep them locked in your house, it is insane to blame the property owner for the criminal actions of theft and endangerment by someone else.

[Vini_Vidivici]

113. Absolutely..........

..........sad that the irresponsible actions of the few, the negligent, the imbeciles, color the way all gun-owners are viewed. But this is illogical.

To say that there would be less or no gun accidents if, for example, there were somehow "no guns", well, by the same logic, one could argue that automobile fatalities would cease to exist if all automobiles were suddenly all banned.

Scientifically accurate, perhaps, but wholly and practically illogical.

[yay]

115. Why the hell

Did you feel the need to rez this just to say that?

[Vini_Vidivici]

118. Why not?

[Indy Lurker]

32. I got an idea

We can round up all the guns and all the people with a serious communicable disease, and lock them all away, so they can't hurt anyone.

This would serve the greater good, and improve public safety.

[iverglas]

34. well at least you owned it

Your idea, so enjoy it.

Of course, you're pretending that "guns" and "people with a serious communicable disease" have something in common. You may see it, but I sure don't.

I do see a commonality between firearms and deadly germs. And between people with firearms and people with deadly germs.

Got something against the idea of rounding up all the deadly germs and locking them all away?

Maybe we should just put those smallpox germs on ebay.

[smb]

112. I See Dumb People

"I do see a commonality between firearms and deadly germs. And between people with firearms and people with deadly germs."

Your hallucinations are your problem.

[slackmaster]

35. You're not talking about someone's hobby being the ruination of someone else's life

You're talking about illegal behavior by a criminal being the ruination of someone's life.

Blurring the distinction between gun owners and criminals is a Republican authoritarian talking point.

[-Wolverine-]

65. Re: struck a nerve, huh...?

Owning a gun harms no one.
An act of violence, with any weapon, does.

The two are not one and the same.
Therefore, you fail.

[mike_c]

68. most conflicts that involve guns would be much less serious...

...if guns were not so freely and easily available. I'm sorry, ya'll can dance around this simple truism all you want, deny it all you like, and ignore it forever if you wish, but it remains absolutely true.

Gun violence kills and maims thousands of Americans annually-- take away the guns and the majority of those conflicts would likely either never happen or would result in much less serious injury when they did happen. Some wouldn't-- people would still stab one another, run over one another, push one another out of windows, and so on, but the majority of people shot and killed or seriously injured by gun violence would either not be harmed at all or would suffer far less serious injury if guns were not so ubiquitous in American culture. Contrary to the popular mantra, guns do in fact kill people.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

71. I just love that one

First, of course, I always love the flurries of straw.

Banning them does NOT make them disappear.

That's nice. Was there a point?

But this is my favourite:

If you believe it does, allow me to disabuse you of that notion by offering the examples of prohibition and our current drug policy.

Firearms addiction is just rampant where you are, is it? Millions of people with a constant need for daily replenishment of their supply. People would be breaking into houses and businesses to steal drugs to trade for guns if guns were banned ... other people would be trucking firearms in by the tractor-trailer load from ... er, Canada ...

I'm tempted to advocate that the US ban guns just so we see it!


I'm sorry you have such an irrational fear of an inanimate object, but I'm certain if you check your local phone book, you can find a professional to help you overcome this phobia.

And I'll be so sorry to see that unfounded and patently false allegation and nasty insult disappear from the forum. You bet I will.


But if you want to offer up the usual crap and bumph to support this ludicrous assertion:

Guns are used FAR more often (in this country anyway) for good than evil purposes.

then feel free! I'll just need to copy and paste the multiple refutations of the crap and bumph that have been given in the past and never addressed.

[AtheistCrusader]

117. Well, normally...

someone will phrase this 'good' as self defense or something but, I saw 300 or so people at the range today. There were not 300 gun crimes in Seattle today. And that was just one range, sooo technically he was correct with:

Guns are used FAR more often (in this country anyway) for good than evil purposes.

Unless you consider target practice/sport as neutral or something. I consider it 'good' I guess. Long as no one gets shot.

[virginia mountainman]

75. Do you propose..

Coming to take mine, from me,and my neighbors???

Or do you propose, sending someone else to do it???

Molon Labe.....

O, and the tremendous sucking sound, is the sound of our parties political power being drawn and quartered in 90% of the nation over such legislation.

[iverglas]

78. and Ms. Manners politely enquires:

Do you propose..
Coming to take mine, from me,and my neighbors???
Or do you propose, sending someone else to do it???

... why do you ask?


If I remark that there's a very lot of snow out there (very true fact), I assume you will ask me whether I propose
(a) that I shovel it across the border to, oh, Buffalo (shovel it off to Buffalo, get it?)
or
(b) that I have someone else shovel it across the border to Buffalo.

Those are the only options, of course, when it is observed that there is a very lot of snow out there.


Kinda like how when someone observes that the presence of firearms influences outcomes in many situations, the only possible question is who is going to take away the firearms.

I say, with all the sarcasm you can eat.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

81. Ridiculous

Notice how you said absolutely nothing about gun violence in America as it relates to anything he said.

Nothing.

Nah........ it's all about you and your guns.

[Boomer 50]

98. Actually, it isn't true.....

A knife or sword wound has a much higher chance of being fatal vs. a gun shot wound. Somewhere around 65% vs. 10% if memory serves. Knives also transfer infection to the wound whereas a bullet does not due to the sterilization of the round during firing.

Knives are more concealable, do more physical damage and are silent whereas firearms are not. The only advantage a gun has is engagement distance.

Take away guns... only the criminals will keep them. But lets say you do take them all away, what then? What's to prevent someone with the knowledge on how to build a gun from doing so? Lowe's or Home Depot and your local auto parts store have everything you need to manufacture guns of varying types with little effort. Combine that with a Dremel, file, MIG welder, and a bit of understanding of mechanical engineering and anyone can make a servicable pistol, shotgun, rifle, machine gun or whatever.

You take away all the guns and someone is going to make their own and who will be there to stop them? If any one segment of society, including governments have guns, your idea will fail. The perils of disarmament are many and great. Not to mention that there are those of us who simply will refuse to disarm in the first place.

[iverglas]

103. you're just all wrong all the time, aren't you?

Line 'em up, knock 'em down:

A knife or sword wound has a much higher chance of being fatal vs. a gun shot wound. Somewhere around 65% vs. 10% if memory serves.
Knives also transfer infection to the wound whereas a bullet does not due to the sterilization of the round during firing.


http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/byname/Neck-Trauma.htm

Mechanisms of injury

Neck trauma may be caused by penetrating or blunt trauma.

Penetrating trauma

More than 95% of penetrating neck wounds result from guns and knives, with the remainder resulting from motor vehicle accidents, household injuries, industrial accidents, and sporting events. Generally, people experiencing a gun shot wound (GSW) sustain greater injury than those with stab wounds because of a bullet's proclivity to penetrate deeper and cause cavitation, thus damaging structures lying outside the tract of the missile.

High-velocity bullet wounds (>2000-2500 ft/s) tend to follow a direct and predictable pathway, while low-velocity bullets travel a more erratic pathway, often demonstrating no direct relationship to the entrance or exit wounds. Additionally, high-velocity bullet wounds produced by military-style weapons or hunting rifles generate shock waves that devitalize surrounding tissues. High-velocity missiles and their ensuing blast effects may suck debris into the wound tract or cause secondary injuries from bullet or bone fragmentation. Low-velocity injuries may be produced by.22- and .38-caliber handguns that have a muzzle speed of 300 ft/s to 800 ft/s. Furthermore, lower-energy injuries (knife, handgun, long-range birdshot or buckshot) cause a 50% lesser frequency of clinically significant injuries no matter what the zone of injury.

Gunshot causes greater injury than stabbing.

Some gunshot wounds are susceptible to infection because they do cause the entry of foreign matter into the wound.

But then I'm sure you know better than David B Levy, DO, FACEP, FAAEM, Chairman, Department of Emergency Medicine, St Elizabeth Health Center; Associate Professor of Emergency Medicine, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine.

It holds true across borders:

http://caep.ca/template.asp?id=5801084AECB5428D86CC8A8E626C47BC

Both types of penetrating trauma can be associated with high-acuity injuries. ... Knives were less likely to result in high-acuity ... injuries than were firearms (1234/39 654 (3.1%) v. 234/586 (39.9%)); however, the number of high-acuity knife-related injuries was more than 5 times greater than those related to firearms (n = 1234 v. n = 234). Hospital admission is a fairly common outcome, with 151 over the study period for firearm-related injuries, and a corresponding 1455 admissions for injuries due to knives or sharp objects, an almost 10-fold difference. However, firearm-related injuries were more likely to result in admission (151/586 (25.7%)) than were knife-related injuries (1455/39 654 (3.7%)). The overall number of deaths in hospital caused by knives (n = 26) and guns (n = 30) were similar even though the case-fatality rate in hospital was much higher for firearm-related injuries (5%) than for knives/sharp-objects-related injuries (0.06%).

There's a start. So whatcha got to back up what you were saying there?


But lets say you do take them all away

Why? I can't think of any reason why I'd say that, myself. Was there some reason you would?

[Vini_Vidivici]

116. Negative, that is incorrect..........

..........guns do not in fact kill people, people do. This is a scientific fact.

The problem is not that guns are ubiquitous, but that criminals are. This society is rife with crime and criminal behaviour. Our society has declined in many ways.

Our "system" simply does not punish criminals effectively enough. So very many are out there, offending repeatedly. Keep them locked up, I say. Seems logical.

"Gun violence kills and maims.........".........., no, irresponsible, criminal (negligent or otherwise) PEOPLE kill and maim. How can one logically blame the tools for the acts of those who hold and employ the tools.

And an interesting FACT.............many, many Americans EVERY DAY, believe it or not, actually do, in fact, get this: PREVENT CRIME with lawfully carried firearms. How about that? Ordinary citizens, taking responsibility for their own defense and well-being. Yes, it is a fact.

That's very American.

[EricTeri]

2. To a lot of people

Especially those in urban areas who have never left the city, the only reason someone would own a gun is for criminal purposes.

Granted, these people are completely wrong, but we need to work to educate them, rather than berate them - unless they demonstrate their wish to remain ignorant.

