I will add another. The owner of our local ice rink is alive today and so are all his employees and patrons because he shot the guy bringing in the gun to shoot up the place before he could shoot a single adult or child on ice skates.
We indeed do have the right to defend ourselves. That is why we do have the individual right to own and bear arms (ie., guns). I couple that with the right to require people to register (note that I did _not_ say license) their guns; for one thing to identify the owner in case the gun is used in a crime. There are other valid reasons as well for this.
There are certain 2nd Amendment fanatics who think that even registering your guns amount to an 'infringement' of one's 2nd Amendment rights. It does not. It is no more an infringement of your individual right to own a gun than registering to vote is an infringement of that right to vote.
We indeed do have the right to defend ourselves. That is why we do have the individual right to own and bear arms (ie., guns). I couple that with the right to require people to register (note that I did _not_ say license) their guns; for one thing to identify the owner in case the gun is used in a crime. There are other valid reasons as well for this.
There are certain 2nd Amendment fanatics who think that even registering your guns amount to an 'infringement' of one's 2nd Amendment rights. It does not. It is no more an infringement of your individual right to own a gun than registering to vote is an infringement of that right to vote.
Personally -- I don't even like the licensing aspect, much less the registering.
BTW -- this is NOT a rant -- just thinking out loud, ok?? ;)
Why would the government need to know if I had a gun?
I understand they need to know if I'm a citizen before I vote, but ----
Why would the city require me to have a permit to do major repairs on my own house?
I'm repairing something that needs doing -- why do they need to approve and charge me money for it?
Why does the state require that I have insurance on my car, before I can get tags for my license plate?
Insurance agents are lower than lawyers. Scum of the earth. (I used to be one -- I can say that).
(I've repented, and have been forgiven by the *Adjuster in the Sky*)
Why do I even NEED a license plate?
I kinda get this aspect -- but not entirely.
Point is -- There's too much government. They're an unwanted *sugar daddy*, without the sugar.
And when it comes to registering guns Garth, I kinda see your point, but then again I don't.
What if someone breaks into my house, and steals (whatever) gun I might have that is registered,
and use it in a crime (like robbing the First National Bank of Wherever, USA),
and jacked a coupla rounds into the ceiling of the bank for emphasis.
Bullets dug out of the ceiling, complete with ballistic tests show that that is MY gun used.
Suddenly, I will be suspect due to the fact that it was my gun used.
And that because I took the time and trouble to register it so all is *cool* with the establishment.
I don't like my life to be dictated to, the way it is these days.
Sadly, it's a way of life now --- but the less there is, the better.
Like I said -- I'm just thinking out loud here. Looking for a pipe dream -- as it were.
Three years ago Missouri passed a law allowing average citizens to have conceal carry permits. One local radio guy I listen to a lot said recently that when the law was first passed, he was thinking that Missouri would be like that movie 'High noon' and somebody would bump into somebody else in a bar and a gunfight would break out and it would be like the old west. Well, to date nothing even remotely like that has happened. This radio guy is a liberal democrat leaning guy, but he admitted he was wrong about this.
I totally agree with Ted and dmiller. I don't like having my life or anyone else's regulated so closely by the government. Here in Nevada it is still legal to carry a gun on the street even if you don't have a CCW. The logic behind that? It's not concealed if you are carrying it. Of course if you were to actually do this somebody would stop you to find out what the heck you were doing. I've only actually seen it once and the man was taking it to the pawn shop and it was more legal to carry it in the open than it was to put it in a case. Go figure.
We have lots of folks that have guns in the back window of their pick up. There are places that those vehicles cant go, like schools or the parking lots around federal buildings, or the parking lots around the state capital. I think everywhere else is fair game.
It is state law that people have the right to protect themselves and their family and property. Case in point: A man had stopped at a local car wash to wash his car. Two young men approached him brandishing guns and attempted to car jack him. He pulled out a gun and killed one and wounded the other. He had a CCW. The case never went to court. The DA refused to prosecute. It was a legal shooting.
