Dear gun people:

[Cyrano]

Let me state that this post, or a thousand like it, won’t change anyone’s mind on the state of gun ownership in America. Having said this, here’s my opinion:

Guns don’t kill people. Mostly, disturbed students, people off their meds, and assorted others do. The fact that they happen to do it with guns isn’t coincidental. Guns kill multiple victims far more efficiently than do knives, or lead pipes.

And, yeah, I know the argument that if just one other person at the site of a mass murder tragedy had possessed a gun, he/she could have shot down the “nut.” Given all the massacres that have occurred over the last dozen of so years in this country, I find it hard to believe that of the hundreds present, no one had a gun. Here’s a bulletin for many of you. There’s a tremendous difference between having a gun and using it.

But let me also state this. Anyone who believes that private gun ownership will protect us against an American government run amok has seen “Red Dawn” too many times.

I have been in the military. I have fired guns. I have owned guns. But I haven’t fallen in love with guns. And maybe this is the crux of the problem. Perhaps far too many believe that carrying a gun will save their lives or those of others. (Sorry, guys. Most muggers come up behind you and bash your skull in before you know what the hell is going on.)

So let me close with this. Like many of you, I too have plinked at tin cans. But unlike many of you, I don’t carry a gun. And unlike many of you, I sure as hell would never hope for the opportunity to use it.

Did that last sentence sound cruel? Take a moment and examine your own motives for carrying a gun. And then ask yourself if you would welcome the opportunity to use it. If you’re a decent human being, you might not like the answer.

[SteppingRazor]

1. I'm a gun owner, and I must say...

I find all these arguments about "Oh, if only someone had been there with a gun" to be idiotic hypotheticals.

And, yeah, that revolution-against-the-gov't thing is similarly asinine.

I do keep a gun in my home near my bed for self-defense, but that's not the main reason I own them.

Basically, it boils down to this:
I enjoy making loud noises and putting holes in stuff. :P

[Taverner]

2. Interesting. I fully support 2nd ammendment rights, even rolling back gun laws

But I have no desire to pick up an expensive hobby (yes, gun collecting is a hobby )

I'd rather spend the money getting to the nearest reservation and buying some illegal fireworks. Does the same thing for me.

[spin]

46. Actually, shooting isn't all that expensive...

A quality .22 pistol such as a Ruger Mark III will set you back about $350. With reasonable care it will be shooting long after you're six foot under.

One hundred .22 LR bullets might run $7.00.

Many high quality weapons are available used in excellent condition and at a considerable price savings. Most people who buy weapons usually only shoot, at the most, a box of ammo through them.

True, if you decide to collect guns, it can get very expensive. I fail to see the attraction of collecting. All my guns are shooters and most have had thousands if not tens of thousands of rounds fired through them.

Shooting is a great hobby. I've met many interesting and intelligent people at the range, a cross section of or society that has included plumbers, factory workers, cops, lawyers, doctors and engineers.

[Taverner]

62. Ahh but do rounds shoot out colorful fire?

No? case closed :)

[sergeiAK]

66. Tracers do! -nt

[Mountainman]

3. I think it is time to stop attacking the ordinary gun owner and look for what it is that

is causing the increase in violence in the country if that is the case.

If someone kills that doesn't mean everyone with the means to kill should be demonized. There are many reasons people own guns. Some collect, some hunt, some plink, and some have various identity problems. Yet all are not killers nor are they going to be.

There is something to be said for the idea that you salve your conscience by blaming a whole class of people who do something you yourself choose not to do, namely own a gun. I really doubt that most gun owners want to shoot someone. Nor do they relish the idea of getting in a gun fight.

[SteppingRazor]

5. What increase in violence?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#Crime

Serious crimes and property crimes have been decreasing for years.

I think that goes back to the statement made elsewhere in this thread that gunowners are pathologically scared. I don't think that's necessarily the case, but just look at what you said. You took it as fact that there is an increase in violence in this country, when that is not the case. Why? I don't mean to pick on you -- in fact, I think you're an example of an assumption that a huge percentage of Americans make -- but I do think that this assumption defines a lot of the "gun-nut" behavior.

Why do we assume there has been an increase in violence in this country when that is not the case?

[Mountainman]

7. causing the increase in violence in the country if that is the case

Notice the last five words I wrote in my prior post.

[jmg257]

60. Actually there is an increase in violent crimes - slight rise since 2004. Edit:Added stats.

year------VC----mrdr------- # -----mrdr
---------rate---rate-----murders----w/guns
2003----475.0----5.7-----14,465----66.9%
2004----465.5----5.5-----14,121----66%
2005----469.2----5.6-----16,692----68%
2006----473.5----5.7-----17,034----67.9%

[SteppingRazor]

98. The statistics you posted show a constant murder rate.

There's an increase in total murders there, but the rate remains exactly the same. I am aware that the huge drops we saw in the 90s have leveled out, but I still stand by my words that there hasn't been an increase -- and certainly not a significant one -- in violent crime.

[jmg257]

102. Check the FBI stats - violence crime rates have increased (1.3%, 1.9%)...

"From 2004 to 2005, the rate of violent crime, estimated at 469.2 violent offenses per 100,000 inhabitants, increased 1.3 percent,"

"When data for 2006 to 2005 were compared, the estimated volume of violent crime increased 1.9 percent."


Preliminiary data for 2007 does show rates may drop again (vs. 2006).

[SteppingRazor]

104. I blame Bush.

:P

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. Having been a mod in the Gun Dungeon

I came away with the conclusion that many gun nuts are PATHOLOGICALLY SCARED. That's the difference between a gun nut and a non-gun nut. I used to have a boyfriend who took me target shooting every once in a while. I've never held a gun since, and I have no desire to.

Gun nuts' lives feel out of control in every respect, so they cling to their guns as frightened children cling to teddy bears.

In most cases, if the gun owner is a decent, emotionally stable person, the gun does about as much real good as a teddy bear. He's not going to really shoot the boss who fires him, along with his former fellow employees; shoot the banker who forecloses on his home, shoot the spouse or lover who leaves him, shoot his children to prevent his spouse or lover from gaining custody, shoot the kid who's breaking into his car, have a stand-off with federal marshalls, take hostages, kill small, inedible animals for the fun of it, or shoot himself to escape his misery.

It's a prop with which to swagger and feel as if one is driving away the boogeymen. (By the way, I differentiate between hunters and collectors on one hand, and people who keep private arsenals in their homes.)

However, if the gun owner has the least streak of meanness or emotional instability, watch out.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

8. Guns and Self-Protection...

I've always been struck by how people demanding guns to protect themselves are typically middle-aged white suburban males. Demographically speaking, they are the least likely persons in our society to be the victim of a violent crime. If self-protection were the issue, only teenaged black women would be allow to carry a concealed weapon.