[Clovis Sangrail]

10. no... those people aren't completely wrong

You touch on why they feel that way and then completely ignore and call them ignorant.

It's a complex issue with no easy answers.
Outlawing guns wont work and neither will arming everyone.... this isn't 1776.
The best thing that can happen is let the gun nuts demand the right to buy guns at 7-11 and let the anti-gun nuts call them all stupid rednecks.
Then we get similar to what we've got now... where both sides feel it's completely screwed up but neither gets exactly what they want.
It's called compromise.

[NewMoonTherian]

61. The statement Eric made...

was that some people believe all gun owners have criminal intent. Clearly, some people believe this, or claim to believe it.

Clearly, all gun owners do not have criminal intent. Hence, the belief that they do is completely false.

I agree that vocal advocates on both sides are essential to a sound policy. I'm ready and willing to do my part!

...incidentally, wouldn't it be possible to buy guns at 7-11 if the clerks got FFLs, and corporate office gave the OK?

[Clovis Sangrail]

62. I assume he was using hyperbole in regards to 'all'

I've never met somebody who thinks all gun owners have criminal intent.
The only people I ever hear claiming this are the hate-mongers like Limbaugh or Savage to whip up outrage at the amorphous "other".

I could be completely wrong... so point me at a site where people think this.
(that ALL gun owners have criminal intent)

Not one that claims other people think this, but one run by people with the belief.
If there are that many people who hold that belief there must be an organized group of them with a website laying it out.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

99. I've seen it here

I've seen it posted here saying the blood from a gun death is on the hands of you gun owners. Saying gun owners support the gun lobby by buying guns therefore the blood is on all our hands. That pretty clearly implies criminal wrongdoing and guilt on all gun owners. I've seen it here more than once by more than one poster.

I could ask you to show me where the NRA wants to arm everyone as if often the false claim here? Not to be carrying water for the NRA just an example.

Gun owners on this site are often referred to as the arm everyone crowd. Not much middle ground to be had.

David

[shireen]

5. target shooting is a hobby too ...

There's something fun about using a hand-held machine that will shoot a projectile out of the barrel at very fast speeds. I get a kick (pardon the pun!) out of the physics behind it, and the mechanical ingenuity of different guns. I just took an introductory class in firearms, and absolutely loved it. (Not something I had expected!) Right now, I'm concentrating on becoming proficient in using a revolver. Semi-autos, with so many parts to them, are still a bit intimidating but I'll get to playing with them someday, after I've had more practice with the revolver.

When you think of guns that way, as fascinating machines, they're quite interesting. :)

[EricTeri]

11. Excellent way to approach it.

The handling of a revolver compared to an autoloader is a little different, but not overly much - especially with many of the current generation DAO automatics. The biggest change is realizing that if you do not get an immediate "bang" when pulling the trigger, pulling the trigger again is not going to fix that problem. What are you starting off with?

[shireen]

16. S&W 686

After reading some blogs and online articles, and on the advice of some people in this forum and my instructors, it seems like the best choice for me. I've used it in class, and liked it best compared to others. I'll probably purchase it later this month after I get my class certificate (so I can get my 10% discount at the store! -- i pretty excited about it! :) The classes I've taken have been really good, and the instructors are fantastic. If they gave out grades, i'd probably get an A+ for cleaning guns ... I got so absorbed in it that they started teasing me about becoming an instructor for ... uh, gun cleaning. Hey, it's a great way to bond with your firearm. :P

[EricTeri]

20. Excellent choice-Good solid reliable wheelgun.

Depending on how you're built and dress, relatively easy to carry as a CCW piece too.

[iverglas]

21. bizarre

Depending on how you're built and dress, relatively easy to carry as a CCW piece too.

If this were a discussion about the tools used in another hobby ... say, French cooking ... and someone was chatting about his/her favourite paring knife ... would you really reply:

"Depending on how you're built and dress, relatively easy to carry as a weapon concealed on your person too"?

What does what you said have to do with the hobby aspect of firearms possession?

Seems like you've kind of made a point you might rather not have made.

[EricTeri]

24. Not really

But then again, concealed carry of cooking tools is hardly part of the hobby.

A lot of people who own firearms these days do obtain CCW permits.

Nice try

[iverglas]

27. pretty crappy try

The discussion initiated in this thread was about firearm collecting as a hobby. The hobby of target shooting was brought in.

Neither of those things has thing one to do with toting in one's trousers or hauling in a holster or packing in one's pants when one is out on the town.

The concept of promenading around with a firearm on one's person for purposes having nothing to do with engaging in a sport or hobby is precisely as irrelevant to a discussion of the latter as the concept of promenading around with a paring knife on one's person is to a discussion of the tools of French cooking.

And you inadvertently made the point that once there is ready access to firearms for sport or hobby purposes, there is ready access to firearms for shoving down one's trousers or elsewhere on one's body and taking where one will, to do with what one will.

And no, I don't know of a single child killed while playing in a public space, on this side of the border, anyhow, or adult killed while going about his/her business in public, by a carelessly aimed knife intended to cause bodily harm to someone else.

Several have been killed by bullets intended to cause bodily harm to some completely different person, though.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spin]

44. Most of the target shooters I know also carry concealed...

I live in Florida where concealed carry is common. Many responsible people go to the range to practice after obtaining their permit and discover shooting to be an enjoyable hobby. Several I've known also started gun collections. Other long term target shooters decide to obtain a concealed carry permit (as I did).

Target shooting and self defense shooting are different aspects of the discipline called shooting just as Judo and jujitsu are different aspects of one of the martial arts. Judo is the sport, jujitsu is street fighting. Judo is fun, competitive, and can be used for self defense. The primary object of jujitsu IS self defense, for example fighting techniques for disarming an opponent with a gun or a knife. A judo player deals more with matches with rules and judges...no guns or knives and your opponent merely hopes to win the match not kill you. But a person who has mastered judo will find becoming proficient at jujitsu easier.

In target shooting you try to place all your shots in a tight group as near to or in the 10 ring of the target. You have time to sight your weapon, steady your breathing and squeeze the trigger. If you miss the target you lose points.

In a self defense situation with a firearm you face a moving target who, unlike a harmless paper target, means to hurt or kill you. You attempt to move to cover if you can and engage the opponent with rapid and accurate fire. You object is to hit his center body mass to stop his attack. You don't have to place all your shots in a tight group but you definitely don't want to miss and injure an innocent bystander.

The skills you learn by target shooting will make you more capable of using a weapon for self defense. It's wise to practice some target shooting and then move the target closer and practice drawing your weapon or picking it up from the table and rapidly engaging the target. Without practice, many target shooters will find it hard to draw, fire and hit the target.

When I go o the range to practice I intend to shoot my weapon. When I carry my weapon in public, the absolute last thing I want to do is to fire it. I go out of my way to avoid confrontation. I am always polite, courteous and respectful of other people. I don't travel to dangerous areas looking for a fight. I have never met a person with a concealed permit who obtained it to be able to needlessly harm or threaten others.

So, as I've said, many concealed permit holders become target shooters and many target shooters carry weapons concealed. Quite often shooters also collect weapons as a hobby or investment.

Interestingly enough many shooters also carry knives. Most don't carry their knives for self defense. Knives are a very useful tool to have with you. It's amazing how many times a day you use the knife you carry for simple tasks.

But as far as using a knife in a fight, that's an entirely different martial art. At the end of a knife fight, it's often very hard to determine who the winner was.

[iverglas]

48. that's nice

Funny how most cooks don't haul knives around on their persons in public just in case somebody looks at 'em funny. Or practise quick-drawing while they're boning fish. They actually seem to be able to distinguish between their hobby and someone's paranoid fantasies.

Target shooting is a sport. Practising that sport no more involves preparing to execute that evildoer waiting around the next corner than French cooking involves preparing to eviscerate said evildoer.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

55. Why do police and the military do it?

Please give us some statistics about these concealed carry permit holders shooting people or even brandishing their weapons when people look at them funny. I guess that concealed carry permit holder in Memphis who shot and killed the registered sex offender, who had broken into his neighbors and was trying to rape one of the women there, did so because he looked at him funny. I'm sure that was it, instead of trying to stop a felon in the commission of another felony. On a side note most of the really good chefs I know carry their own knives, all rolled up and concealed.

David

[spin]

56. I have know some target shooters who only shot as a hobby...

for example my half brother who shot .22 rifles in small bore competition. He was also a NRA firearms instructor and wrote a newsletter about small bore rifle completion in the Baltimore area.

I've also known one or two firearms collectors who stored their valuable possessions in safety deposit boxes. Their guns were so valuable they never were retired from use and never fired.

However, target shooting is weapons practice. Judo is training for fighting. While they are sport, they are based on combat.

In my experience, target shooting often leads to carrying concealed and carrying concealed often leads to target shooting. Once a person gets involved in the gun culture, his or her interests can evolve. (Of course, this depends on the area on the country that they live.)

People who carry concealed are not normally paranoid. For example, my carry weapon is a S&W snub nosed .38 special which I carry in my pants pocket. If I was "preparing to execute that evildoer waiting around the corner", I would carry at the minimum my .45 auto in a holster on my belt. I'm not really afraid of being attacked as I realize the chances of that happening are very slim. However, I would prefer to be prepared than merely helpless if, God forbid, I found myself in mortal danger. I guess you could say that I'm the type of guy who avoids violence but if left no other choice would rather go down fighting than quivering in fear.

A question for you...do you know anybody who owns firearms for target shooting or self defense? What is your opinion of them?

[iverglas]

59. yes, and smoking a joint leads to heroin overdoses

In my experience, target shooting often leads to carrying concealed and carrying concealed often leads to target shooting.

I'm just missing that cause-and-effect connection, myself.


However, target shooting is weapons practice.

No, it isn't. For SOME PEOPLE, target shooting is weapons practice. For others, it is target shooting.


People who carry concealed are not normally paranoid. For example, my carry weapon is a S&W snub nosed .38 special which I carry in my pants pocket.

No you don't, no you don't, no you don't. Anybody around here will tell you that people who are licensed to carry concealed weapons NEVER CARRY THEM IN THEIR POCKETS. That is a fantasy of the gun-shy crowd. You're going to give yourself away as a closet gun-fearer if you keep this up.

As for the rest there ... there are some things that really are just definitional.