I carry several guns at work, various caliber and types. I own several guns of my own of various caliber and types. I have only had to pull my gun once at home, and it was recently. They got the point and left before something bad happened to them. I guess they decided my truck wasn't worth it.
I guess Nevada is still the old west in some ways.
I don't own a gun, nor do I trust myself with one, however, I defend the right of responsible gun owners to carry guns. VA Tech had a no gun policy at the school, (I guess the criminals don't follow the rules too closely) and if one of those students/teachers had a gun they could have taken him out in one shot. As in all the other situations like this one.
Some of those tasers look really cute though. I was looking at a hot pink one just the other night.
To me --- this e-mail (in response to Ted's letter), says it all.
Linda, Plymouth, Michigan
To back up Ted's points, when have we ever heard of a gunman killing 32 people in a police station? How about at an Army Base in Michigan? Nope. How about at the local shooting range? Tons of guns there, you'd think there'd be mass killing there every other weekend with all the guns...oh wait...at all those places the victims would be armed and would shoot back. An armed gunman wouldn't get out more than one shot, if that, before being stopped.
NOT trying to politicize anything here.
It's common sense, that if the gunman KNOWS that there is a possibility of retaliation ----
he'd choose a different location for his madness.
Granted -- these BOZOS have a death wish (since they usually end up committing suicide),
but an armed populace would deter them from killing more than they would like to.
Gun free zones ONLY apply to law abiding citizens -- which these perpetrators obviously ARE NOT.
Although, by this logic of everyone packing = everyone being safer, you all would have to agree that no one having a gun would also = everyone being safer, if not more so. This Cho guy would have had a hard time killing 32 people with throwing stars. Unless of course he was a ninja. (note to self: rally in support of anti-ninja laws.)
Also, to be clear, owning a gun is not a right (at least not a constitutional right), it is a privilage. If it were a right we would not need permits and licences.
On the flip side, I may be a little rusty on my constitutional rights, but I do believe there is one in there about a right to have a taser that matches your pumps that shall not be infringed upon. Thank God for those forward thinking forefathers.
Although, by this logic of everyone packing = everyone being safer, you all would have to agree that no one having a gun would also = everyone being safer, if not more so.
I don't think everyone would agree with that. Smaller people in homes or vacant parking lots would be less safe.
Also, to be clear, owning a gun is not a right (at least not a constitutional right), it is a privilage. If it were a right we would not need permits and licences.
Just becase laws were written and passed that infringed on gun rights, does not take away the right of ownership. Here is just one comment on this I found from google ...
The problem is that Democrats treat the right to bear arms as a privilege, subject to myriad regulations and the whims of Congress and state legislatures.
Gun owners understand this is about a Constitutional right, equal in standing to the right of free speech, press and religion. It is no less important than the right to legal counsel for those accused of crimes, or the right to be secure in one's person, house, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizure.
The firearms community knows that if Congress can ban one kind of firearm, it will be easier to ban other kinds of guns later on.
Democrats just don't get it. Gun owners aren't stupid. They know what's at stake. Gun owners are a rather independent lot. They value their liberty. They frame the issue as not being one about guns, but about control, of their property and their lives. And, they are right.
On the flip side, I may be a little rusty on my constitutional rights, but I do believe there is one in there about a right to have a taser that matches your pumps that shall not be infringed upon. Thank God for those forward thinking forefathers.
Yes I do believe that is included somewhere in there...
Although, by this logic of everyone packing = everyone being safer, you all would have to agree that no one having a gun would also = everyone being safer, if not more so. This Cho guy would have had a hard time killing 32 people with throwing stars. Unless of course he was a ninja. (note to self: rally in support of anti-ninja laws.)
In theory, this would be true. But in practice, could you explain how a gun ban would insure the criminals would have no guns??? This is a typical argument which is "magical thinking". Of course we can never insure that criminals will not have guns. So, this argument is BS.
First off, laws in and of themselves gaurantee nothing. Ie., anti-gun laws won't gaurantee that a criminal won't go out and get a gun anyway (insert pro-gun applause here). ...
... Just like anti-murder laws won't gaurantee that a criminal won't go out and murder anyway (insert cricket chirping silence here).