[AZ Criminal JD]

64. So with your logic only the smallest slice of society that has the most violent crime

Should be able to defend themselves. Strange. The most likely to be robbed by violence are small business owners. They are over represented by white males. So your "theory" falls apart quickly when reality intrudes.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

80. Speaking of reality...

How many small business owners are raped by their boyfriends? Get your head out of your ass -- if you think for the first moment that white suburban males are an engandered species, I have a bridge to sell you.

If you're an African American, you are roughly three times more likely to be the victim of violent crime. And when you start adding up the unreported cases of rape and domestic violence, women are more likely to be victims than men.

And I have no problem with store owners, delivery drivers, and others whose occupation places them at inherent risk of violent crime being allowed to carry a concealed weapon.

[AZ Criminal JD]

109. Logic is not your strong point is it?

My point was just because African American females suffer from violent crime does not mean that other groups should be excluded from civil liberties.

[SteveM]

122. Trouble is, many are in D.C., Chicago, etc. -- where they are banned.

Please see: www.georgiacarry.org specifically, the brief submitted on behalf of Heller v. D.C. before SCOTUS, for a rundown on the incredibly racist history of gun control.

By the way, I am a middle-aged white suburban male and I don't have to demand a firearm. I purchased one with an appropriate NICS background check. And since I will be 60 in May, I can no longer count on making it to the opposite end of the house should someone come in the other door. Plan B is a fully-loaded Ruger beside the bed in which I sleep 8-9 un-paranoid hours each night.

[aikoaiko]

11. thats funny, because 'pathologically scared" is generally how I describe the anti-gun fear mongers

...on DU.

[PaulaFarrell]

20. Seriously?

You only need to carry a weapon around if you are scared, or if you are on the attack. What other possible reason could you have?

[spin]

40. I carry a weapon and I am not scared or on the attack...

If I was scared to go somewhere, I would simply avoid going there.

If I was on the attack, I would carry a shotgun.

One time at the range I was talking to a fellow shooter and asked him why he always carried his weapon.

His reply was, "I can't seem to be able to program my computer to remind me on the days when I just might meed a weapon."

Chances are that I will never have a need for a weapon. But If I find myself in a really bad situation where one might be helpful, It would be nice if I had one with me.

The first rule of a gun fight is "Have a gun".

[aikoaiko]

43. For the same reason I use my car or a hammer or keep a fire extinguisher

Useful practical tools when you need them.

[jmg257]

69. Seriously. I actually find when I carry I am less "afraid" - go figure.

but more..."aware". I go unarmed often enough, but prefer to be armed. Do I fear I will "ALWAYS" need it - hardly - but one never knows these days, so better safe then sorry.

I am actually more afraid I will need it and NOT have it.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

114. Yes he is dead on

I see the gun grabber always scream how they are scared of what others will do with a gun... So their reaction to fear is stripping civil liberties..

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. Not scared, just disgusted

and having seen a friend bury her husband, who was killed in a massacre by one of those disgruntled types, and having lived in a society where personal guns are effectively banned and no one seems to miss them.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. Why did you leave?

I'm having trouble understanding why you left that society if you felt guns are so much of a problem. I'm sorry for your friends loss. Having seen much violence and death I can tell you that's it's no easier to deal with regardless of the weapon used. MADD is a good example of a group that took their outrage and grief and accomplished much. They did in fact target the offenders though and not responsible drivers or even more absurdly cars.

David

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. I left because I was there on a student exchange program and my time was up

I've been back many times since, for as long as the three-month tourist visa will allow, but they don't just give out residence visas easily, so I have to live here.

[CTyankee]

32. Perhaps it is a "wise fear" not an irrational one because the person has seen

the sudden, devastating effect gun violence has had on their loved ones, shattering lives that never, ever can be the same and would be different if the perpetrator had not kept the handgun loaded in the night stand, just waiting for that one time when rage and alcohol fueled violence and death.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. Incident??

Are you speaking of a particular incident or a hypothetical situation? Why would it matter if the handgun was loaded or not? If you aren't to drunk to shoot someone, you can probably load a handgun. If you substitute drunk drivers for gun violence in your scenario then we could talk about doing something to stop a huge amount of deaths and injuries, without even arguing about the 2nd Amendment. That would be great.

David

[CTyankee]

74. Real incident. He killed my neice and himself after he wounded her mother and grandmother.

Interestingly, he didn't get in his car to accomplish what his drunken rage intended. He didn't NEED to. He had a loaded gun in his nightstand. How convenient. He went for it and started shooting.

How would he have carried out his rage in a car? Obviously, he felt he couldn't, so he turned to his easily accessible gun.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

94. Your nephew did this?

I was speaking generally of the many more deaths caused by alcohol and cars than by alcohol and guns. Not your incident and it's usually not drunken rage in a car it's just drunk in a car.

David

[CTyankee]

97. No, my neice's stepgrandfather did it. n/t

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

115. Sorry to be so frank

Demonizing gun owners and gun ownership over this is like a person whos family member was killed in an auto accident by an unlicensed, undocumented immigrant attacking all undocumented as a threat..

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

13. A couple of points

It is probably not a good idea to be a moderator on a topic in which you are so clearly biased on one side of the issue. It is a good thing you quit.

I don't carry a gun, don't hunt (love animals help run a dog rescue with my wife in fact), I do like shooting golf balls and aluminum cans with my .22 pistol (it's fun and cheap entertainment). Once upon a time I did carry a handgun for protection I felt like it was warranted at the time and you would be hard pressed to convince me otherwise. I am also highly trained and extremely proficient with weapons. I know at least two dozen concealed handgun permit holders and none I know of are looking for the opportunity to shoot someone. They are some of the most law abiding people I personally know. I know over a hundred police officers and none are against concealed carry permits. The people I know who hunt, shoot only what is legal to shoot and eat everything they kill, and I know well over 100 people who hunt over ten times a year or more. I have also responded to numerous shootings and fatal shootings, all of these have been shootings by people carrying guns illegally and using them during the commission of a crime, with the exception of a drive by shooter who was killed by a homeowner returning fire. I haven't seen gun injuries from children playing with guns, or legally carrying gun owners getting mad and shooting people. These incidents happen but on rare occasions. Of course most homicides are committed by people acquainted with their victims, legally I believe it's called motive, in most of these cases. I have tried to post a rational differing view to some of the arguments here, I believe in having constructive discussions on these controversial issues. Please let's keep the gun nut and gun grabber comments to a minimum.

David

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. I'll have you know that I never banned or suspended anyone

I just lurked.

And I stand by my comments about the true gun nuts, by which I mean the types who claim that it's the ONLY issue that matters to them. In their case, gun nuttery is standing in for a whole constellation of insecurities.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. That's big of you!!