I guess you could say that I'm the type of guy who avoids violence but if left no other choice would rather go down fighting than quivering in fear.

And I'm a type who would rather survive. Like I was saying elsewhere, that's the real issue. Life and limb, or ego?


A question for you...do you know anybody who owns firearms for target shooting or self defense? What is your opinion of them?

Not really. I've known hunters. The one I knew intimately had lost his 13-yr-old son a few years before when the son did a little target shooting at his own head.

If I had a whole lot more time than I have, I'd quite possibly try a little target shooting. I've said before that I really have no doubt that I'd like it. I am passionately anti-team sports, but I'm a dab hand at bowling (the real thing, not that sissy 10-pin business), I always enjoyed things like archery in school, I've won stuff by throwing things at summer fairs, and I used to be a real whiz at some of the arcade games 25 years ago. In other words, I have aim. But I don't have the time or the motivation. If I ever do, there's a range 15 minutes drive from where I am (a fancy sports complex where a couple of my friends curl regularly, that being only a semi-team sort of sport that does involve aim, but one that I really don't expect to have the urge to devote myself to). I could hire what I needed and get instruction and have a fine time shooting circles around the co-vivant, as it were, I'm sure. I may do it some fine day. It actually does appeal to me in the same way that other things I do, like cryptic crosswords, appeal to me. I don't doubt that it would just be fun.

I would never, ever, ever wish to keep a firearm in my home, and I would never permit a firearm to be kept in my home, for any reason whatsoever. No problem there, since the co-vivant's display of contempt for all things and people firearm-related, should he ever drop in here, would make me look like Charlton Heston. Because the thing that I used to shoot holes in paper (which I could only do at the range anyway) could also be used for much less entertaining purposes, and there would be no reason on this earth for me to create a situation in which there was a risk that a firearm in my home would be used by anyone for any such purpose.

And I'm afraid that it would be unwise of me to express my opinion here about people who keep firearms "for self-defence".



edited bady copy/paste job

[spin]

60. See the attached links about snub nosed revolver pocket carry...

This is my primary carry weapon:

http://www.snubnose.info/docs/m642.htm

"The smooth hammerless contour of the gun makes it ideal for pocket or purse, and it can even be fired from inside a pocket without the problem of getting snagged in the fabric."

http://gunner777.wordpress.com/2007/11/09/sw-model-642-airweight/

"The S&W model 642 is the biggest selling gun that Smith & Wesson makes. It has far outsold all other guns in the S&W lineup for years and for good reason. There is no gun made past or present which is handier to carry and provides a potent loading in 38 special +P..."

"I don’t know of any gun that is faster to get into action. It’s just like pulling your hand out of a pocket and pointing. A very simple, practical and potent gun and method of carry. The most practical holster is the DeSantis Nemesis synthetic holster that fits in a front pocket of your jeans and is shaped such that it will not come out with the gun. The holster lining is very smooth allowing for a fast draw."

****

Note: the S&W model 642 is not the best choice as a weapon for a new shooter. It has a nasty recoil and takes a while to become proficient with.

I was sorry to read about the 13 year old and his death. A tragic incident. I now have a better understanding of your views on firearms.

I find your statement that shooting might appeal to you interesting. Take a couple of hours some time and travel on down to the range merely to watch and meet people. At the best you might develop more interest in target shooting and meet some interesting people. At the worst, you'll be able to post your negative impressions of the range and the people on DU.

If you do get interested in target shooting buy a target .22 pistol like the Ruger Mark III. http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger_MarkIII-Hunter.htm A fairly inexpensive but very very accurate target pistol. Ammunition is inexpensive and the enjoyment you will get from mastering this weapon will amaze you. I agree with your idea of getting some instruction. You'll learn how to shoot quickly and you won't pick up all the bad techniques that you would if you tried to learn shooting on your own.

If you do and you prefer to call your new hobby target shooting not weapons practice, that's fine by me.

[iverglas]

66. no, you don't

I was sorry to read about the 13 year old and his death. A tragic incident. I now have a better understanding of your views on firearms.

My views on social/political issues are not determined by my personal experiences. I'm an educated, intelligent adult, and my views are a product of a wide range of factors and my examination of all of them. If an incident such as that -- the death of a child I had never met, several years before I heard about it -- were determinative of a person's views on firearms, then everyone in the world would share my views. Or maybe it's just me who can't separate personal experience from public policy.

The specific issue in that incident was the complete failure of the child's father to secure the family hunting weapons. Yes, I do strongly advocate legislation imposing strict requirements for safe/secure storage. I would no matter what.

Take a couple of hours some time and travel on down to the range merely to watch and meet people.

No, really, the people don't interest me. Not a team sport! If it were, I wouldn't be interested. I wouldn't expect to have any negative impressions of the range (particularly since environmental health requirements here in Canada are extremely stringent), or the people, who would likely be mainly white-collar workers who vote for the Liberal Party, given my urban environment and the nature of the facility. Now, if I were in Alberta, things would be different.

And no, really no chance I would buy a firearm. Ranges here have everything you need, for hire, and I don't know that they have facilities for storing members' firearms, so that would just be a nuisance. I oppoes the present policy that allows sports shooters to store handguns on their own premises, so I wouldn't be doing it!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

67. Canadian or American?

So are you Canadian or an American living in Canada?

David

[iverglas]

70. Canadian, bien sur!

But of course, like all Canadians, I have American Cousins. ;)

Like most Canadians, I live within an hour's drive of the border. And like many Canadians, I've travelled far more widely within the US than most people who live there. Not been to Alaska or Hawaii, or the west coast or mountain states, but been in most states east of there, both sides of the Mississippi, in the last 40 years.

Regret the decline of local cultures over that time, have to say. One thing we'd hoped to do on the drive down and back 5 yrs ago (staying with people met on line), was sample some indigenous cuisines off the highways. Not much to find among the McDonalds and Taco Bells, sadly.

Racism as rampant as ever, though. We left the motel I'd arranged from up here for several reasons, one being the "American owned" sign. Finally found one on the Daytona Beach strip that didn't tout itself as "American" or "English" owned, managed by a nice young couple originally from India ... who proceeded to regale us with their complaints about their African-American customers. They didn't quite rise to the level of virulent racism displayed by the middle-aged bike shop owner selling me a used 12-speed so I could accompany my dad on his daily rides when I visited him in central Florida a couple of years before, though. I'd quote him, but it would offend some if I did. (It offended me so much I walked out, but quoting without approving really ought not to offend.) That a merchant would speak that way to two strangers doing business with him, tourists at that ... I was boggled. Having no easy alternative for buying a bike and not wanting to disappoint my dad, I agreed to complete the transaction when he apologized.

Don't even get me started on Dallas. I'll never forget the driving tour of Plano provided by my then co-vivant's brother, and his announcement that we were entering "Nnnnnblacktown".

(Yes, I know Canadians like that. My best friend has to travel miles by bus to visit her mum, because her mum refused to get an apartment downtown, where the senior cits' buildings are full of "Chinks".)

My dad was on his last trip when he became ill and had to come home, and died shortly after (5 years ago last week). He'd had it with the whole right-wing Republican place, no matter how much he hated winter, and spent his last weeks there circulating "Hu's on First" to his unimpressed mobile home park neighbours.

http://www.art-in-guelph.com/Pages/ArtofHumor-International.html

HU'S ON FIRST By James Sherman

We take you now to the Oval Office...

President George W. Bush: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening?
National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.
Bush: Great. Lay it on me.
Rice: Hu is the new leader of China.
Bush: That's what I want to know.
Rice: That's what I'm telling you.
Bush: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China?
Rice: Yes.
...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

74. Sorry about your Dad

Thanks for clearing that up, and I thought you were from Georgia. Talk to you again soon I'm sure.

David

[iverglas]

77. Hmm!

It must be the accent, eh?

[spin]

72. Now that I know you live in Canada...

I've gained more insight on your views on weapons.

I hate to say it, but we live in two different cultures. The United States is a violent society. The causes of this violence are varied, complicated and difficult to solve. Social economic issues, the failure of the educational system, the infestation of illegal drugs sold by an ethnically diverse group of gangs, corrupt politicians and law enforcement and, of course, the ready availability of firearms are just some of the reasons.

I carry a concealed weapon not merely because I'm paranoid or suffering from some Walter Mitty fantasy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mitty. I carry one because there is a distinct possibility however slight that I might find myself in a dire situation in which my physical ability and training in martial arts will prove insufficient to avoid bodily harm or perhaps even death. As my ex jujitsu instructor Ed Maley, who holds an 8th degree dan in judo, used to say, "a man with a gun is a 9th degree". http://www.floridaschoolofjudo.com/EdMaley.html.

When I retired I moved from Tampa to a small town with a population of 1800 in northern Florida. My expectations of living in a quiet peaceful community proved incorrect. For example, in late February, two groups of people got into an altercation which resulted in two helicopters airlifting several wounded individuals out. So far eighteen arrests have been made with the possibility of more to come. Reliable sources say drug selling and distribution were involved. http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/16002882.html

When the new year came in, I was sitting out on the porch with an ex police officer listening to the gun fire from the south side of the town. We both felt that it was similar to living in Baghdad listening to wedding calibrations. He mentioned that when he worked for the local police department, he was instructed to stay out of that area until the gunfire ceased. One young child from that section of town stopped by our house the next day to visit my grandchildren. He said that he seen flashes of gunfire from outside his windows and lay down on the floor on the advise of his mother.

We would probably have more home invasions and more robbery in this community if the local residents weren't armed. As it is, anything of value left outside and not secured disappears at night.

Of course, the anti gun people advocate gun confiscation to solve our problem in the U.S. If someone were to invent a magic wand to whisk away all weapons, this might work. In reality, in this small town, draconian gun laws and confiscation would only result in the honest citizens being at the mercy of the dishonest.

To address the violence problem in the United States, we need politicians to make honest efforts to solve the underlying causes. Unfortunately, the two main political parties act like NFL football teams. Their concern is gaining advantage over the other party at all cost and like two equal football teams the country ends up stalled in the mud on the 50 yard line without any points being scored.

As far as people being allowed to store guns in their house, one time in Tampa, my daughter was able to stop an intruder from breaking into our house with the intention of raping her merely by pointing a revolver at him. A 60 pound black lab and an alarm system had failed to discourage him.