(Frankly, the pro-gun lobby needs a better kind of argument than that in order to make their case, hmmmm?)
Perhaps, maybe perhaps, what is needed is a stricter, and more uniform enforcement of the laws so that they do work. And even then, it is foolish (and rather dishonest, really) to suggest that in order to have a law, it must be *totally* effective so that it banishes that which it is against.
Reality Check to the lets disarm US citizens lobby
Criminals and the mentally ill --such as the shooter at VT-WILL always find a way to carry out their twisted designs.
If NO ONE in this country had Guns do you really think that that would somehow or other made the twisted thought processes of those who think they have the right to destroy others less twisted??
Do you really believe that absent guns the twisted mind would not find another way to carry out their objectives???
Granted They may not be able to kill 32 people in a little over 2 hours, but is the death of 32 people any less heinious if those deaths are spread over days or months --which most serial killlings are-- than if they occur in mass???It appears to be the quanity of deaths rather than the horror of a single murder which propels the anti-gun lobby.
For most of this countries history individuals kept firearms in their homes. With the anti gun forces logic there should have been mass murders every week. To the contrary, this is not the case.
The reality is that predators of any ilk only attack that which they percieve as being helpless before them. Predators shy away from potential prey which they perceive as being able to fight back and injure or kill the predator. An armed citizenry will reduce thie number of these mass killing not increase them.
I think we should ban pens and pencils because they miss spell words. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
If Cho had not gotten his hands on a gun maybe he would have done a Timothy McVeigh. He killed far more than 32 and didn't use a gun.
Let all know that I am the resident gun freek. I have more than I need and less than I want. Actual quantity is unknown. I purchase a gun approximately every 6 months.
It is a right to own a gun. Lets see its located in the bill of rights.
A drivers license is not a right. It is a privilege.
The best way to prevent this kind of disaster is better done by controlling the media. If the facts were not publicised then their would be no copycats. If TV showed less violence then people would again value life. Most violent deaths arn't mass murder but single acts of violence.
I don't actually want a controlled media but it would do more good than a gun ban.
Are all guns acceptable? If its fine for your neighbor to own and use a hunting rifle, is it also fine for him to own and use a machine gun? Would you feel safe if your neighbors bought a grenade launcher to protect themselves? Where do you draw the line?
Are all guns acceptable? If its fine for your neighbor to own and use a hunting rifle, is it also fine for him to own and use a machine gun? Would you feel safe if your neighbors bought a grenade launcher to protect themselves? Where do you draw the line?
Hey there Vegan :) ---- coupla comments (if I may);
What my neighbor does is none of my business, unless they break the law.
Nor is what I do any of their business, unless I break the law.
If they feel safer with a machine gun -- so what?
I feel safe with what I have, though I (personally) wouldn't go to that extreme.
I don't think it is the gun that is so much in question,
as it is the mentality of the person owning it.
Maybe you can agree, maybe you don't.
Ex-70's said it quite well -- It's people who kill people, not guns.
Whether you're driving a big SUV, or a small hybrid car ---
and you impact a pedestrian head on at 60 MPH,
they are just as dead regardless of the vehicle.
It's the driver's fault -- not the vehicle.
I don't mean to suggest that everyone go out and get a *grenade-launcher*.
but by the same token -- I don't see a need for a *line to be drawn*,
when it comes to personal protection,
given what each person deems necessary for themselves.
Like I said earlier -- it's all about governmental control, which we need LESS of.
I don't need them telling me how to live my life.
They don't live in this neighborhood like I do,
and they have NO idea what happens here each night.
The *gun-free* zones are an invitation to wacko's like this latest guy.
I understand the wish for peace and harmony (especially in a school setting),
but damn! Someone with an attitude knows that he/ she/ or whomever,
can do whatever they want there, and with dire consequences (such as happened last week).
I have no problem with an armed populace, and I don't care what they're *packing*.
If they know how to use it (responsibly), it's a deterrent to crime, not an additive.
And THAT is the difference. Responsibility adds security for everyone.
It's not the gun, it's the person behind it.