Most people have trouble separating personal feelings and their job, it is to your credit , that you are able to. I have lurked there a lot also for about 2 years now and I will have to say I see more of the gun grabber nuts than the gun nuts. The pro-gun people seem to make some strong logical arguments which I never see refuted with anything other than emotion and insults. Anyhow I meant no offense I just think it would be easier to moderate a board in which you had less of an interest in the subject.

David

[Paladin]

78. Of All The Bullshit Notions That The Gun Loons Put Out....

....far and away the most ridiculous is that the pro-gun side is all-knowing and rigorously logical, while the pro-control side is made up of a bunch of emotional basket cases. It is painfully obvious that both sides of this issue are fueled by substantial amounts of emotion.....

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

103. Thanks for generalizing

I never said everyone on the pro-gun side was all knowing and logical, or that the anti-gun side were all basket cases. There are plenty of irrational emotionally driven people on both sides. I simply implied that in the gungeon I see more posts of substance and fact backed up by evidence from the pro-gun side than the other way around. There are plenty of rational people here to have constructive discussions, maybe if more of the rational pro-gun control side came to the gungeon to discuss things, it would become a more pleasant forum. Have a nice day.

David

[SteveM]

131. "Gun Loon?" Sorry you can't handle our "rigorously logical" approach.

[walldude]

28. Welcome to DU!

You'll find that the gun issue is second only to smoking for dividing up DU. You got your "they are going to take my guns away" people, you got your "ban all guns" people then you have the rest of us who are just looking for a compromise. Licensed ownership and mandatory safety classes are all I am looking for.
You'll just have to get used to the "gun-nut" and "gun-grabber" people, it's all part of the DU experience. Welcome :toast:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

34. Uh-Oh

My love of guns is only surpassed by my love of cigars, only kidding. Feel free to make penis jokes I'm secure in my manhood. I do like both though, rarely have time to shoot and cigars are the only way to keep the wife out of my poker game. Thanks for the welcome. I have been a silent observer for quite sometime. The posts in the health and guns forum are fascinating though. A post about depression forced me to register and reply. Thanks again.

David

[CTyankee]

36. But some gun owners who have been law abiding can "lose" it and cause

the death or deaths of people. We see this in domestic violence cases, sometimes with law enforcement officers. In a domestic situation, where the legally owned gun is there for "protection," it is just too easy to go for the gun during a dispute that turns violent.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. So punish them!!!!

It does happen in domestic violence cases more than it should but we aren't talking about a large percentage of the "gun murders" in this country, if that's the issue that we are discussing. People with domestic violence convictions are barred from buying firearms though, so are people with restraining orders. Which would be a reasonable restriction that most gun owners would agree is a good thing, in fact even the NRA supports that, I think.

David

[CTyankee]

72. No, my point was with domestic violence events that have no prior

convictions. So you can have a perfectly "fine" family and one day someone goes berserk with a gun. It is a typical family situation and neighbors are quoted as saying everything was OK (altho sometimes they DON'T). These are the sad outcomes that haunt the lives of the survivors and their families, like mine. In my family's case, the shooter (no criminal record, legal gun) also shot and killed himself after murdering my neice. He committed suicide. So he wouldn't have been deterred by your "barred from buying firearms." It was just all over in a few minutes of shooting...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

95. I'm sorry for your loss.

It's never easy losing people close to you. My only point was that incidents like yours are a very small percentage of gun murders. Tragic nonetheless, sorry for your loss.

David

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Itchinjim]

42. Nice rational response...

to a simple observation. Maybe you're one of the ones we should look out for.

[Junkdrawer]

47. No "maybe" about it... n/t

[idovoodoo]

56. So did you learn to perform long-distance diagnoses from Bill Frist?

:eyes:

[idovoodoo]

55. You have absolutely no reason to worry unless you're planning to rob or harm

me or my family. Guaranteed.

[Sanctified]

124. I think people who want to ban guns are Pathologically Scared,

Why else are they so afraid of guns, seriously if you talk to a gun grabber they always think every person with a gun wants to shoot people.

[SteveM]

130. I appreciate your parlor psychology, but it's the same ol' song...

"I came away with the conclusion that many guns nuts are PATHOLOGICALLY SCARED." Please, we've heard it all before. The only reason you use this term is to smear the character of millions of people. Several notable folks swoop into the "Gungeon" (or now it seems, General Discussion) to repeat this business over & over again.

I don't understand this: "In most cases, if the gun owner is a decent, emotionally stable person, the gun does about as much real good as a teddy bear." Then you go on to reveal all the violent emotions which the gun owner would not act on; instead using guns as "a prop with which to swagger and feels as if one is driving away the bogeymen." Sounds like real hatred, there, but you don't want quite to own up.

Differentiating between "hunters and collectors one one hand, and people who keep private arsenals in their homes" does not wipe your face clean. Hunters constitute 20% of gun owners; collectors even less. The vast number of gun owners have them for protection; other reasons are secondary. (I have seven operational guns for ALL purposes.)

You must face this fact: the only real argument that gun-controllers have is to construct a bogey and focus hatred on it. We know both sides do it, but in the threads of the gun-controllers is a destructive animosity hiding behind faux intellectualism, "compassion," cultural identity drawn from a post-60s "liberalism," and a sublime self-rightousness.

Treat your fellow humans beings with respect.

[smoogatz]

6. K&R

I think this conversation is worth having, though no doubt it will quickly devolve into the usual shouting match. FWIW: Most victims of homicides are killed by family members, friends, neighbors or acquaintances (something like 60-65%, iirc). Should we keep guns in our homes to protect us against our own family members? Our friends and neighbors? Or, does the fact that we keep a gun in our home increase the likelihood that we will either use it to shoot a family member or be shot by them? In the U.S., gun homicides far outnumber homicides by all other means combined—in the neighborhood of 7200 a year, year in and year out. Would our homicide rate (which is double or triple that of any other first-world nation) remain the same if we addressed the proliferation of guns in our society—roughly 300,000,000 of them at last count, one for every man, woman and child in the country? Probably: though the numbers can be confusing if selectively quoted, it's true in the main that large numbers of unregulated guns in the hands of the populace seem to result, in country after country, in high homicide rates. It's also arguable that the Constitution does not guarantee every yahoo in the country the right to own a gun; there's that "well-regulated militia" thing to think about, in all its wildly varied interpretations. For gun enthusiasts, 7200 gun homicides a year, more or less, is a reasonable price to pay for their right to own as many firearms as they see fit. But it's important to put that number in perspective: we oppose the Iraq war, most of us, but fewer than 4,000 americans have died in the five years since the invasion began. We mourn the Americans killed in the disastrous national folly of the Vietnam war, but more Americans are killed right here at home every eight years than were lost in the fifteen years of U.S. involvement in Indochina. At some point there's a tipping point in which the irresponsible exercise of the rights of one faction begins to impinge on the rights and freedoms of the rest of us (the right to be safe from armed attack in the public streets, or in the workplace, for instance). I think we're well past that point in the U.S., and I think it's well past time to do something about it.