Another question for you that's entirely off the subject. How do you feel about the medical system in your country? Should we consider implementing something similar in the U.S.?

[iverglas]

80. yes, like I wuz saying

The endemic racism in the US truly is appalling, isn't it?

I mean, we know what you mean by "the south side of the town" and "that area" and like that, don't we? The place where those other people live. Not that I'm saying you're a racist; I have no idea whether you are. I just hear those echos of "Nnnnblacktown" when I hear things like that. And I think about the white folks in their nice white communities, thinking they should not suffer any consequences of the systemic racism they've benefited from all these decades and centuries.

I live in "that area" in my own city. Here, it's a matter of class: lower standard of housing, absentee landlords, low-income population, and in particular successive waves of immigrants; people who are by nature vulnerable to disregard by authorities and to the activities of the unsavoury characters who find it easier to rent low standard accommodation from absentee landlords. As a cop said to me and my neighbour one evening when we remarked on the difficulty of getting a response to complaints to police, "Well, you live on _____ Street, what do you expect?"

So for a couple of years we had the apparently gang-affiliated West Indian dealers/pimps at one end of the block (and the rivals who occasionally dropped by) and the good native-born Anglo-Canadian dealer/pimp and his prostitute wife at the other. A fun couple of summers. (Winter is a relief in that regard. Fewer hookers hanging around the front porch, fewer johns driving the track, fewer dealers making deliveries to the hookers ...)

But you know what there has never been in my 25 years here? Gunfire. Funny, that. I wonder what the difference between there and here might be. Hmm. I wonder whether it might have to do with the relative difficulty and expense involved in assembling an arsenal up here, and the relative attention paid to firearms offences. Hmm.

I did call the cops one time about a possible firearm thing. I was annoyed by the repeated beeping and honking of a series of cars that had pulled up on my block whose drivers were all locking their doors by remote control. I looked out the window, and saw one driver stoop down by his door, on the other side of his car from me, and pick up a longish narrow object carefully wrapped in a green garbage bag. Maybe two feet long and six inches deep. I watched him go around the corner. As this was going on, my neighbour's daughter had pulled into her driveway and entered her house. I saw her looking out her window, and I called over to see whether she'd observed the phenomenon: about six cars arriving simultaneously, 10 or 12 Asian men getting out and heading around the corner. (We have "Asian gangs" here.) She had. I asked whether she had seen what the driver in front of her house had picked up. She had. And what did it look like to her? A gun. She had seen where the men were going. So I called the cops. The cop who came to the door listened to my account, and informed me that that was not what guns looked like, and asked what I wanted him to do. I guess asking him to do his job and investigate the report was a bit much.

Anyhow, other than that, we did have someone try to hold up the 7-11 on the corner with a pocket knife once. As I heard it, the clerk laughed at him and called the cops. Where you are, he would pretty surely have had a handgun. Where I am, he wouldn't have had a clue how to get a handgun, and couldn't have afforded it if he did.

But do buy some more guns. That must be the solution to your problems. I mean, it sure seems to be working well, eh?

[spin]

83. Yes, there is racism in the United States unfortunately...

However I believe we are making some headway in that area. You can gauge the progress by the fact that a black candidate running for President has gathered a remarkable level of support among white voters. His opponent appears to be trying to inject racism into the campaign and if she succeeds in fanning this fire, she may win but the inferno she ignites will damage race relations here for years.

My two grandchildren have two close black friends who visit our house on an almost daily basis. After I posted my last reply to you, one stopped by and I asked him about the gunfire on New Year. He mentioned crawling on the floor to the refrigerator to get a snack. He lives in the worst part of town where dealing drugs is considered a lucrative profession. I believe his bother is in prison and I can only hope that he receives the education and the opportunity to live a better life.

I once had a diversity class at work conducted by a very intelligent black instructor. He said, "This Company is like a boat and the employees are the rowers. If we all row together, we'll reach the other shore. If, however, some of us row, some slack off, and some drill holes in the bottom of the boat...the best we can hope for is to go in circles." This analogy can also apply to our country.

I agree that more weapons will not solve the violence problem. That's why I'm so disgusted at the total failure of our government to address the root causes of violence and find solutions that work. Based on the recent performance of the people we have elected, I have little belief that this will happen. Americans have little faith in, or respect for our government for good reason. Many people here feel the politicians in Washington serve only their corporate masters.

We would have an extremely difficult time achieving the level of gun control you have in Canada. Firearm ownership is deeply ingrained in our society as a right guaranteed by our constitution. Efforts to confiscate weapons would at the minimum result in resistance and at the most rebellion. True, the government might succeed in the end, but only by destroying our representative democracy as it exists today. Guns would probably still exist, but the majority of those remaining would be in the hands of the criminal element. Perhaps in the future, technology might offer a solution to this problem by being able to detect concealed weapons on a person from a distance. Street mounted cameras and high flying reconnaissance drones might reduce the crime rate. Of course, privacy and individual rights would suffer.

I found your description of where you live fascinating. Unless your local police take effective action to control the gang problem, you may well hear gunfire in the future. Organized crime can be a very competitive profession. Gangs tend to fight over turf. Guns may be hard to legally obtain but can easily be smuggled across borders. I sincerely hope I am wrong. Here in the states Canada has a good reputation as a nice place to live. A bit on the cold and snowy side for my taste.

I'm still interested in your opinions on the Canadian medical system. We seem to be unable to resolve the problem of health care in our nation.

[iverglas]

84. a funny thing happened on the way to that post

As originally composed, it did reply to the healthcare question. As I was fixing to finish, Norton pitched a fit and flashed an intruder alert at me. I'd never seen such a thing. I asked for more info, copied it down, and tried to go look up the IP address it gave me. At that point, everything stopped working and I had to shut firefox etc. down. Started back up, everything was fine. But lost the post. Turns out the alleged intruder was coming from my own ISP. I have no clue.

Anyhow.

How do you feel about the medical system in your country? Should we consider implementing something similar in the U.S.?

Anyone who doesn't want what we have is off his/her rocker.

But -- we did not build our Rome in a day. It took decades to construct the system we have now. And we weren't even dealing with the insurance industry as it exists today in the US.

I think Joe Biden has it right. He may take a long time to say it ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OgcKGWwWlE&mode=related&search=

I think that is an intelligent approach: start out with heavy duty market regulation, and build on progress. I think universal single public payer health insurance in a single presidential term is probably pie in the sky.

What I was doing when I apparently got attacked was looking at a page at the Des Moines Register that has little interviews with the candidates asking them surprise questions. One was: where would you live if you couldn't live in the US? Some of the answers were refreshing. Hilary Clinton's was that she was just sooooooo American she could never live anywhere else. I was already a huge Biden fan (had been since the Clarence Thomas hearings), so I wasn't surprised to hear his immediate and unhesitating answer. ;)

A site to consult:

http://www.healthcoalition.ca/

Critique of healthcare policy here from the left.

And the timeline of how we got what he have today:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/pubs/system-regime/2005-hcs-sss/time-chron_e.html


I've mentioned my dad's death. From the moment he went to the ER on a Saturday night to the moment he died at my sister's home 6 weeks later, we had one out of pocket expense. The Dr prescribed sublingual Atavan during the two days he was at home at the end, since he was mainly not conscious and so couldn't swallow. The public senior cits' drug plan didn't cover the sublingual type. I paid $25. If I'd been at my home pharmacy, the owner, a great community-minded guy, would have waived the $2 copay if the seniors' plan had applied. Had it been for myself, I would have had to pay too. My province doesn't have pharmacare, and I don't have a private/group supplemental insurance plan.

While in hospital my dad had a lung biopsy, bone scans, x-rays, radiation therapy, no MRI because he had a pacemaker but he would otherwise have had it on 2 days' notice, daily attendance by an internist, an oncologist and an orthopedic surgeon and all of the medications prescribed while he was there; and at home (a 30 minute ambulance ride), a very fancy hospital bed, morphine drip, visiting nurse, doctor on call, and various accessories like minty mouth moisteners. When asked what this cost us, we say what pretty much every Canadian says: hmm; parking is damned expensive at hospitals.

In my province, the health insurance plan is tax-funded. Some provinces have nominal sliding scale premiums ranging from $0 to about $100 a month for a family. No copays or deductibles, no maximums; "extra billing" by providers is outlawed.

I must go trudge home through the snow now.

[spin]

94. Thanks for your reply...

Most modern industrial nations have a system of heath care that would undoubtedly be superior to our system.

Our problem in the states is that we get many conflicting views on what works and what doesn't. My fear is that corporate interests will, through their control of the media, promote plans that are more beneficial to them than to the average citizen. When I get a chance, I always try to ask people from other countries about their medical system. Just one way to cut through the bullshit us mushrooms are fed.

I was sorry to hear of your dad's death but glad to hear that the medical establishment was not allowed to suck his or your wallet dry before he died.

My two grandchildren became uninsured when their father lost his job due to the economic downturn. One grandson needs some complicated tests to determine the cause of his frequent migraine headaches. The process to get him on Florida Kid Care was long and somewhat involved. Fortunately the father has landed another job, and now the grandkids are covered. I suspect the tests will still involve some significant out of pocket expense and it is possible the insurance company might not cover the cost using the "preexisting condition" clause.

We need to push our politicians hard to improve our system so that it is affordable and doesn't allow people to fall through the cracks. Yes, it might increase our tax burden, but done properly, it could significantly improve our quality of life.

It many not happen overnight. It may need to be improved as time goes along. But it is a worthwhile effort to support.

Thanks again for your conversation and your views both on guns and medical care. They have proved enlightening and interesting.

Good luck on your computer.Modern technology is great when it works but a real pain when something or someone screws it up.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

85. Your opinion

Don't you understand that spin's guns, my guns and in general law abiding citizens guns are not the problem. Yes there are a few gun accidents (here and in Canada) but according to the data (FBI Expanded Homicide Data Table 9, 2006) in cases in which the killer is identified it shows that most people killed with guns are murdered by an acquaintance (not friend or relative) or a stranger. Most of the time these crimes are committed with illegally obtained or possessed firearms. In my line of work I have seen that to be the case, that's anecdotal though. I'm glad Canada doesn't have our problems count yourself lucky. If it's so bad here though, why do you choose to visit the United States? Funny how lots of people who don't live here like to talk about how bad the United States is and still love to vacation here. To answer your question though my legal possession of firearms is working just fine for me and when I have more money I will legally go buy more firearms. So thanks for the advice, I'll take you up on it.

