News Should the 2nd Amendment be reinterpreted for modern times?

[turbo]

The problem is that many people don't have that level of security with their guns. They may lock their guns, but then they'll leave the keys lying around. They might even put them in a safe, but that's useless if they etch the combination into the side. Worse yet, they may leave the guns completely unlocked and loaded, just waiting for someone who is depressed and irrational to come across and use them to take a life.

Given how many teenagers commit suicide and homicide each year (there was just a school shooting at a near-by high school last week!) I do not think it is at all "OK" to leave guns around where irrational teens may get hold of them and use them in a very, very negative way. Most teens today know better than to try and cut their wists or overdose on pills. A gun on the other hand, to a depressed individual, may be seen as a perfect way to end their misery.

If everyone just practiced common sense with their weapons I would say let everyone have a gun, but too many people don't.

Do you have any statistics for people who have established adequate security provisions, yet "leave the keys lying around"? Pardon me, but that sounds like a generalization that is predicated on a belief that guns are dangerous and that gun-owners are irresponsible. If a despondent teen wants to kill himself, there are plenty of ways to accomplish that without a gun. If you don't want depressed teens to commit suicide, it would be far more productive to talk to them and help them pull out of depression than to try to regulate away every possible means that they might employ to commit suicide. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

 

[drankin]

I'm going to say something that I don't have actual evidence on. I'll look into it more later. But, I have never heard of anyone who has is experienced with firearms and has been formerly trained on firearm safety who is also an anti-gun activist. I imagine there are a few out there but I have never heard of a single one. And I believe it is simply a matter of proper firearm education. Once someone is educated and properly trained, they quickly understand what is misunderstood about guns.

 

[SticksandStones]

Do you have any statistics for people who have established adequate security provisions, yet "leave the keys lying around"? Pardon me, but that sounds like a generalization that is predicated on a belief that guns are dangerous and that gun-owners are irresponsible. If a despondent teen wants to kill himself, there are plenty of ways to accomplish that without a gun. If you don't want depressed teens to commit suicide, it would be far more productive to talk to them and help them pull out of depression than to try to regulate away every possible means that they might employ to commit suicide. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

Do I have statistics? No, just personal experience with several gun owners [my dad actually started locking his guns only recently, and he still leaves the keys lying around where I or anyone could get them with ease, and he's not at all uneducated about guns. Ditto for my neighbors.].

As for depressed teens, I can tell you from experience you don't know who's going to kill themselves until it's too late. The most fun loving, happy, smart person I knew decided one day to take his life. Nobody, not his family or his closest friends thought it would be him. Nobody. He was never depressed, ever. He was always happy. And he wasn't stupid either. He knew (a bit too late, judging by the scene) that over dosing on pills would kill his organs and put him in the hospital before it killed him. He knew that slitting his wrists would only put him in a lot of pain. He knew that a noose would take forever. He knew all that - most of it learned from the suicide-prevention talks from school. He wasn't stupid, he wanted a quick death and he got it. All because his father decided leaving several, loaded, unlocked rifles in the bedroom would be a good idea.

If those guns were taken care of properly (or just NOT THERE) he would still be with us. I knew him, and this man was as lazy as they come. He wouldn't have gone through with it if it meant it took a long time or if it was painful. A bullet isn't slow though, and he knew that.

There plenty of ways to kill yourself, but as far as I'm concerned guns are the most attractive method. You don't and shouldn't regulate everything that could be used in suicide, but it's stupid to let something as deadly and easy to operate as a gun get into teenagers hands so easily. I mean, with a knife it takes cutting a certain way to be effective. With a gun...well it takes talent to not get killed by a gunshot wound.

I honestly believe that some people see a gun as a quick way to end their life and problems. I mean, what's faster than a bullet? If guns were kept away from them, or at least harder to get a hold of, how many people would go through the trouble? If that quick solution is gone maybe they'll talk to their friends instead of hiding it and doing something stupid.

I don't want to take away guns. I like going and practicing my aim, I'm not going to lie. I'm not anti gun at all. I just want to keep them out of the hands of people who aren't rational. Frankly, there aren't too many teens who ARE. I know for a fact I'm wasn't.

 

[turbo]

Do I have statistics? No, just personal experience with several gun owners [my dad actually started locking his guns only recently, and he still leaves the keys lying around where I or anyone could get them with ease, and he's not at all uneducated about guns. Ditto for my neighbors.].