Whatever the caliber or type of gun this latest jerk used is NOT the question.
His mental status is what should be under scrutiny instead.
Nor is what my neighbor (or I) might have, the question either.
It's how we act with what we have. Responsibly, or not.
Are more guns the answer? Already the US has at least 1/3 of the world's firearms according to an article in the Denver Post today. 10 percent of adults own 4 or more, overall, there are 90 firearms per 100 people in the US. Yemen is second with 61 per 100 people.
Even as the number of firearms grows in the US (per capita) are we seeing fewer gun related homicides? suicides? Not according to this research: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/Firearms.htm
I just do not see that the direction to heavily arm yourselves is getting the desired results of making our society safer. On a side note, when the second amendment to the Constitution was ratified, (approximately 1789) weren't most firearms flintlocks and muzzleloaders? slow and laborious to load and fire, and ot all that accurate. They were certainly not the repeating rifles and automatic weapons that today's villians use to carry out mass murders.
I dunno, I am not opposed to you having a gun, I have two small arms weapons, (one was purchased just to get it away from someone who felt he should not have one anymore) but the statistics I have read do not indicate that makes us safer. I don't understand the way americans are enamored with guns.
Guns are not for everyone. I own 6 of what most people call assault rifles.
One time in my life I confronted an individual coming through my font door in the middle of the night. I learned a lot about myself when I put the front sight on the shadow and started taking the slack out of the trigger. I found that I did not want to kill another person. The first shot was going to go over his left shoulder and the second was going to be center mass if needed. Luckily the shadow finally spoke. Turned out he was my wife's step brother. I did not shoot. I still see it in my mind.
Every gun in my house has at least two locks before you can gain access. I worry more about my kids getting to them than protecting my property. My youngest is 15. I don't worry about the older two. My oldest had his hunting rifle stolen out of his Tahoe.
At the same time I am a very active shooter and expend over 200 rounds per month year round. I have burned over 300 in a practice session.
I no longer have a concealed carry permit because the law puts more burden on me in controlling the guns than if I don't.
Carrying a gun is a responsibility that should not be taken lightly. If you feel you can't use one don't get one.
Unfortunately there are people who own guns that shouldn't have one.
This is a funny story and a sad one. I watched this older man move to the firing line. The safety officer ask him if he was ready. The guy said yes. The SO again ask are you sure your ready. Yes. The SO ask where is your weapon? The guy was so busy thinking about how to shoot the course of fire that he forgot his gun. I do my best not to be in the same group as him.
Just remember that the individual states make their own laws. What makes sense for me here is different than what makes since for NYC. That is a big reason why gun laws should be left to individual states rights and national gun laws are wrong. As a note to that, it is very difficult to purchase a gun outside of your resident state.
Recommended Posts
Suda
Love his article. Bet Ron G does, too.
Suda
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washingtonweather
I will add another. The owner of our local ice rink is alive today and so are all his employees and patrons because he shot the guy bringing in the gun to shoot up the place before he could shoot a single adult or child on ice skates.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I don't know how much owning a gun would do for me.. I honestly don't think I could pull the damn trigger.
I could probably beat the snot out of the guy before he assaulted my class mates if I had to.
The only thing I wish, I sincerely wish people would not use some disaster like this to make some kind of political statement.
On either side.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Listener
I absolutely agree with Ted. That "live by the sword, die by the sword" rebuttal shows the ignorance of the writer.
Ted is not proposing that WE live by the gun, he's pointing out that the BAD GUYS are living by the gun!! And therefore, if we are armed,
THEY will die by the gun!!...as it should be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
We indeed do have the right to defend ourselves. That is why we do have the individual right to own and bear arms (ie., guns). I couple that with the right to require people to register (note that I did _not_ say license) their guns; for one thing to identify the owner in case the gun is used in a crime. There are other valid reasons as well for this.
There are certain 2nd Amendment fanatics who think that even registering your guns amount to an 'infringement' of one's 2nd Amendment rights. It does not. It is no more an infringement of your individual right to own a gun than registering to vote is an infringement of that right to vote.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Personally -- I don't even like the licensing aspect, much less the registering.