David

[iverglas]

86. well, I try

If it's so bad here though, why do you choose to visit the United States? Funny how lots of people who don't live here like to talk about how bad the United States is and still love to vacation here.

I really did make it clear in this thread that I haven't been in the US for 5 years, despite living an hour from the border. And that trip was for the sole purpose of collecting the belongings of my father who had died. He spent his last few winters in Florida, for several reasons (separations from my mother, being old and finding winter hard -- a large majority of the world's population doesn't live in the climate we have in most of Canada, and climate doesn't actually know political borders). But he'd decided not to go back the next year, largely because of the political climate. In the 15 years before that trip, I'd made 5 trips to the US -- one to visit my father who was depressed and lonely, two for business (to Atlanta) with pleasure side trips, and two for family reasons: my then co-vivant was from Texas, so it was one wedding and a funeral.

Before that, I used to go on short trips from time to time, several times combining driving trips to the Canadian and US east coast. Geography isn't politics; I like the ocean, and Maine is closer than Nova Scotia. I also simply like seeing and learning about new and different things. I picked up hitchhikers in the US and got to know people I would otherwise never have met. The older woman in Maine living in rural poverty -- I'd driven her a few miles out of her way and declined the few dollars she tried to press on me, saying I'd trade for using her bathroom. (I don't seem to plan these things too well, do I ...). Until we got to her tarpapered ex-mobile home and I realized she didn't have one. On the way from Florida to Louisiana, I picked up a young man who was taking his last vacation before signing up for the military. I was curious why. He said: Have you heard of Nostradamus? Yes, he'd done the math and realized that if he did his military service then, he'd be exempt from the draft that would be inevitable once the final battle came. In Chicago in ... 1988, was it? ... I saw Dukakis and Ferraro campaigning in a torchlight parade, and Bush II at a big rally at a sports arena. And saw the face of embedded, systemic racism when I found myself shopping in the department store obviously not frequented by people of my colour. And smoked and drank Courvoisier in a dark corner of a jazz bar on North Michigan with a charming young reference librarian who had stocked his library's shelves with the works of Leon Trotsky, and then found a young man bleeding to death on the front lawn of his apartment building, apparently a victim of the drug-related violence just then coming to his neighbourhood (baseball bat to the head, not firearm). I've seen the sun set and the full moon rise over Death Valley. I've never been to Disney World, but I've been to a lot of interesting places that just happen to be in the US. Unfortunately, I'm not comfortable seeing any more just now. The unpleasant border control processes now in place are probably the major factor, but there are others.


... according to the data (FBI Expanded Homicide Data Table 9, 2006) in cases in which the killer is identified it shows that most people killed with guns are murdered by an acquaintance (not friend or relative) or a stranger. Most of the time these crimes are committed with illegally obtained or possessed firearms.

The homicide rate, and the nature of homicides, is only one aspect of the problem, and it is not the one I focus on exclusively.

And every firearm that is illegally obtained and used to kill or to rob or to intimidate or to protect other illegal activities that harm people and communities was first obtained legally by someone.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

92. Confused

I guess I was confused by your earlier post where you were discussing having visited more states on the east coast than most people on this board. It left the impression that you had spent a great deal of time in the United States. Regardless, which aspect of the problem do you focus on exclusively? lastly, I would have to disagree with your last statement, firearms obtained through straw purchases are never obtained legally, firearms acquired on the black market are never obtained legally.

David

[iverglas]

93. confusion

Over the course of the last 45 or so years, I have made numerous trips to the US, varying in length from a few hours (when I decided to drive part of the Montreal-Toronto trip on the US side of the border, out of boredom with the 401 on this side, or to go for dinner in Port Huron, out of the paucity of decent restaurants in Sarnia at the time) to three weeks or so. I've spent time in Boston, New York, DC, Chicago, and various other large cities in the east. I've vacationed on the east coast of Lake Michigan and up and down the Atlantic coast. I've spent time in the tri-city area of Illinois and Iowa on the Mississippi, and the surrounding area, like Wisconsin. I've camped in at Town Lake in Austin, and stayed with friend's family in Plano and Richardson, and slept in the room where the homemade bullets were made, by the father who couldn't get treatment for a serious injury a couple of years later because his wife's company had been sold and the insurance plan hadn't kicked back in yet. I've driven the highways and biways of the desert and hills around Las Vegas (when you're not a gambler, the cheap casino packages are still useful) and spent time around Lake Champlain and throughout New England. I've stayed with friends on the outskirts of Detroit and Baltimore. I've listened to the bluegrass NPR station at a university in Tennessee and every other NPR station that I have passed or stayed within earshot of (sometimes on this side of the border, along those boring miles of the 401 near the border). Speaking of which, let us not forget that on basic cable here I get NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and Fox (and BBC World and France's TV5), and I subscribe for digital MSNBC. A Canadian can be intimately familiar with things in the US without ever getting up off his/her chesterfield.

Sunset/moonrise over Death Valley was one of those peak experiences. Almost running out of gas before reaching the one pump in the valley kind of was too. So was sitting at the edge of the continent in Eastport, Maine, at sunset, surrounded by pink clouds obscuring the ocean.

And so were sunset and sunrise on the main square where the musicians gathered in Santiago de Cuba, and the 12-hour overnight domestic bus trip back to Havana and being stopped before dawn by people in military uniforms with torches and required to disembark and re-embark for reasons unknown, until you inquired of your seatmate and learned they were implementing measures to prevent the spread of pig diseases from province to province. And being interrogated by a one-armed colonel with an eyepatch when you inadvertently started snapping pix of a military camp, and being let off with a warning (and your xmas photo film intact) because you're obviously just a moron, albeit a good socialist moron. And standing in the presence of Stonehenge.

And of course here at geopolitical home there have been the rainy drive through the old old mountaints while hitchhiking up the east coast of Newfoundland, the stunningly cloudless and starry summer sky over the midnight drive from Edmonton to Calgary, the northern lights over my own house, the frozen expanse of northern Lake Superior in mid-February as seen from a U-drive car whose heater has died.

Geography isn't politics. And people aren't their governments. And travel anywhere is always worthwhile, if you pay attention to all of what is opened up to you.



Regardless, which aspect of the problem do you focus on exclusively?

The problem being ... I'm not sure. In any event, I seldom focus on one aspect of a problem exclusively, and I don't think I do in this instance, whatever it is.

Harm reduction is the idea that the harms present in a situation can be reduced without having to eliminate those "root causes", while at the same time working on the root causes.

The spread of disease via contaminated IV drug use equipment can be reduced by providing free needles. That doesn't mean you don't offer treatment, and don't do prevention work. But you don't ignore the fact that contaminated needles are a source of a serious problem and can be addressed independently.

Death, injury, crime and the terrorizing of communities can be reduced by reducing access to firearms. That doesn't mean you don't work to develop the economy, increase equity in the distribution of resources, empower women and protect them from violence, eliminate racial discrimination, develop community resources, and so on and on. But you don't just ignore the fact that inappropriate access to firearms is a source of problems and can be addressed independently. Reducing the influence of one factor in a complex equation really can affect outcomes.


firearms obtained through straw purchases are never obtained legally, firearms acquired on the black market are never obtained legally.

My statement actually was:

And every firearm that is illegally obtained ... was first obtained legally by someone.

What are you disagreeing with? If there was a straw purchase, the person who made the sale had acquired the firearm legally. If a firearm is acquired on the black market, it had already been obtained -- whether through sale or theft -- from someone who obtained it legally. No such thing as an "illegal firearm", right? There is a point in the life of every "illegal firearm" where it was "legal", and that is the point at which control is required: measures that prevent the illegal transfer or theft of "legal" firearms, i.e. that can be expected to reduce the incidence of such transfers and thefts. Anything else is just locking the barn door.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

96. Don't get defensive

I was just explaining how I got confused. Your statement that Homicides are not the aspect that you focus on exclusively, seems to imply that you do focus on a particular area exclusively, hence the question. But thanks for explaining. I agree with you on travel, I have been fortunate to have the opportunity to travel around lot of Europe, North America, Southeast Asia and many of the States in the US. I have learned a lot from those experiences. I don't agree though that the news is always a good source for forming opinions, all I have heard about France for years is the horrible unemployment, bad economy and Muslim riots. I have a few friends from France and I know that isn't an accurate depiction of their country.

Harm reduction (interesting phrase) doesn't seem to be accomplished by reducing the amount of legally owned firearms. I would point to Chicago and Washington DC as places with virtual bans on legally owned guns and extremely high rates of gun crime. Other countries with lots legally owned firearms don't seem to have the same violence problems as the US.

I assumed you were talking about firearms that were obtained by citizens not dealers. So to clarify unless the firearms were stolen from the manufacturer they were legally obtained by someone. Firearms have been stolen from manufacturers so I still disagree with your statement. If you said most I would agree. There are laws in place to prevent the illegal transfer of firearms, they are largely unenforced. Most of the pro-gun people on this board have no problem with most of the existing gun laws and wish that they were enforced. We are generally not to keen on new gun laws that will affect us, when the existing gun laws aren't enforced. I think that's a reasonable point of view. Obviously though some people do not.

David

[iverglas]

100. reduction

Harm reduction (interesting phrase) doesn't seem to be accomplished by reducing the amount of legally owned firearms. I would point to Chicago and Washington DC as places with virtual bans on legally owned guns and extremely high rates of gun crime.

(Harm reduction is a well known and extensively written about principle of social policy. Just google it and you'll find all sorts of things to read. Most material on line relates to illicit drugs, but the principle is applicable to many problems.)

The number of illegally owned firearms in a country like the US can reasonably be assumed to be related to the number of legally owned firearms in that country. Illegally owned firearms in the US are not, for the most part, coming from outside the country. They are coming from people and businesses in legal possession of firearms: by intentional illegal transfer, unintentional illegal transfer and theft.