As for depressed teens, I can tell you from experience you don't know who's going to kill themselves until it's too late. The most fun loving, happy, smart person I knew decided one day to take his life. Nobody, not his family or his closest friends thought it would be him. Nobody. He was never depressed, ever. He was always happy. And he wasn't stupid either. He knew (a bit too late, judging by the scene) that over dosing on pills would kill his organs and put him in the hospital before it killed him. He knew that slitting his wrists would only put him in a lot of pain. He knew that a noose would take forever. He knew all that - most of it learned from the suicide-prevention talks from school. He wasn't stupid, he wanted a quick death and he got it. All because his father decided leaving four, loaded, unlocked rifles in the bedroom would be a good idea.

If those guns were taken care of properly (or just NOT THERE) he would still be with us. I knew him, and this man was as lazy as they come. He wouldn't have gone through with it if it meant it took a long time or if it was painful. A bullet isn't slow though, and he knew that.

There plenty of ways to kill yourself, but as far as I'm concerned guns are the most attractive method. You don't and shouldn't regulate everything that could be used in suicide, but it's stupid to let something as deadly and easy to operate as a gun get into teenagers hands so easily. I mean, with a knife it takes cutting a certain way to be effective. With a gun...well it takes talent to not get killed by a gunshot wound.

I honestly believe that some people see a gun as a quick way to end their life and problems. I mean, what's faster than a bullet? If guns were kept away from them, or at least harder to get a hold of, how many people would go through the trouble? If that quick solution is gone maybe they'll talk to their friends instead of hiding it and doing something stupid.

I don't want to take away guns. I like going and practicing my aim, I'm not going to lie. I'm not anti gun at all. I just want to keep them out of the hands of people who aren't rational. Frankly, there aren't too many teens who ARE. I know for a fact I'm wasn't.

OK, you've given us an apocryphal story about a troubled teen to bolster your claim that "guns are bad" on some level. Let's get real. Given the lack of an accessible gun, could the guy have killed himself? How about carbon monoxide poisoning in a confined space? Shall we ban all people with garages from owning cars, lawn-mowers, ATVs, etc? Shall we require large fence-like structures on all high bridges? At some point, we have to insist on integrity and personal responsibility, and we cannot possibly legislate ourselves out of that situation. No matter how stupid, or desperate, or clueless someone is, they all have the means of their own destruction at hand. I would rather help these people than restrict the rights of all other citizens to own guns and ammunition and to own them without having to register them with a federal government that may or may not decide to swoop in and confiscate everything.

 

[SticksandStones]

No matter how stupid, or desperate, or clueless someone is, they have the means of their own destruction at hand.

I agree.

How about carbon monoxide poisoning in a confined space?

Again, think about the speed of that. It is my understanding that that is quite slow, and easy to stop too. If someone has a plan, they're going to kill themselves. It's as simple as that and I think you agree with me on that. Those who don't have a plan, those who decide one day it's just too much, they're the ones who can be saved.

to bolster your claim that "guns are bad" on some level.

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said guns are bad. I enjoy shooting my gun, and I certainly am not advocating removing a citizen's means to protect themselves.

I would rather help these people than restrict the rights of all others to own guns and ammunition and own them without having to register them with a federal government that may or may not decide to swoop in and confiscate everything.

So would I, but how do you know who needs the help in the first place? Wouldn't at least making it mandatory to own a gun safe before purchasing a gun be a better system than just hoping that everyone practices common sense? Heck, I'll settle for making them buy a lock with the gun. Anything to encourage people to make the right decision.

At some point, we have to insist on integrity and personal responsibility, and we cannot possibly legislate ourselves out of that situation.

In an ideal world that would be the default policy. I don't think we live in an ideal world though. Why should we endanger someone's lives because people *should* take responsibility? It's been shown repeatedly that sometimes people *don't* take responsibility, and then people get hurt. We make people have auto insurance, because some people won't take personal responsibility and we shouldn't risk everyone else because of that. I see no reason not to make sure gun owners at least follow something that resembles safety with their guns. If gun owners simply had to buy a lock with their gun I would be happy. At least then they may use it.

 

[drankin]

If gun owners simply had to buy a lock with their gun I would be happy. At least then they may use it.

Actually, I believe this is the law. At least in Washington State if not a Federal requirement. When I buy a firearm here, a lock is required with the purchase, thrown into the package by the dealer. But, not many use them. Guns for personal defense aren't very effective when they are locked up. But for storage, of course, a lock is a good practice. Gun safes are tax free here as well.