BTW -- this is NOT a rant -- just thinking out loud, ok?? ;)
Why would the government need to know if I had a gun?
I understand they need to know if I'm a citizen before I vote, but ----
Why would the city require me to have a permit to do major repairs on my own house?
I'm repairing something that needs doing -- why do they need to approve and charge me money for it?
Why does the state require that I have insurance on my car, before I can get tags for my license plate?
Insurance agents are lower than lawyers. Scum of the earth. (I used to be one -- I can say that).
(I've repented, and have been forgiven by the *Adjuster in the Sky*)
Why do I even NEED a license plate?
I kinda get this aspect -- but not entirely.
Point is -- There's too much government. They're an unwanted *sugar daddy*, without the sugar.
And when it comes to registering guns Garth, I kinda see your point, but then again I don't.
What if someone breaks into my house, and steals (whatever) gun I might have that is registered,
and use it in a crime (like robbing the First National Bank of Wherever, USA),
and jacked a coupla rounds into the ceiling of the bank for emphasis.
Bullets dug out of the ceiling, complete with ballistic tests show that that is MY gun used.
Suddenly, I will be suspect due to the fact that it was my gun used.
And that because I took the time and trouble to register it so all is *cool* with the establishment.
I don't like my life to be dictated to, the way it is these days.
Sadly, it's a way of life now --- but the less there is, the better.
Like I said -- I'm just thinking out loud here. Looking for a pipe dream -- as it were.
(It is still 4/20 isn't it??)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nandon
I agree 100%.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
A related story:
Three years ago Missouri passed a law allowing average citizens to have conceal carry permits. One local radio guy I listen to a lot said recently that when the law was first passed, he was thinking that Missouri would be like that movie 'High noon' and somebody would bump into somebody else in a bar and a gunfight would break out and it would be like the old west. Well, to date nothing even remotely like that has happened. This radio guy is a liberal democrat leaning guy, but he admitted he was wrong about this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
I totally agree with Ted and dmiller. I don't like having my life or anyone else's regulated so closely by the government. Here in Nevada it is still legal to carry a gun on the street even if you don't have a CCW. The logic behind that? It's not concealed if you are carrying it. Of course if you were to actually do this somebody would stop you to find out what the heck you were doing. I've only actually seen it once and the man was taking it to the pawn shop and it was more legal to carry it in the open than it was to put it in a case. Go figure.
We have lots of folks that have guns in the back window of their pick up. There are places that those vehicles cant go, like schools or the parking lots around federal buildings, or the parking lots around the state capital. I think everywhere else is fair game.
It is state law that people have the right to protect themselves and their family and property. Case in point: A man had stopped at a local car wash to wash his car. Two young men approached him brandishing guns and attempted to car jack him. He pulled out a gun and killed one and wounded the other. He had a CCW. The case never went to court. The DA refused to prosecute. It was a legal shooting.
I carry several guns at work, various caliber and types. I own several guns of my own of various caliber and types. I have only had to pull my gun once at home, and it was recently. They got the point and left before something bad happened to them. I guess they decided my truck wasn't worth it.
I guess Nevada is still the old west in some ways.
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
I don't own a gun, nor do I trust myself with one, however, I defend the right of responsible gun owners to carry guns. VA Tech had a no gun policy at the school, (I guess the criminals don't follow the rules too closely) and if one of those students/teachers had a gun they could have taken him out in one shot. As in all the other situations like this one.
Some of those tasers look really cute though. I was looking at a hot pink one just the other night.
Edited by RottieGrrrlLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
To me --- this e-mail (in response to Ted's letter), says it all.
NOT trying to politicize anything here.
It's common sense, that if the gunman KNOWS that there is a possibility of retaliation ----
he'd choose a different location for his madness.
Granted -- these BOZOS have a death wish (since they usually end up committing suicide),
but an armed populace would deter them from killing more than they would like to.
Gun free zones ONLY apply to law abiding citizens -- which these perpetrators obviously ARE NOT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I'm not a gun nut, nor am I an anti-gun nut.