There are orders of magnitude fewer illegally owned firearms in Canada, the UK and Australia, for instance, that there are in the US (speaking proportionately, of course). It would really seem very reasonable to infer that a significant factor is the lower rate of legal firearm ownership in those countries. (Licensing and registration are obviously other significant factors, since they are strong deterrents to illegal transfers by legal owners.)

No comparable country on earth has the high rate of firearms ownership that the US has -- but the most important factor is that no comparable country on earth has anywhere near the rate of handgun ownership that the US has. Canada may have a relatively high rate of firearms ownership per household, for example, but the vast, overwhelming majority of those firearms are hunting weapons. While those weapons are used here to commit homicides and other crimes, because handguns are scarce and expensive on the black market, they simply are not as convenient to use for most of the purposes for which handguns are used, and particular can't be carried around easily and inserted into situations so that deaths and injuries occur, and crimes are committed, that would otherwise not have occurred.

Handguns are the huge difference between the US and comparable countries.

Every firearm in existence that is legally owned has the potential to become illegally owned -- by voluntary transfer or theft.

To point to a single tiny jurisdiction in the US -- Washington DC, which has no control over the flow of goods and people across its "borders" -- as some sort of proof that tight restrictions on legal firearms possession does not affect the rate of illegal firearms possession / use simply makes no sense. And I really find it hard to believe that you haven't figured that out.


So to clarify unless the firearms were stolen from the manufacturer they were legally obtained by someone. Firearms have been stolen from manufacturers so I still disagree with your statement.

No, you're disagreeing with your statement. *I* said that all firearms were legally owned by someone at some time. That includes manufacturers, which are in perfectly legal possession of the firearms they manufacture. Firearms are not born "illegal", unless they actually were cooked up in the bathtub like gin.

At some point, every firearm that is illegally in someone's possession was legally in someone else's possession (or even the same person's possession, if that person became ineligible to posess it after acquiring it).


There are laws in place to prevent the illegal transfer of firearms, they are largely unenforced.

Actually, they are largely unenforceable. How do you enforce a law against straw purchases where there is no record of the purchase and no record of ownership? How do you enforce a law against the transfer of firearms to ineligible persons when there is no way for a member of the public to determine whether the person to whom s/he might transfer a firearm is eligible? How do you reduce the risk that legally owned firearms will be stolen if you don't impose any secure storage requirements?


Most of the pro-gun people on this board have no problem with most of the existing gun laws and wish that they were enforced. We are generally not to keen on new gun laws that will affect us, when the existing gun laws aren't enforced.

And the fact that the existing laws are simply ineffective to achieve the purposes you purport to be so eager to achieve just doesn't seem to matter.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

97. Never did answer my other question

You wrote, "Target shooting is a sport. Practising that sport no more involves preparing to execute that evildoer waiting around the next corner than French cooking involves preparing to eviscerate said evildoer."


I'll ask again, if target shooting doesn't prepare you to shoot someone who is about to harm you, then why do the police and the military practice shooting at targets?


David

[iverglas]

101. lordy lordy lordy

if target shooting doesn't prepare you to shoot someone who is about to harm you, then why do the police and the military practice shooting at targets?

Learning to type prepared me for writing my doctoral dissertation.

Oops. I never wrote a doctoral dissertation. But if I had, learning to type would have prepared me for it.

The fact that Person A engages in Activity X for Purpose 1 does not mean that Person B does not engage in Activity Y for Purpose 2.

I may have learned how to type, and continued typing, because I discovered that typing was fun. Someone else in the class may have learned how to type in order to write a doctoral dissertation -- and then either written the doctoral dissertation or not.

If I ever had to write a doctoral dissertation -- and I had a typewriter handy -- I'd be able to do it. If I made sure never to have a typewriter in my home or office, I guess I still wouldn't be able to do it, no matter how proficient I was at typing.

Now we put it all together.

If I decided to take up target shooting, because it was fun, I would quite possibly be prepared to shoot someone who was trying to harm me, if I had a firearm at the time it occurred.

If I did not have a firearms at the time someone tried to harm me, I would not be prepared to shoot him/her, no matter how good a shot I was.

And no matter how much target practice I engaged in, and how good I got at it, I would never have a firearm anywhere near me outside the range, so I would not be prepared to shoot anyone.

And I would NOT have engaged in target shooting in order to be prepared to shoot any person. Period.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

108. Another evasive non-answer.

You didn't make the same stipulations in your previous post. You said, "Target shooting is a sport. Practicing that sport no more involves preparing to execute that evildoer waiting around the next corner than French cooking involves preparing to eviscerate said evildoer." Clearly you are not referring to yourself in this statement. Thanks for the condescension though it's a nice touch. I'll rewrite the question though so you won't be confused.


If target shooting doesn't prepare the police officer or soldier to shoot someone who is about to harm them, then why do the police and the military practice target shooting?

I didn't say that was the only thing that target shooting prepared target shooters for, but to effectively and safely use a firearm for self defense or defense of others, target shooting is in fact the best way to learn how to load, aim, fire, reload, clear jams, etc. all of which may come in handy if someone is to use a firearm in a stressful situation. A competent target shooter will stand a better chance of using a firearm effectively to defend their self, than will someone who has never handled a firearm. The target shooters intent is irrelevant to the fact that as a target shooter that person will be more prepared to defend their self.

David

[iverglas]

109. jeezus gawd

Now if I answer that question, will you make up another one again?

Your question was:

I'll ask again, if target shooting doesn't prepare you to shoot someone who is about to harm you, then why do the police and the military practice shooting at targets?

I DID NOT SAY "target shooting doesn't prepare you to shoot someone who is about to harm you".

WHAT I SAID -- in response to a gratuitous reference to carrying a concealed firearm in a discussion about sports shooting -- WAS:

Practising that sport no more involves preparing to execute that evildoer waiting around the next corner than French cooking involves preparing to eviscerate said evildoer.

IF I TOOK UP TARGET SHOOTING, I WOULD NOT BE PREPARING TO SHOOT ***ANYONE***.

If I took up baton twirling, I would not be preparing to enter a beauty contest.

If I took up horseback riding, I would not be preparing to join the foxhunt.

If I took up writing science fiction, I would not be preparing to write I, Robot.

SOMEONE ELSE who took up any of those things might indeed be preparing to do one of those other things.

But a person TAKING UP A HOBBY that COULD PREPARE someone to do something else IS NOT EQUAL to the hobby preparing the person to do something that S/HE WILL NEVER DO.


If target shooting doesn't prepare the police officer or soldier to shoot someone who is about to harm them, then why do the police and the military practice target shooting?

I DID NOT SAY that target shooting doesn't prepare the police officer blah blah blah.

So where does this "if ... then ..." come from??

There's no "if" to be addressed to me, so there's no "then" for me to respond to.


I didn't say that was the only thing that target shooting prepared target shooters for, but to effectively and safely use a firearm for self defense or defense of others, target shooting is in fact the best way to learn how to load, aim, fire, reload, clear jams, etc.

I have no doubt it is.

And learning how to twirl a baton expertly may be the best way to get into a beauty contest.

But not everybody who takes up baton twirling is preparing to enter a beauty contest.

Got it?


A competent target shooter will stand a better chance of using a firearm effectively to defend their self, than will someone who has never handled a firearm.

And if the target shooter NEVER HAS A FIREARM OUTSIDE THE SHOOTING RANGE, and NEVER WISHES TO SHOOT A HUMAN BEING, s/he will be completely unprepared to shoot anyone, and will stand no chance of using a firearm in any way for anything ever. Except target shooting at a shooting range.


Not everybody who takes up baton twirling will be PREPARED to enter a beauty contest.

Just as not everybody who takes up target shooting will be PREPARED to shoot human beings.

[DrCory]

119. Request for Clarification

"I oppoes the present policy that allows sports shooters to store handguns on their own premises, so I wouldn't be doing it!"

Only handguns? Or do you oppose the continuous possession of all firearms in the home?

[virginia mountainman]

25. CCW is more of a lifestyle...

Collecting firearms IS a hobby...

I know MANY CCW holders whom only own one carry gun, and no others...

Likewise, I know MANY gun collectors, who do NOT, have a carry gun, or a CCW permit.

[unclebob]

73. That would be me.

I just have never got around to getting a CCW, but own many firearms. I collect what I can afford to.. but I enjoy target shooting and they are locked up when not in use WITH alarm system as well as gun safe.

I would consider myself a collector.

We can open carry here (and its pretty common) so perhaps thats why I have never felt the need to get a CCW.

[shireen]

36. EricTeri was just passing along some information to me ... no sinister meaning hidden in it

Originally, I took the class for personal safety reasons. I never expected to enjoy it so much, and I never expected to want to take up target shooting as a hobby. As someone new to this hobby, and as a soon-to-be gun owner, I've appreciated the encouraging responses from EricTeri and other gun-enthusiasts in this forum.

As a single woman in Baltimore (which has a high crime rate that keeps getting higher), I feel safer knowing that I have the option to use a gun if I need to defend myself or another person against physical harm. Taking the gun education classes helps me to use the weapon responsibly and learn the best techniques to defend myself and others. As far as a CCW permit is concerned, I'm not planning to get one but I do appreciate EricTeri's comments about it. My gun will be for home defense, in addition to recreational target shooting.

Most men do not worry about being victims of violent crimes as much as women. Even then, some choose to own firearms for self-defense. Nothing wrong with that. They (referring to responsible gun owners) may have other reasons as well, and before taking the firearms classes, I never gave it much thought. But now, I understand their enthusiasm. Their reasons are actually quite simple: it's interesting, and it's fun!

Some anti-gun people may respond, what about the rampant gun violence that kills and injures thousands each year? Those are socio-economic and public health issues, and until the abuse of guns is addressed in those root terms, criminal gun violence problems will never be resolved. Taking away the legal right to own guns is a band-aid on a gushing wound. People who want to maliciously hurt other people will find ways to do it, using illegally-acquired guns and just about anything that can be used as a weapon, from cars to wheelbarrows. The only way to stop them is by addressing their reasons for wanting to harm others. These are complex problems that cannot be solved overnight, that require intelligent, compassionate, innovative, and PROGRESSIVE solutions. That's why I believe that banning guns to curb gun violence is lazy, over-simplistic, and just plain stupid.