 

[BobG]

I would rather help these people than restrict the rights of all other citizens to own guns and ammunition and to own them without having to register them with a federal government that may or may not decide to swoop in and confiscate everything.

Actually, I'm with you until you get to this paragraph. This is almost like saying we shouldn't have to register our cars or get a driver's license because of the threat of the federal government swooping in and confiscating our cars.

A couple of your other posts hint at the problems of current firearms laws. Training someone to use firearms responsibly is done on an informal basis and fairly randomly among the population. You have a lot of users that know what they're doing, plus you have a lot of users whose only qualification for handling a gun is that they have the cash.

I don't think having to register a particular gun (or guns) should be a requirement, but a person should have to have a license or some other documentation to show they've actually completed some type of gun safety course before they're allowed to buy a gun. An actual license would probably be preferred, since it would also make it easier to check if the license had been revoked because of felonies, etc.

 

[SticksandStones]

Actually, I believe this is the law. At least in Washington State if not a Federal requirement. When I buy a firearm here, a lock is required with the purchase, thrown into the package by the dealer. But, not many use them. Guns for personal defense aren't very effective when they are locked up. But for storage, of course, a lock is a good practice. Gun safes are tax free here as well.

If that's true than you consider me satisfied.

However, and take this with a grain of salt, the police officers whom I have spoken to regarding firearms as protection have said they're a pretty poor form of it as many people end up shooting people on accident, or get shot by robbers who would have otherwise been peaceful.

Personally, I trust my dogs with my protection. :)

 

[turbo]

Actually, I'm with you until you get to this paragraph. This is almost like saying we shouldn't have to register our cars or get a driver's license because of the threat of the federal government swooping in and confiscating our cars.

This is a real concern, though. The first step toward confiscation is identifying who owns what guns and where those guns are stored. Once that step is taken, it takes only some incremental legislation by anti-gun do-gooders to criminalize some aspects of gun ownership and trigger confiscation. There are already stupid laws on the books regarding whether or not a rifle can have a folding stock, flash suppressor, bayonet lug, bipod, high-capacity clip, etc. These laws were aimed at "assault rifles" which are typically light-weight small-caliber (.223 for instance) guns. Except for cosmetic differences, these semi-automatic rifles are functionally identical to other clip-fed semi-automatic rifles. I'd rather be facing somebody holding an M15 (.223) than somebody using a scoped hunting rifle like a Remington Model 742 (often .30-06 cal, and very accurate). Laws like this were written by well-meaning but ignorant people with no practical experience with guns. Really, is a pre-ban M15 more dangerous than a 742 because it has a baronet lug on the barrel? That's stupid.

If you want to require that people demonstrate proficiency before being allowed to buy or own guns ( a noble-sounding goal) you should consider that there will be repercussions for NOT getting that certification, creating a whole new class of criminals, likely prompting the seizure of their firearms and entailing civil or criminal charges and fines. Those gun-related charges would probably have the Catch-22 effect of not allowing the person to ever own a firearm even if he or she subsequently obtained the certification. Not every perceived problem can be "fixed" with another law.

 

[denverdoc]

http://www.klis.com/chandler/pamphlet/dep/Suicide.htm Scroll down to risk factors.
http://www.doctorsagainsthandguninjury.org/pdf/firearm_suicide.pdf

You have to understand one thing about suicide--in most cases its an impulsive act--by that I mean, not a decision made in a few moments, but over the course of several hours to a day. Even once started more people will back out once they start or are discovered and prevented. Certainly if one is determined they will succeed--I suspect i know this better than anyone else on this forum. I have had one patient die of a shotgun blast, and another who i got to know after the attempt, survive a shotgun blast to the head. That was not a pretty sight. Surprisingly, if one ever had a good reason to die, he changed his mind, and while looking like something out of a Halloween spook show, has managed to reclaim a life of sorts. I have had personal knowledge or was caring for 4 hanging victims, and knew a jumper who survived a 7 story descent to pavement. I have known several CO poisoning survivors, and have taken care of more pill overdoses than I can count. Slashers very rarely get it right. Still having a rapidly available and sure-fire means at ones disposal is a major risk factor, esp for impulsive adolescents. Unfortunately many suicides come in the form of homicide/suicides. More often than not guns are the primary means--hard to corral a bunch of citizens and hang them from the nearest tree. Occasionally motor vehicles are used, but the vast majority are with guns, a la Columbine, an event I was closely associted with.