[CTyankee]

39. You have made the case very well. Domestic violence involving a handgun

was an experience in my family. I have described the event many times here on DU so I won't do it again here. I have also described, for those who may not know, what the effect on an entire family has been in their lives. I talk about these things but I do not offer my own ideas for solutions and I do not opine on the 2nd amendment. I simply stand witness for what happens to real people in those situations, and I let the readers come to their own conclusions...

[xchrom]

9. recommend

[RB TexLa]

10. I have made the decision I would never use a gun to protect my own life

I would for my wife or a close family member but that's it. I don't carry one with me very often, when I do it's unconcealed in the vehicle.

[IronLionZion]

12. There are laws against murder, robbery, drugs, etc.

I'm waiting for someone to convince me why criminals will obey gun laws instead of simply getting them illegally.

How did prohibition work out in the past? How did anti-abortion laws work out?

[Recursion]

14. Red Dawn

Anyone who believes that private gun ownership will protect us against an American government run amok has seen “Red Dawn” too many times.

Yep. That's why we've had such an easy time in Iraq, because individuals with small arms can't hope to contest a modern technologically-advanced military force.

[Midlodemocrat]

16. Yeah, but you've gotta admit. Parts of that movie were cool.

:hide:

[dysfunctional press]

33. which parts were those...?

i must have missed them...:shrug:

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. "Red Dawn" should be dubbed in Arabic and distributed in Iraq...

...very widely. That's one American movie that would go over a treat!

[Lex Talionis]

25. Plus, you have got to have the will to fight. Most here,

would just roll belly up and beg for mercy. Not everyone is a sheep. A few questions to all the enlightened. Why, only since the 70's or so, has violence escalated to its present level in our country?
Why, in the large urban areas is violence so epidemic?
If you think Bush is building concentration camps all over. Why, would you trust the Government to protect you and not subjugate you?
Also if you take any kind of meds to control your moods, you don't need a gun. Oh well, gotta goes n' shoots me's sumtin, ain't kilt nuttin n too days.

[Paladin]

81. I Promise To Be Hurt And Upset By That "Sheep" Insult......

...just as soon as you can manage to produce a coherent post. It's pretty hard to take an insult seriously when you're laughing really hard.....

[Lex Talionis]

90. Who said you were a sheep? I posted to someone other than you.

If you "feel" insulted about the sheep reference, there must be some truth to it. Again, I notice you avoided answering any of the questions I asked. That's OK, it will take a deep thinker with an open mind to answer them. Coherent enough for you?

[Paladin]

107. Your Coherency Has Improved.....

....but I don't for one minute believe that you directed that "Not everyone is a sheep" comment to a single person, someone other than myself. Consider what precedes the "sheep" sentence: "Most here, would just roll belly up and beg for mercy." Got that? "Most here," as in a group of people, rather than an individual, followed immediately by the "sheep" insult. You're welcome.....

[Lex Talionis]

111. Your keyboard kung fu is strong. Mine is weak.

Now that you proved to be able to see through my thinly veiled insults and that you are intellectually superior to me when it comes to analyzing and dissecting sentences, how about taking a shot at my questions.

Why, only since the 70's or so, has violence escalated to its present level in our country?
Why, in the large urban areas is violence so epidemic?
If you think Bush is building concentration camps all over. Why, would you trust the Government to protect you and not subjugate you? You don't have to answer #3 if you don't believe Bush is building concentration camps, or that he is not capable of declaring marshall law.

Take your time. Don't let your personal feelings answer for you. prove to me, and maybe to yourself, that you are a deep intelligent thinker and not a snarky keyboard kung fu artist. I await your thoughtful and intelligent answers.

Oh yea, if you can't or wont answer the questions and must hit back with more keyboard kung fu. That will be OK, I'll understand.

[Paladin]

134. I Don't Think So

Your questions are classic gun radical set-ups, I've seen them dozens of times here in DU. Spread your own lame propaganda, I'm not going to be a part of it.

And if you want to declare yourself the winner because I didn't make the effort to answer your questions, feel free to do so. If there's one thing I'm used to, it's gun nuts claiming cheap, meaningless victories....

[Lex Talionis]

136. LOL!!!

:applause:

So the question on the rise of crime since the 70's is a ploy to promote the pro gun segment. Yes, your kung fu is very strong. No I have not won, you have. I salute you.

[Mythsaje]

121. If the wool fits...n/t

[aikoaiko]

15. "And unlike many of you, I sure as hell would never hope for the opportunity to use it."

That doesn't sound cruel -- it's just disparaging.

It would be like me saying -- unlike you, I don't want to be the victim of a crime or let my loved ones be victims of crimes.

Saying such a thing would only serve to attack your character.

[superkia]

17. I dont own a gun but I really hope they dont ever ban them. The...

only thing banning them will do is insure that the people running around with them will have no connection or accountability for them which can be worse than how it is now. I feel more comfortable knowing that guns are supposed to be assigned or registered to a person than to think that they can just pull the trigger and toss the gun without anything connecting it to them. I think it would cut down on gun related crime convictions also. Some of the people that have been in the news were said to have been on mind altering depression drugs and they were able to still purchase the weapons. Maybe we should look into what drove them there and actually help someone or start with keeping the weapons out of unstable peoples hands as best as possible?

The underground gun market will always be around but since most of the victims of those are inner city poor folks, it doesn't matter to the media, which in turn means that it doesn't matter to Americans. I never see the outrage of the thousands of poor innocent kids killed in the streets every year, its only when you have the nut job that lost his mind go fire up some college kids that it seems to matter?


I think people are just too selfish to think about dealing with the issue that causes people to not want to live and since they don't own a gun, lets ban them? Everyone should take a second and think if it were their child thats life was so messed up that they didn't even want to live anymore. How did they get there? How can we help people so we can fix the REAL problem instead of trying to ban OBJECTS that will still be available and ignoring those that have nothing to live for. Even though making drugs illegal has worked out real well. :sarcasm: The news doesn't cover all of the people that have fell in the cracks and become addicted to some pretty nasty drugs, so I guess as long as its not in any of your neighborhoods or not any of your children...it doesn't matter and they don't count.

America has become a divided selfish nation but as the system brings us all together in poverty, those that have lived life struggling will all of a sudden find allot more people wanting to be their friends and fight for the poor persons cause...but not until they are poor themselve. History will repeat itself if we continue to let the system divide us.


First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

[Ghost in the Machine]

18. "Did that last sentence sound cruel?"

No, it sounded more uninformed or hyperbolic than it did cruel. Speaking for myself, and the people I know who own guns, I would have to say that NONE of us "hope for the opportunity to use it."