Although, by this logic of everyone packing = everyone being safer, you all would have to agree that no one having a gun would also = everyone being safer, if not more so. This Cho guy would have had a hard time killing 32 people with throwing stars. Unless of course he was a ninja. (note to self: rally in support of anti-ninja laws.)
Also, to be clear, owning a gun is not a right (at least not a constitutional right), it is a privilage. If it were a right we would not need permits and licences.
On the flip side, I may be a little rusty on my constitutional rights, but I do believe there is one in there about a right to have a taser that matches your pumps that shall not be infringed upon. Thank God for those forward thinking forefathers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Just becase laws were written and passed that infringed on gun rights, does not take away the right of ownership. Here is just one comment on this I found from google ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
Yes I do believe that is included somewhere in there...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Listener
In theory, this would be true. But in practice, could you explain how a gun ban would insure the criminals would have no guns??? This is a typical argument which is "magical thinking". Of course we can never insure that criminals will not have guns. So, this argument is BS.
Edited by ListenerLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
First off, laws in and of themselves gaurantee nothing. Ie., anti-gun laws won't gaurantee that a criminal won't go out and get a gun anyway (insert pro-gun applause here). ...
... Just like anti-murder laws won't gaurantee that a criminal won't go out and murder anyway (insert cricket chirping silence here).
(Frankly, the pro-gun lobby needs a better kind of argument than that in order to make their case, hmmmm?)
Perhaps, maybe perhaps, what is needed is a stricter, and more uniform enforcement of the laws so that they do work. And even then, it is foolish (and rather dishonest, really) to suggest that in order to have a law, it must be *totally* effective so that it banishes that which it is against.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
Geez Garth, I didn't know which part of your thing to quote, it was all good. But that was my fave.
Gee we do have laws against murder and rape and the like. I guess the criminals don't pay much attention to the proper laws like the rest of us do.
Edited by RottieGrrrlLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Reality Check to the lets disarm US citizens lobby
Criminals and the mentally ill --such as the shooter at VT-WILL always find a way to carry out their twisted designs.
If NO ONE in this country had Guns do you really think that that would somehow or other made the twisted thought processes of those who think they have the right to destroy others less twisted??
Do you really believe that absent guns the twisted mind would not find another way to carry out their objectives???
Granted They may not be able to kill 32 people in a little over 2 hours, but is the death of 32 people any less heinious if those deaths are spread over days or months --which most serial killlings are-- than if they occur in mass???It appears to be the quanity of deaths rather than the horror of a single murder which propels the anti-gun lobby.
For most of this countries history individuals kept firearms in their homes. With the anti gun forces logic there should have been mass murders every week. To the contrary, this is not the case.
The reality is that predators of any ilk only attack that which they percieve as being helpless before them. Predators shy away from potential prey which they perceive as being able to fight back and injure or kill the predator. An armed citizenry will reduce thie number of these mass killing not increase them.
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex70sHouston
I think we should ban pens and pencils because they miss spell words. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
If Cho had not gotten his hands on a gun maybe he would have done a Timothy McVeigh. He killed far more than 32 and didn't use a gun.
Let all know that I am the resident gun freek. I have more than I need and less than I want. Actual quantity is unknown. I purchase a gun approximately every 6 months.
It is a right to own a gun. Lets see its located in the bill of rights.
A drivers license is not a right. It is a privilege.
The best way to prevent this kind of disaster is better done by controlling the media. If the facts were not publicised then their would be no copycats. If TV showed less violence then people would again value life. Most violent deaths arn't mass murder but single acts of violence.
I don't actually want a controlled media but it would do more good than a gun ban.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VeganXTC
Are all guns acceptable? If its fine for your neighbor to own and use a hunting rifle, is it also fine for him to own and use a machine gun? Would you feel safe if your neighbors bought a grenade launcher to protect themselves? Where do you draw the line?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hey there Vegan :) ---- coupla comments (if I may);
What my neighbor does is none of my business, unless they break the law.
Nor is what I do any of their business, unless I break the law.
If they feel safer with a machine gun -- so what?