Since spending time at the gun forum, I've been astonished at the comments from some (not all) anti-gun advocates. Their posts can best be characterized as illogical hysterical knee-jerk attacks. They don't seem interested in civil and intelligent discussions about firearms issues. On the other hand, I may not agree 100% with the views of gun owners who frequent this forum. But, so far, they have been respectful, helpful, encouraging, and where there are disagreements, they've educated me about different points-of-view.

[EricTeri]

37. If you werent in B-more...

I'd almost think you were my girlfriend posting under a secret identity...

VERY good post Shireen - and excellent points. Oddly, your last paragraph echoes the very thing that stood out to me when I first started looking into firearms myself.

Glad you discovered you enjoy them, both for fun and personal protection.

[shireen]

38. LOL! I assure you I'm not ... but please tell her I said "hi"

:hi:

[iverglas]

42. sure is lucky you're ignoring me

Otherwise I might have to ask what the hell any of that had to do with anything in the post of mine you were purporting to be replying to.

Blah de blah blah blah.

Violins.
Broad brushes.
Just plain dumbass things to say.
Anything you've missed you'd like to add?

By the way, pretty much everything you've said about firearms violence applies to, oh, diphtheria. All that socioeconomic burble. Contaminated drinking water is, after all, the curse of the impoverished and underdeveloped.

Damn funny thing how vaccination can prevent diphtheria without anybody having to wait for all those other problems to be solved, ain't it?

Take the contagion out of the equation, and people don't die of the disease.

Take the firearms out of the equation ...

Now you're probably not as curious about things as I am, so you probably think I would propose that firearms be removed from society. "Think" might be too big a word there. I don't. (But don't let that stop you from flailing away at the straw "banning guns" thang that folks hereabouts are so fond of beating up on.) But I'd have your handgun in a wink if you were within gun-grabbing distance. Watch out!!1!1!! You never know what the bogeywoman might get up to when you've got that blindfold on.

Oh yeah. That's "woman". I went and gave it away again. But hey, you feel free to keep telling me all about what it's like to be a defenceless girl.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. Just one question?

How do you make sure everyone gets the vaccine? I'm glad to know though that you are in favor of concealed carry and the 2nd amendment, you learn something new everyday, I guess.

David

[iverglas]

45. I give up

I'm glad to know though that you are in favor of concealed carry and the 2nd amendment, you learn something new everyday, I guess.

I'm pretty sure you were talking to somebody else here, but I just can't figure out who it was.

I am opposed to people promenading around in public with firearms, and to permitting people to do so, and I am neither in favour nor not in favour of that second amendment because it is of the most supreme irrelevance to me. I do find it sublimely meaningless, but that's neither here nor there.


How do you make sure everyone gets the vaccine?

Funny thing. In a lot of places in the world, people don't tend to kick up a huge stink about doing things that are obviously going to save lives, possibly their own. You make sure everyone gets it by making it free and easily accessible, basically.

And if you do encounter morons who want to kick up some huge stink about it, you make rules like "no child may attend school unless vaccinated against diphtheria". Of course, you also don't let morons "homeschool" children to avoid that requirement or for any other moronic reason.

When you're dealing with a population that contains a significant proportion of self-absorbed, self-centred, self-interested cretins who don't even have the sense to see that nobody is really going to steal their navels if they take their eyes off them for a moment, well, your results may indeed differ.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

50. Clearly you don't read the Health Forum much.

Daily posts on the dangers of vaccines, supposed links between autism and vaccines. All posted by good rational liberals, clearly without much common sense but so are a lot of people in the world. Who has suggested that people promenade around in public with firearms? I know lots of people who carry concealed firearms and I can't think of one instance where one was displayed in public. Sorry to hear you don't care about civil rights they are a good thing you know.

David

[iverglas]

52. clearly I don't pay attention to the ravings

of people who are by definition not rational. I'm not a "liberal", so that credential holds no water here. I don't doubt that people who actually believe in the "supposed links" between autism and vaccines may be good, but that's of no relevance to the merits of their opinions.


Who has suggested that people promenade around in public with firearms? I know lots of people who carry concealed firearms and I can't think of one instance where one was displayed in public.

Reigning monarch of the non sequitur, I see we have here.


Sorry to hear you don't care about civil rights they are a good thing you know.

And just as sorry to hear you are covered in purple polka dots. They make creams for that, you know.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

54. Nice dodge there.

So again, the question was who has suggested that people promenade around in public with firearms?


I will separate the sentences here, so you can understand. I'm a huge fan of vaccines, my work in public health would pretty much require it. I can see how you got confused, well not really considering I said the anti-vaccine people didn't have much common sense, but that's ok. I did find your dismissal of one of your Civil Rights disturbing, but you are entitled to your opinion.

David

[iverglas]

58. I really, really, really am not following your discourse

So again, the question was who has suggested that people promenade around in public with firearms?

Are you confusing the word "promenade" with some other word?

I haven't used it as a transitive verb, so we can't be thinking that I meant "display". You can substitute "walk", if that will make it simpler.


I did find your dismissal of one of your Civil Rights disturbing, but you are entitled to your opinion.

The civil rights I have include things like the right to enter into contracts, bargain collectively, receive benefits under public programs, vote, and that sort of thing. The rights that accrue to me as a member of my particular society.

The human rights I have include the right to life, liberty and security of the person. The rights I am considered to have been born with.

The constitutional rights I have include the right not to be deprived of life, liberty or security of the person (human rights protected by my constitution) except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, the right to counsel and to a fair trial, the right to the equal protection and benefit of the law, the right to vote federally (a civil right protected by my constitution), and this that and the other suchlike thing.

Some people do confuse "civil rights" and human/fundamental rights. They aren't the same thing. Civil rights are rights held by virtue of one's status as a member of a particular group (generally, citizenship of a particular nation/state). Human rights are rights by virtue of one's status as a member of the human species.

If the right to possess firearms is a civil right, then fine; it can be granted to citizens within a particular nation/state only, for instance, if that's the decision. It can be subject to eligibility tests, like the right to vote. And it can just be done away with, as long as it's done away with for everyone. Then it just ceases to be a civil right.

If the right to possess firearms is a human right, then fine too; it belongs to everyone, regardless of any status other than membership in the human species, and is not subject to any eligibilty test, and is not subject to interference by any nation/state except where justified to the serious extent required for such interference. I don't lose my right to life or liberty when I visit your country, because they are human rights and neither your government nor mine has any jurisdiction over them. On the other hand, I don't have a right to vote in your country, because that is a civil right over which your governments have jurisdiction.

So which is this possessing of firearms? A fundamental/human right, or a civil right?

It's one thing when it's convenient (when it's being taken away from "felons" and denied to children and the psychologically disabled), and it's another thing when it's convenient (when it's time for a big rant about fine and high-minded ideals and how some people just don't share them). In reality, it can be only one or the other, and it makes rather a difference which it is. I wish somebody would decide.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

64. Thanks

Promenade-a stroll or walk, esp. in a public place, as for pleasure or display

You can understand my confusion, since I'm just a dumb old fireman. You won't know if they are walking around in public with concealed weapons, so it shouldn't be a problem.

As to the civil/human rights issue, next week I believe SCOTUS will hear a case and render a decision that will give us some guidance on the matter.

You wrote,"I don't lose my right to life or liberty when I visit your country,"

Does that mean you aren't a US citizen?

David

[virginia mountainman]

8. Yep, I collect HISTORICAL weapons as well!

Here is my LATEST acquisition..

A German WWII K98-k Mauser..



Be aware, that rifle has a (GASP) Bayonet lug...:wow:

This happens to be an immense amount of history that that rifle has had a part of....

If someone wants to hear it, just ask...

EDIT, also just noticed that it also has the "EVIL" according to Carolyne McCarthy "barrel shroud", you know, "that thing that goes up"... Except on this rifle, it is called a "hand guard" and since it is called a "hand guard" instead of barrel shroud, it will be ok.

[L1A1Rocker]

13. Some people even have a C & R license.

[shireen]

17. what's that? nt

[davepc]

18. Curio & Relics

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/curios/index.htm

[shireen]

19. thanks, i'm new to this. still learning the "language"

:)

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shireen]

39. LOL! Keep making an ass of yourself ... it's quite entertaining.

:rofl:

One of my previous posts addressed your pathetic little expose of my gun threads on DU. Wow ... I'm impressed. You know how to use the DU advanced search features.

buh-bye, have a nice life....

[iverglas]

41. I will! I will!

I'll have a lovely life! You may actually think that something you've said will wound me, or that being "ignored" by you will cut me. I dunno.

Glad you're impressed. I haven't been.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

46. You are in favor of that too???

I had no idea you were also in favor of the removal of waiting periods. I really have learned a lot about you. Seems to me she took quite some time to consider the ramifications and responsibility of owning a gun, and after she decided that she would use a weapon to defend herself, she went out and bought one. Hmmm, a gun owner taking the time to make a clear rational decision. Not the way you usually choose to portray them. How's the weather in Atlanta anyway?

David

[iverglas]

49. I'm pretty sure

that I'm not the one making a public spectacle of myself here.

I'm tempted to explain very slowly what the "slow process" I was referring to here was, but I either don't need to or would never be able to do it slowly enough, I'm afraid.


Not the way you usually choose to portray them. How's the weather in Atlanta anyway?

What are you talking about, and who's your imaginary friend, anyway?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. Not from Atlanta??

Sorry then, could of sworn that you were. My fault, I apologize. I don't think much of Georgia either though, to your credit that you aren't from there. I'll give more credit to your posts. Just Kidding, a little South Eastern Conference rivalry ribbing to my fine Georgia neighbors. I haven't seen as many posts from you though, as I used to, hope all is well.

David

[iverglas]

53. Atlanta

I've had some fine fried chicken there. And picked up a hitchhiker there ... and that turns into a long, long tale. And got let off a major speeding ticket by a cop who seemed to buy the story that my speedometer only showed kilometres. We girls can't do fractions in our head. (Miles x .625 = kilometres)

In between the fried chicken and the hitchhiker on that trip, I found myself in the food court of the Omni building (I think it's the Turner building now), becoming a little anxious because I'd forgotten to use the facilities at the office where I had been taking a meeting. I went up to a counter and asked where the washroom was, and the young fellow behind the counter stared at me and said, "you mean, like a place to wash your clothes?" "No", I said, being rather in need of getting my point across at that point, "I mean a place to pee." Just no accounting for dialect differences.