I don't know where some of y'all get this notion that gun owners are slobbering homicidal maniacs, but it's dead wrong. Sure, there's some "macho man" talk & attitudes out there, that can't be denied, but when it all boiled down, 95% of them are just that... TALK. A good 50% of them would probably piss their pants and/or faint, 40% of them would actually use the gun to subdue and hold the bad guy until the cops came, and about 5% of them would actually shoot. Then we have the mentally unstable ones, like the guy in Texas who shot the two thieves who robbed his neighbor. There's just no help for someone like that, or any excuse for his actions.

Not many gun owners relish the thought of taking another human beings life. It's not an easy thing to do. My way of thinking on it is like this. I don't want to hurt or kill ANYONE, and on the same token, I don't want anyone to hurt or kill ME. However, if YOU put ME in the position of having defend myself and the only ending is that one of us is going to die, you can bet your ass that I'm going to do everything within my power to make sure that YOU are the one who dies, not me.

What you need to realize and understand is this: most gun owners don't go out looking for criminals to shoot. When you're in your home minding your own business and some CRIMINAL breaks in, HE has put YOU in that position. YOU haven't done anything to deserve to be put in that position, have you?

Not many people welcome the opportunity to take another persons life. Especially in their own home. Besides the emotional trauma and having to deal with the cops, even in a justified shooting, there's the mess that YOU have to clean up and the memory of that body laying on your kitchen or livingroom floor burns in your mind for a long time.

Just my 2 cents worth...

Ghost

[applegrove]

22. Dear gun people. How does it feel to be a bunch of patsies carrying out

the needs of the GOP (wedge issue) and the military industrial complex (lots of young men with gun fantasies in their heads ready to sign up for war). Well? How does it feel?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. That's constructive

Most of the pro-gun people in the gungeon seem to view it as upholding civil rights, they will probably be along in a minute to tell you so themselves. I own a few guns, 7 to be exact, don't carry one, don't belong to the NRA, and right now I feel pretty good, although since you used such a sweeping generalization I don't know if the question was directed toward me. Most pro-gun people believe in reasonable restrictions on law abiding citizens and stronger enforcement of existing laws on criminals who use guns and other weapons to commit crimes. You may want to tone down the hate a little, if it is your intent to have a rational discussion.

David

[idovoodoo]

27. Feels great, sweetie.

:eyes:

[dysfunctional press]

35. when the 2nd amendment was written, there wasn't a gop or a military-industrial complex.

:shrug:

[aikoaiko]

44. How does it feel to spew out hyperbole?

Because its the anti-gun, fear mongers who make it as much a wedge issue as anyone else.

[applegrove]

45. Wasn't hyperbole. Was from the heart. I'm very anti-gun as you can tell. I'm from Canada and I don't

want to see us go down the love guns road the USA has taken. Your situation is awful.

[spin]

49. I knew a couple of Canadians

who would winter in Florida.

Every Saturday they were at the range shooting. Nice guys, for some reason they didn't seem to agree with your assessment of the USA and its love of guns.

[applegrove]

53. So two Canadians don't agree with me. Perhaps you can think of a third.

[spin]

82. Nope, only knew those two Canadians...however....

they impressed me as very intelligent, very well mannered, polite individuals that represented Canada in a positive manner.

Of course, most of the people who were regular shooters at the range were intelligent and very well mannered and polite.

[applegrove]

105. I have no doubt there are very decent responsible gun owners. It is that

small percentage of nuts who ruin it for everyone. And the gun lobby that use it to win elections (or did in the past, I'm not so sure it is as much of an issue these days as the Dems seem to have capitulated).

[AZ Criminal JD]

68. Don't worry. Your founders didn't fight for their liberty.

There is no Second amendment to your Constitution. So no worries! Since our situation is so awful please keep north of the border and you will be happy.

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. So who is carrying out the needs of the GOP?

Patsies like Robert F. Williams and the Deacons For Defense and Justice?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Williams

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice


You might want to look at:

Timothy B. Tyson's "Radio Free Dixie: Robert F. Williams and the Roots of Black Power." 416 pages. University of North Carolina Press (February 1, 2001). ISBN 0-8078-4923-5

before you start proclaiming people stooges for the Republicans.

Republicans like Sarah Brady and Paul Beranke?

Republicans like Ronald Reagan, who signed the Mulford Act into law banning the
open carriage of firearms? AFAIK, he never expressed any regret for that.

Ahistoricity is not your friend.

[jmg257]

57. Feels OK. So how does it feel to be on Bush's team and trying to use fear to infringe on rights?

You know - trading rights for an illusion of safety? You must just LOVE the Patriot Act, the Warner Act, FISA etc.

[applegrove]

59. You insult me greatly. Of course I am not a Bush supporter. The Gun

lobby is more on the right than the left - no?

[jmg257]

61. Don't know - not a good thing to talk about up here IF it in any way makes Dems look bad.

In either case, right are rights, and supporting infringement of those rights is not Progressive. And yes lately exactly THAT has been a tactic of the Bush administration.

[AZ Criminal JD]

65. Excellent, dearest.

[CTyankee]

75. well okay, little guy! n/t

[EstimatedProphet]

92. You can answer that question far better than gun owners.

[spoony]

93. My gun is going to sign me up for the military?

Bad gun! Bad!

[Junkdrawer]

29. It's not "love of guns"...it's blind terror and a believe that a gun will make them safer...

Watch an NRA infomercial and you can see them playing on those fears.

Sad thing is: It's a self-fulfilling prophesy:

The more guns bought for protection...

The larger the anti-gun law lobby...

The more gun law loopholes...

The more guns in the wrong hands....

The more guns bought for protection...

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

[jmg257]

58. Not so much "blind terror" as facing reality. 1.4 MILLION violent crimes annually makes

the odds of one being a victim pretty high. Many would rather not be a helpless victim. A little extra responsibility and some aggravation is worth it - my kids are worth it.

Is there fear there? Of course - but a little fear is good - it generates some wisdom too - like having smoke alarms in your house, not counting on others to keep you safe, wearing seatbelts, taking on the responsibility, etc.

[SteveM]

123. "Blind terror"? I sleep very well at night. What's bothering you?

[slackmaster]

30. I don't carry a gun, and I agree with almost everything you wrote

The most significant exception being:

And, yeah, I know the argument that if just one other person at the site of a mass murder tragedy had possessed a gun, he/she could have shot down the “nut.”

Substitute "might have been able to shoot" for "could have shot" and I'd agree that is a claim that some people make. IMO the main reason to carry a weapon of any kind (I carry a knife) is for your own personal protection.

Arguments about making society safer don't have any real facts to back them up. OTOH neither do emotionally based claims that a person lawfully concealed carrying a firearm for self-defense makes the rest of us LESS safe.