I feel safe with what I have, though I (personally) wouldn't go to that extreme.
I don't think it is the gun that is so much in question,
as it is the mentality of the person owning it.
Maybe you can agree, maybe you don't.
Ex-70's said it quite well -- It's people who kill people, not guns.
Whether you're driving a big SUV, or a small hybrid car ---
and you impact a pedestrian head on at 60 MPH,
they are just as dead regardless of the vehicle.
It's the driver's fault -- not the vehicle.
I don't mean to suggest that everyone go out and get a *grenade-launcher*.
but by the same token -- I don't see a need for a *line to be drawn*,
when it comes to personal protection,
given what each person deems necessary for themselves.
Like I said earlier -- it's all about governmental control, which we need LESS of.
I don't need them telling me how to live my life.
They don't live in this neighborhood like I do,
and they have NO idea what happens here each night.
The *gun-free* zones are an invitation to wacko's like this latest guy.
I understand the wish for peace and harmony (especially in a school setting),
but damn! Someone with an attitude knows that he/ she/ or whomever,
can do whatever they want there, and with dire consequences (such as happened last week).
I have no problem with an armed populace, and I don't care what they're *packing*.
If they know how to use it (responsibly), it's a deterrent to crime, not an additive.
And THAT is the difference. Responsibility adds security for everyone.
It's not the gun, it's the person behind it.
Whatever the caliber or type of gun this latest jerk used is NOT the question.
His mental status is what should be under scrutiny instead.
Nor is what my neighbor (or I) might have, the question either.
It's how we act with what we have. Responsibly, or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
Are more guns the answer? Already the US has at least 1/3 of the world's firearms according to an article in the Denver Post today. 10 percent of adults own 4 or more, overall, there are 90 firearms per 100 people in the US. Yemen is second with 61 per 100 people.
Even as the number of firearms grows in the US (per capita) are we seeing fewer gun related homicides? suicides? Not according to this research: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/Firearms.htm
I just do not see that the direction to heavily arm yourselves is getting the desired results of making our society safer. On a side note, when the second amendment to the Constitution was ratified, (approximately 1789) weren't most firearms flintlocks and muzzleloaders? slow and laborious to load and fire, and ot all that accurate. They were certainly not the repeating rifles and automatic weapons that today's villians use to carry out mass murders.
I dunno, I am not opposed to you having a gun, I have two small arms weapons, (one was purchased just to get it away from someone who felt he should not have one anymore) but the statistics I have read do not indicate that makes us safer. I don't understand the way americans are enamored with guns.
~HAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex70sHouston
Guns are not for everyone. I own 6 of what most people call assault rifles.
One time in my life I confronted an individual coming through my font door in the middle of the night. I learned a lot about myself when I put the front sight on the shadow and started taking the slack out of the trigger. I found that I did not want to kill another person. The first shot was going to go over his left shoulder and the second was going to be center mass if needed. Luckily the shadow finally spoke. Turned out he was my wife's step brother. I did not shoot. I still see it in my mind.
Every gun in my house has at least two locks before you can gain access. I worry more about my kids getting to them than protecting my property. My youngest is 15. I don't worry about the older two. My oldest had his hunting rifle stolen out of his Tahoe.
At the same time I am a very active shooter and expend over 200 rounds per month year round. I have burned over 300 in a practice session.
I no longer have a concealed carry permit because the law puts more burden on me in controlling the guns than if I don't.
Carrying a gun is a responsibility that should not be taken lightly. If you feel you can't use one don't get one.
Unfortunately there are people who own guns that shouldn't have one.
This is a funny story and a sad one. I watched this older man move to the firing line. The safety officer ask him if he was ready. The guy said yes. The SO again ask are you sure your ready. Yes. The SO ask where is your weapon? The guy was so busy thinking about how to shoot the course of fire that he forgot his gun. I do my best not to be in the same group as him.
Just remember that the individual states make their own laws. What makes sense for me here is different than what makes since for NYC. That is a big reason why gun laws should be left to individual states rights and national gun laws are wrong. As a note to that, it is very difficult to purchase a gun outside of your resident state.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.