Now Baltimore, haven't got to see too much of that, but the waterfront is pretty at night. Baltimore, of course, was briefly in the real football league on the continent.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

57. My apologies.

That washroom story is priceless. I was at Walter Reed Army Medical center for a few months in 1992, never got to Baltimore though. Thank you for the respectful discussion.

David

[bossy22]

23. just got mine

earlier this month....bought an Enfield No.4 Mk1

[gorfle]

14. Note it is not a machine gun.

Per BAFTE, hand-cranked "gatling" guns and their variants are not considered Class III weapons (machine guns). Anyone can own one with no special paperwork.

[spin]

15. Shooting is a very enjoyable hobby....

I've enjoyed target shooting for 38 years.

When I was in the Air Force and had to go through the yearly qualification with a rifle I used to bitch about it to my wife. When I got home she would ask me how it went. When I mentioned that it had been kinda fun she would razz me about complaining beforehand.

When I left the service my wife and I lived in a trailer park. Rumors had it that a peeping tom was prowling the park. I decided to buy a revolver from a friend to leave with my wife when I was at work. We both went to the range to gain some proficiency with the weapon. Since we both had a good time, I invested in a couple of better handguns and my hobby started.

Through the years my wife and I would go shooting several times a month. Once we had the weapons, shooting proved to be a fairly inexpensive hobby. When our daughter grew old enough she also developed an interest in shooting. Later in life she was able to deter a man breaking into our house with the intention of raping her. No one was hurt...she pointed a 45 cal revolver at him and he left.

I've met an interesting cross section of society at the ranges I've shot at through the years. Doctors, lawyers, bankers, preachers, ex cops, plumbers, electricians, medical technicians and nurses, teachers etc. etc. One range I used to shoot at had a long table where we could all sit and talk. Surprisingly the conversations didn't center only on shooting. Computers, politics and news occupied most of the conversations.

I found shooters to be intelligent, very literate and educated individuals, not at all like the stereotype rednecks that anti gun people visualize. When a new shooter expressed interest in the sport the regular shooters were willing to go out of their way to offer assistance and instruction.

I would recommend anyone with even the slightest interest in shooting to find a range and try the sport. Buy a .22 caliber handgun or rifle such as a Ruger .22 target pistol to start. http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger_MarkIII-Hunter.htm Ammo is cheap and a person can learn the fundamentals of shooting quickly. If you decide you like the hobby, you can purchase another larger caliber handgun later. You can still enjoy shooting the .22.

And who knows...one day the skills you learned and the weapon you practice with might just save your life.

[slackmaster]

33. It's more than just a hobby for me

I regard my gun collection as a financial investment; a significant component of my retirement plan. That is one very important reason why I oppose legislation like bill HR 1022, which would immediately render several of my old rifles ineligible for resale. The market value of those investments would drop to zero, and there is nothing in the bill to compensate people for such losses.

[shireen]

40. well, that's just silly

The legislation, I mean. Why on earth would anyone want to make old rifles ineligible for resale? I assume they're collected as historical artifacts/antiques. Did the bill specify a reason for it?

[slackmaster]

63. It's for the Children or something

HR 1022 would be a greatly expanded and permanent "assault weapons" ban.

You can look it up at http://www.thomas.gov - and be prepared to puke when you see the list of co-sponsors.

[virginia mountainman]

76. List of Cosponsors..

Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 4/16/2007 Rep Ackerman, Gary L. - 3/7/2007
Rep Berman, Howard L. - 3/13/2007 Rep Blumenauer, Earl - 5/8/2007
Rep Capps, Lois - 3/9/2007 Rep Clarke, Yvette D. - 7/12/2007
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 3/9/2007 Rep Crowley, Joseph - 3/7/2007
Rep DeGette, Diana - 3/13/2007 Rep Delahunt, William D. - 3/13/2007
Rep Emanuel, Rahm - 4/26/2007 Rep Eshoo, Anna G. - 3/9/2007
Rep Farr, Sam - 4/16/2007 Rep Fattah, Chaka - 3/7/2007
Rep Filner, Bob - 3/7/2007 Rep Frank, Barney - 3/7/2007
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. - 3/9/2007 Rep Harman, Jane - 4/19/2007
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 10/22/2007 Rep Hirono, Mazie K. - 3/13/2007
Rep Holt, Rush D. - 4/19/2007 Rep Honda, Michael M. - 8/2/2007
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 3/7/2007 Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. - 9/4/2007
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. - 3/22/2007 Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. - 10/25/2007
Rep Langevin, James R. - 5/3/2007 Rep Lee, Barbara - 9/4/2007
Rep Lofgren, Zoe - 3/15/2007 Rep Lowey, Nita M. - 3/15/2007
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. - 3/7/2007 Rep Markey, Edward J. - 3/13/2007
Rep McCollum, Betty - 9/25/2007 Rep McGovern, James P. - 3/13/2007
Rep Meehan, Martin T. - 3/7/2007 Rep Miller, Brad - 3/9/2007
Rep Moran, James P. - 3/7/2007 Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 5/8/2007
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 5/8/2007 Rep Olver, John W. - 5/3/2007
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. - 3/13/2007 Rep Pastor, Ed - 3/22/2007
Rep Rothman, Steven R. - 6/6/2007 Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. - 3/7/2007
Rep Schiff, Adam B. - 3/7/2007 Rep Sherman, Brad - 3/15/2007
Rep Sires, Albio - 6/6/2007 Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh - 3/13/2007
Rep Solis, Hilda L. - 7/19/2007 Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. - 3/15/2007
Rep Tierney, John F. - 9/4/2007 Rep Tsongas, Niki - 12/17/2007
Rep Van Hollen, Chris - 3/7/2007 Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie - 3/22/2007
Rep Watson, Diane E. - 4/26/2007 Rep Watt, Melvin L. - 5/8/2007
Rep Waxman, Henry A. - 4/16/2007 Rep Wexler, Robert - 3/9/2007
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. - 4/26/2007 Rep Wynn, Albert Russell - 9/4/2007

[fightthegoodfightnow]

82. Thanks for Posting Their Names

Bravo!!!

I know now who to consider sending $ to.

[slackmaster]

87. You support government abrogating peoples' property rights without compensation?

I guess that does fit in with your whole authoritarian outlook on things.

[iverglas]

88. some investments just are riskier than others, aren't they?

When someone invests in something that s/he knows full well is a subject of controversy and when s/he knows full well that there are on-going efforts to prohibit possession of the thing, well, it's kinda like investing in shoreline property in Florida, isn't it? Who ya gonna sue a couple of decades from now when it's underwater? Think ya might've looked ahead a little and calculated the odds a little better?

If you want a safe investment, I'd recommend ... well, there really isn't any such thing, is there? Invest in butter, and people start eating margarine so yer butter is worthless. Invest in guns, and it becomes illegal to own them so your guns are worthless. Guns or butter, eh? Eat up and enjoy 'em while you got 'em, I guess.

I swear, you'd almost think that some people do things precisely so they will have something to whine about down the road. From that perspective, firearms of certain types might be a very good investment indeed!

[slackmaster]

90. The "controversy" regarding ownership of M1 Garand rifles is artificial, based on faulty reasoning

Especially considering that one of mine was sold to me directly by an agency of the federal government.

http://www.odcmp.com/Services/Rifles/sales.htm

Millions of collectors and target shooters own them, and they are perfectly legal even in states with the strictest gun laws like California. Their status as federally recognized curios and relics exempts them from the requrement that intrastate transfers here go through federally licensed gun dealers. I think it's reasonable to hold an expectation that they will always remain legal and transferrable. But HR 1022 would very likely reduce their resale value to zero, and it provides no compensation for such losses.

As for your investment advice, the board rules prohibit me telling you what I think you should do with it.

[iverglas]

89. a question, though

If your firearms are investments, and they become worthless as such, is there not a tax implication? A capital loss to carry forward and write off against the capital gain when other parts of the collection are disposed of?

[slackmaster]

91. Any possible future sales would be unlikely to generate taxable capital gains

I anticipate that the collection would be sold off in a piecemeal manner just as it was acquired, so the answer to your admittedly interesting question is no.

It might be possible to try to get a deduction known as "casualty or theft loss", but there is no guarantee the IRS would allow it and there are limits on how much you can declare.

One other deeply ironic possibility: It might be possible to sell things like M1 Garands to collectors in other countries, like Canada.

:hide:

[slackmaster]

95. OK, I just got my annual tax ass-raping and asked my tax accountant about it

He said that if HR 1022 or something similar were to pass and devalue collectable firearms to zero, tax codes would allow a deduction as a loss due to "condemnation".

Collectors could do the following:

1. Document the market value of each affected weapon in the absence of the condemnation.

2. Turn them in to police or destroy them, in a verifiable manner.

3. For the year in which the items were surrendered or destroyed, claim a loss due to condemnation deducting the lost value from adjusted gross income.

The benefit would be a reduction in taxable income, in the amount of the documented loss. Clearly nowhere near the actual value lost. It's very similar to claims for casualty or theft loss. You get a little back, but are not made whole.

Looks to me like HR 1022 as written would create a violation of the 5th Amendment clause mandating due compensation when private property is seized for public use.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

102. No

I guess that shows what you know about me.

[slackmaster]

104. If that is true, how can you possibly support HR 1022?

:crazy:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

105. Easy

Read Section 4 of HR 1022.

[slackmaster]

106. Kind of murky, look at Section 6

It appears that lawfully owned weapons could be transferred only to a licensed dealer or a law enforcement agency.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

107. Not Following

Not murky to me.

You can't buy a prescription and then transfer it to anyone.
You can't buy an airline ticket and transfer to anyone.
You can't buy a car and transfer ownership without transferring title through the state.

What is so dreadful about not being able to sell your weapon to a licensed dealer?

[slackmaster]

110. Because there is no way I can compel a dealer to pay what it would have been worth

On a truly open market, which is what we have now.

I see loss of value of collectible items, without any provision to ensure due monetary compensation.

Worse still, loss of LIBERTY with no foreseeable offsetting gain in public safety.

[DeadEyeDyck]

79. Kicked and Rec N/T