[ThomWV]

38. I carry on occasions, but they are very specific occasions

I do a lot of walking into deep woods here in West Virginia. This is not like going to a big park in any city. You can walk for miles around here and not run across any living person. I put it that way because I have found very old grave yards in places you would never guess anyone ever lived. I have only fired my pistol once during one of my walks, that was into the ground to frighten off 3 dogs that were clearly wild, and far to interested in me. I fired one into the dirt, they ran, end of story.

The other occasion is on my motorcycle rides. I go for days sometimes, just take some essentials and go to regions, not particular towns. I often turn off on roads that disappear miles into the forrest. There are people out there, down in those hollows. Just like people everywhere else, some of them are as good as it gets and some are pure trash. I have never so much as taken my pistol out of its concealed holster during of these trips, but it is always there. Oh, and yes, I have the appropriate license and I obey every single one of the rules this state has on concealed carry. Basically you can't carry a pistol into any place that sells alcohol (where you would not find me anyway), any public building (court houses being the law's target on this one), or any private building that has a sign by the door - as require by state law - stating that firearms are not allowed in the building. If they put up the sign you can not take your gun in.

[flvegan]

51. I would never hope for the opportunity to use mine, either.

[Taverner]

63. Even if you were shooting at something non-living that went BOOM?

[flvegan]

67. Inanimate objects? That's different.

I meant in the lethal sense.

[jmg257]

54. I hope I will never have to use mine too - still doesn't stop me from being prepared to.

IF I need to use it, and I don't have it - that would REALLY suck, no? Kinda like a fire extinguisher, or insurance (but much more dire), don't ever want to use them - still nice to have.

Your last sentence was not "cruel" - it was a valid point. My own motives for carrying is defense of myself and others, and I REALLY hope I never need it. Of course I have plenty of guns that aren't geared for self-defense.

Oh, and there have been a few cases where privately owned guns made a difference - a couple just recently, and atleast 1 where it "most probably" would have (if having one wasn't banned).

[ejbrush]

70. Dear Anti-Gun People,

I lurk here, not posting, preferring to listen. I listen a lot, and try to be a rational human being. This goes against my nature, but civility is always a good place to start. My father had a small gunsmithing business while I was growing up in Northern Wisconsin. As such, I know more about the nuts and bolts of fireamrs than a lot of people. I have been exposed to firearms my whole life, as are many, many rural people. This exposure has been positive, on the whole.

To date, I have only been exposed to a single gun tragedy, when one of my brother's friends decided to end his own life using his deer rifle. In the same period of time, a friend of the family committed suicide via car exhaust. He could have used a gun, he owned guns, he just didn't do it that way. I find no difference in the sadness or sense of loss between the two. Should anyone?

I now live in the Big City, which for Wisconsin refers to Madison. If CCW were legal in the state, I probably would not even bother, it would not be worth the time. I am not afraid of people here, and the level of threat is scant. But this does not mean that the .38 that my grandfather left me on his passing doesn't sit in the nightstand with a cylinder full of shells. It sat in his nightstand for nigh on 50 years, and has never been fired in anger. Mild annoyance, to be sure, sending more than a few nocturnal garbage raiders to their just reward. About once a month, I get out to the range and send a box of target loads downrange, to keep in practice. Not to boast, I am good. Practice does this. Do I ever want to use it in anger? HELL NO! Would I, if I had to protect the life of my wife, my friends, a random stranger in peril for their life? Yes.

I shoot trap. I shoot targets. I hunt, birds, small game, deer. Please don't mock squirrel unless you've actually eaten it, it isn't bad. My trap gun is a semi-auto, my target gun is a handgun. My deer rifle is a M1903 Springfield, which for the uninformed was the US Service rifle in WW1 and parts of WW2.

Do I have a point? Actually, no. But I probably am a "gun person," I suppose. I'd bet most people who own guns are like me.

[Pavulon]

71. Messing with gun control is the fastest way

I can think of loosing a general election.

Take a moment for that.

The NG would never let me secure my weapon at my residence. However the swiss can.

There are complex issues at work in gun violence.

[Two Americas]

73. gun nuts

I am not a gun owner, never have been, but I am a strong supporter of the second amendment and am opposed to any erosion of the second amendment.

I also do not see any way to reconcile any sort of prohibition or confiscation laws with the fourth or fifth amendments.

I also see this as a class issue. The wealthy can afford to hire armed body guards. The fortunate upper 10% can afford to live in suburbs where they have the protection of a well-armed and efficient police force. Confiscation or prohibition laws will always be disproportionately enforced against the poor, and as with the war in drugs will give law enforcement broader discretionary power for stopping and arresting poor people and minority people and put more people in prison for victim-less crimes.

From living in rural areas where there is almost universal gun ownership, I see absolutely no validity in the "gun nut" stereotype presented on this thread and elsewhere. I have also never felt fearful of gun owners, and I have lived and worked my entire life in poor areas and in "crime ridden" urban areas all over the country.

While I think that "gun nuts" is a misleading stereotype, I think "gun grabbers" has more validity. There are people who want to confiscate all firearms, and they do use deceptive political tactics, and they are a potent and dangerous political force to be reckoned with. I am no fan of the NRA, but I do believe that the gun grabbers use far more deceptive propaganda and are a much greater threat to our freedom and safety than the NRA is.

People who favor confiscation often say "well you can't own nuclear weapons, or tanks, or fighter jets as a private citizen." Certainly you can. Not only can you own them, you can MAKE them and sell them. There are prohibitions on the use of those weapons, and that is entirely appropriate for public safety and consistent with the Constitution.

As Michael Moore demonstrated to my satisfaction in Bowling for Columbine, it is not gun ownership, let alone the "love of guns" that is primarily responsible for gun violence. I believe that the desperate conditions that so many people are forced into by rampant and unregulated capitalism, as well as fear campaigns by politicians and the mass media, and the generalized social climate that rewards, praises, and encourages bullying and domination are some of the places we should look. Particularly as Democrats, we should be looking to eradicate poverty, fund education, provide universal health care, protect the rights of workers and minority people, and applying other public policy solutions to provide for the needs of the people.

[CTyankee]

76. Well, what do you say about a man who legally owns a gun for "protection" and

just goes nuts one night on rage and alcohol and kills and injures several people with his "legal" gun? Oh, he was a perfectly good citizen, no criminal record. He just got drunk one night and hey, he had a loaded gun kept in his nightstand, and he just went for it. He killed my brother's daughter.

Well, there you have it. Make of it what you will. Sorry that he wasn't one of your working man's heroes all downtrodden and such. He was trying to protect his "wealth." He certainly did that against some family members, women who were supposedly closest to him...lot of good it did them (2 other were wounded in addition to the one who died).

[Two Americas]

77. I am terribly sorry

I am terribly sorry to hear about your horrific loss. That is just awful. I, too had a death close to me from violence and it can be unimaginably painful.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

96. I have given condolences.

But since you seem intent on making a political point out of it. I suppose I would have encouraged my niece to get away from a man who kept loaded guns around and got drunk. I would have encouraged my brother to pressure her to end the relationship. In the end it's hard to control adults though and she would have likely stayed with him. I have seen a lot of people like this and I seriously doubt there was never any indication that he might have been prone to violence. Being involved with someone like that is a recipe for disaster.

[CTyankee]

99. No political point. I am just telling what happened.

And FYI, the reason my neice and her mother were in the house was because the grandmother was very ill with cancer, her private nurse had the night off, and needed help that evening. I would agree with you that I would never have stood for my grown kids to be around ANYONE who keeps a loaded gun at the ready for instant retrieval and use. But this happened in Texas where people feel differently about guns and evidently have a more relaxed attitude about having them around. There was no evidence up to the point of the shooting that the man was a violent drunk. He was upset to learn that he was being left out of his wife's will and since she was dying at that point he went over the edge.

There is no politics in the above statement. I have not advocated a new law. I am not here to argue the finer points of the 2nd amendment. I thank you for your condolences but you are incorrect to state that I am intent on making a political statement. It is what it is.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

101. Apologies then.

I appreciate your thoughtful response. I was referring to the "gun nut" inference in your reply as a political statement, my apologies if it was not intended as such. Thanks, for the added information though. I will say again that this situation is very rare and therefore not a good example of incidents that we should base law on (which I realize you aren't trying to do). We should definitely learn from them though.

David

[CTyankee]

112. I just learned today that CT has a state law that empowers the police to take away

guns owned by mentally unstable people. I haven't read the full story yet, tho. This law (again, I would have to read up on the details) was passed after a disgruntled employee of our state lottery administration went to the headquarters and shot several people, some loss of life. I remember the incident because the husband of a coworker of mine at the time worked for CT Lottery. He was not there at the time of the shooting, but we were all nervous for her.

The story was aired today, the 10th anniversary of the shooting.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

118. Sounds good

Not having seen the law sounds good. No one wants unstable people to have guns including the NRA. However I'm not sure if I want the police determining how stable people are. There would have to be a fair and quick appeals process in place. People who have been involuntarily committed are barred from buying firearms.

David

[CTyankee]

119. Here's the story from today's New Haven Register

http://www.nhregister.com/WebApp/appmanager/JRC/BigDaily;jsessionid=xhfTHQxCDvWy17CKYcMpqkfPRGfn1ZDCQ3CS6fJJhclmXGrWj2fL!-1300426846?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pg_article&r21.pgpath=%2FNHR%2FHome&r21.content=%2FNHR%2FHome%2FFeaturedArticle_Story_1693194

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

116. What do you say about the same man

without a gun who uses a car?

[Lorien]

79. Sadly, I know a guy who would give decades off his own life to kill a

home invader. He talks about it with more passion than just about anything else. The ironic thing is that his home was invaded once; he wasn't there, and they stole jewelry, his home keys and all of his guns...

[Paladin]

83. I Know People LIke That. We Have Them Here At DU, Too

Check out the charming thread down in the Gun Dungeon, entitled "Here Are the Rules of Survival in a Gun Fight." My personal favorite of all the sentiments set forth is "Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet." Isn't that nice? First runner-up---this response from an enthusiastic respondent: "If it's still recognizable as a human, you haven't shot it enough."

You gun obsessives can talk all you want about your pure motives, your even temperaments, and your overwhelming reluctance to ever use your firearms against another human being. It's just not very believable to anyone who's studied your comments at DU over the years.....

[Lorien]

85. Ugh. Sickening.

A good reminder for me to never visit that foul place. :puke:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

86. Yup, that's exactly the kind of stuff that creeped me out when

I was a mod in the Gun Dungeon.

[Mythsaje]

88. On the other hand

you have a martial artist's perspective. You don't go looking for trouble. You do everything you can to avoid violence. But if you ARE confronted with violence, you do everything in your power to end the confrontation as quickly as possible. And, yes, if you find yourself in a situation where someone is a potential threat, you DO size them up as unobtrusively as possible, considering their most likely weak spots based on the way they move and the way their clothing may inhibit their movements and how nearby objects and/or the terrain can be turned to your advantage.

The government trained my father to think that way, and he trained ME to think that way, at least until I wandered off to pick up skills from other people.

There's also no such thing as a "fair fight." If someone is so intent on visiting violence upon you, you make them fall down and make sure they're not going to be getting up again for a while.

As a sensei once put it--"honor everyone, but trust very few." I don't turn my back on people I don't know, I don't allow strangers too close to me if I can help it, and I try to be aware of everything going on around me.

And I'm the last person any predator is going to consider as potential prey. That's the way I like it.

I'm not a gun nut. But I imagine you'd see me as another kind of nut.

So be it.

I learned a long time ago that being thought as slightly crazy is another form of self defense as well, one that usually prevents the more violent types from trying their luck and thus tends to discourage violence in your general vicinity.

[Paladin]

108. See you as "another kind of nut"? I don't think so.

I have trashed plenty of people over the years here at DU, and I like to think that the overwhelming majority of them fully deserved what I threw at them. But anyone who is enduring as sad and frightened a life as you are doesn't need any gratuitous insults from me......

[Mythsaje]

120. Well, you're a fine example of what's wrong with DU these days.

Too many fucking range maggots. No wonder so many of our reps seem spineless. They're representing the spineless contingent of their constituency.

A pity.

[Lex Talionis]

126. That pretty much sums it up. The mantra here, by some, seems to be..

Don't resist at all cost. That's what real sheep do. Got to shake your head at that. Good to see some here understand how the real world is. Respects to you, Mythsaje.

[Paladin]

135. Well, That's A Good Lesson For Me

I try to convey some humane feelings to a gun nut, withhold some insults, and end up being trashed for it. It slipped my mind that you people can't be treated nicely; I won't make that mistake again in the forseeable future.

By the way---I ran into that sensei that you mentioned earlier. He said he remembered you, and had even written a haiku poem about you. It goes like this:

A prick and asshole
So very close together.
Mythsaje is both.

[SteveM]

125. And we know people like you, dumping on gun-owners at every opportunity.

[Deep13]

84. Don't carry one myself. No real need.

I greatly enjoy making holes in orange sticky-disks. I really never ever want to "need" that skill.

The whole govt run amok more than it has scenario is a pretty bleak one. Any resistence would be asymetrical. The goal is to be a nuissance and to make conquest costly for the occupier. Unfortunately it would be much, much more costly for the defenders in terms of getting killed. Any thought of that scenario should bear Iraqs casualties in mind. They will ultimately get rid of us, but at gigantic cost.

[spoony]

87. Saying people who carry want to kill people is as unfair as

saying that you were in the military to kill people. Deriving motivation from one potential outcome is simply disingenuous, and remarkably offensive.

[vincent_vega_lives]

89. I think of it this way, apparently you don't.

And unlike many of you, I sure as hell would never hope for the opportunity to use it.

Did that last sentence sound cruel? Take a moment and examine your own motives for carrying a gun. And then ask yourself if you would welcome the opportunity to use it. If you’re a decent human being, you might not like the answer.

I would welcome the oportunity to save someones life.

I carry a 1st aid kit in my car. Does that mean I would "welcome the opportunity to use it"?

GOD I HOPE THERES A MASSIVE CAR WRECK TODAY. I could use my trauma kit!!!!

What an ass.

[EstimatedProphet]

91. I agree, but I disagree

I don't carry a gun, and i have no intention of doing so. I don't fantasize about being Johnny On The Spot with a gun, and saving the day by shooting the crazy guy. I also don't dream of showing the Government troops what a badass I am - and I find the idea of gun confiscation laughable in a country this size. It would be such a huge undertaking as to be nearly impossible anyway.

I also refuse to give any credit to the argument that guns cause crime, so getting rid of them will make crime go away. I agree that they do make killing easier, but so what? Why does Canada not have our problems, when they have gun ownership similar to the US? What about Switzerland, which has had a citizen militia for years, and a gun in every home? In my opinion the take guns away and everything will be fine argument is simply a way to keep us from really addressing our problems as a society, and it was intended as such. If we're spending our efforts against guns, and not trying to fix the real problems in our society that lead to the violence problem we have, then we'll never actually address those problems. The people in charge want us to be scared and compliant, they want our society to be dysfunctional, and they really don't care whether we keep guns or not - they just want us to keep the problems that lead to gun violence regardless of gun bans or not.

[ileus]

100. When I carry a gun it's to shoot critters with....

[Festivito]

106. And some buy fast cars to make up for other deficiencies.

Doesn't mean we should ban EVERYONE from having a fast car.

I've seen Red Dawn once, I think.

I think that freedom often involves heavy responsibilities. At times that means bad things need responses.

Sad things do happen.

Sadder things happen as well, some preventable, such as coups.

[CRF450]

133. Just like most gun owners, most sports car owners are very respectable people

Atleast the ones I'v meet at car clubs are. The ones who continually street race any chance they get are mostly dickheads.

[ZombieHorde]

110. I don't own a gun and I have no desire to obtain one.

I still would not go against the Bill of Rights.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

113. Some really good points

Let me rebut, if only a little..

Just because people might kill with a gun in an illegal act we should not strip human rights. Thats the same logic used by the bush administration to strip away other rights.... fear...

As to private gun ownership not being a force against tyrants... Its not red dawn weve been watching but Iraq where people with small arms have more than given us a problem.

So let me close with this. Ive never even held a gun, never intend to. But unlike many of the 2nd haters here I dont want to strip others of their rights. And unlike you, I sure as hell would never want the right listed as number two to become a victim to fear...

[bryant69]

117. "decent human being"

That says it all doesn't it?

I guess anybody who disagrees with you on this issue must not be a . . . well you know the rest.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Popol Vuh]

127. WTF?

"And unlike many of you, I sure as hell would never hope for the opportunity to use it."

You have some nerve. Who do you think you are to accuse millions of honest, decent, law abiding gun owning citizens who'll NEVER harbor the lust to hurt another person whether it be offensively or defensively? Besides taking grate exception to your insult, your statement is not based on logic. Your statement is no less ignorant than those who look at all Muslims or Arabs as terrorists by ignoring the fact that those who are make up only such a tiny percentage. The same holds true for gun owners. Only ignorant people think what you just posted.

Secondly, if you don't mind my asking, what is your opinion about the war on drugs? I mean has it eliminated drugs yet? Has it even reduced drugs? You see where I am going with this? What makes you think that by doing to guns what was done to drugs that somehow magically there'll be no more gun problem, or even a reduction? Simple fact of reality is that just as with outlawing drugs, you'll only accomplish eliminating guns from lawful people and those more inclined to be unlawful will still obtain guns from a black market - just like drugs.

Now on that note allow me to point out that if it weren't for the right of us citizens to keep and bare arms I wouldn't be here today. An ex psycho girlfriend I dated for a short while before I broke up with her gave a set of keys to my house to a couple of thugs. And one early evening (after I changed the locks) these two thugs started to try and come into my home. After they realized the keys weren't going to work they came around to the back of my home and broke through a bedroom window. Even though I was on the phone with 911, if I hadn't had a gun with me I wouldn't be here today. And no, I didn't kill either one of them, even though I within the law to do so the moment they entered my home.

And this sort of story happens every day throughout this country and a LOT more people would be killed without the right to keep and bare arms than are killed unlawfully by them.

I think it would be wise for you to reevaluate your thinking on this issue.

[SteveM]

128. "You might not like the answer"? Sounds like speculation...

Have you seen the offense rate of CCWs when compared with non-CCWs?

Do you know of CCWs who are looking for a fight? You say "...unlike many of you, I sure as hell would never hope for the opportunity to use it." How do you know these things?

And this: "If you're a decent human being, you might not like the answer." If folks here are decent human beings -- and not "unlike many of you" -- how can they escape your logically specious trap? On the other hand if we are not a "decent human being," then we are condemned to fit your stereotype.

You parade under the banner of moderation and experience, but sounds like you are using the same (admittedly more mean-spirited) attack of the gun-controllers: those with concealed guns are of bad character and vicious.

Other notes: I don't reference Red Dawn. I see Iraq every night on the tube (you know, superpower vs. rag-tag outfits). And "you find it hard to believe" that out of hundreds of persons present no one had a gun. Why do you find this hard to believe? The vast number of people are law-abiding and if some social engineer wants to declare a "gun-free zone," then most people will follow the law. Except criminals. But you know that.

[Lex Talionis]

129. Just checked your profile.

Do you really believe you no longer live in a free country? Yet, you want the Government to protect you? Trying to understand that kind of logic makes my head hurt.

[Threedifferentones]

132. Wrongo

An armed population is much harder to oppress. Seen Red Dawn too many times lol.

The kind of resistance that would result against "an American government run amok" would not be pitched battles or the kind of silly raids the kids in RD pulled (I think? not sure Ive seen it all :)) but rather taking potshots at troops as they marched down the streets of our cities. Think of how less likely an army is to oppress its home population if they are dying at a steady, if slow, rate. Are the "terrorists" in Iraq unable to kill our troops effectively because our army is so invincible?

Private gun ownership absolutely would make a difference against an immoral/unlawful occupation of America. Our troops' situation in Iraq proves that. The OP's first point about armed resistance runs against experience and is illogical, I can't believe so many people here buy it.

And I don't own or carry a gun atm, since I live in a college dorm where it's not allowed anyway. I never plan on carrying a gun b/c concealed weps are dangerous. I don't favor laws allowing them. But taking away Americans' guns is a bad idea, thankfully it cannot be done without an amendment to our constitution.