 

[Ki Man]

The Vietnam war would have been very different had the North not been armed externally by the USSR. All the same, it is estimated on the low end that about 1.5 million Vietnamese died in that war.

more like 5 and a half million south east asians, including camodians and laotians who got tied up in the war

 

[Ki Man]

That does nothing to stop domestic forces from operating unregulated upon us, only an armed citizenry can stand against that threat.

We have the national gaurd for that

 

[Ki Man]

That's unnecessarily restrictive and short-sighted. Guns and ammunition that are stored separately under lock and key with trigger locks are very safe. Also, children should be taken to the range when they are old enough and be taught how to handle firearms safely. When I was about 10 my dad taught me how to field strip, clean, lubricate and reassemble his M1 carbine. When I could do it practically blindfolded while handling the gun with respect and with full awareness of muzzle direction, he took me to a local sand pit and taught me how to load the clips, how to chamber a round manually, how to sight on the target, and finally, how to release the safety and fire the gun accurately. After every lesson, I verified that the gun was empty, packed the clips and ammunition boxes, and when we got home, I broke out the cleaning rod brushes, rags and oil, and cleaned the gun thoroughly before putting it away. I never handled guns without permission until I was old enough (maybe 15 or so) to go to the sandpit myself after school with my own .22 rifle and practice. Although I learned to shoot initially with a semi-automatic carbine (the M1), discipline was drilled into me, and for decades I have hunted with either a lever-action Winchester loaded with a single round or my single-shot Ruger rifle. I will not take a shot at a deer unless it is a guaranteed kill.

Some non-gun/anti-gun people like to characterize gun owners as macho, aggressive, etc. This is far from the case. My nearest neighbor is a church-going family man whose adolescent sons say "yes, sir", "no, sir" and "please" and "thank you" with numbing regularity. They are happy kids, and he regularly works with them honing their archery and shooting skills. When he said that I could use his range any time I wanted, I brought up a couple of bricks of .22 LR ammunition for his boys as a "thank you". He was grinning from ear to ear as his boys thanked me very politely and asked for permission to break out their rifles to practice. He's doing everything right - reminds me of my dad's military-inspired discipline with firearms. His kids have the safety drill down to a T. When a family from their congregation showed up to sight in their new hunting rifles, the boys patiently explained to their teenage daughter that she could only release the safety of her rifle when it was pointed down-range at the target area with it's earth-berm backstop, and they explained that shooting at a bank that contained rocks could result in ricochet of bullet fragments. Their father covered all this and more again with the whole family, but I was impressed with the seriousness and the level of understanding that these young fellows exhibited. I could have given the same talk at their age, too. When I was their age, I once lectured my great-uncle about firearms familiarity and muzzle-safety after he did something that I realized was very unsafe. He had bought a new lever-action rifle and had no idea how to load it safely and we were about to embark on a deer hunt. My dad listened, nodded and asked me to show my uncle how to safely load his gun. I did so, and then he sent me across the road to a beech ridge about a mile in the woods and sent my city-slicker uncle in the opposite direction.

People like that have every right to handle weapons, but what I don't want happening is the people who just hand their 8 year olds a gun and tell them to aim for the nearest tree to get their hands on big guns, especially around here in orange county where the streets are always full with cars

 

[mormonator_rm]

I'm a gun-toting wanna-be physicist myself, and I would not do anything irresponsible with my gun. I taught my wife how to shoot, clean, and store the gun properly, so now she is responsible and informed. I think the right to bear arms on a private basis is important for protection from grevious harm and for hunting in times of famine, but needs to be monitored and done responsibly, of course.

 

[denverdoc]

In times of famine? Who you going to shoot? Grievous harm, from what? Typical fear based propoganda IMO.

 

[mormonator_rm]

In times of famine? Who you going to shoot? Grievous harm, from what? Typical fear based propoganda IMO.

hehehe... I was asked by the police chief to get the gun, and the local judge agreed based on my circustances. My wife has a crazy ex-boyfriend who attacked her, so we got a pfa against him and the county court granted me a carry license for our protection since he has attempted entry into our apartment three times now. I'm not leaving it to chance...

 

[ray b]

This is a real concern, though. The first step toward confiscation is identifying who owns what guns and where those guns are stored. Once that step is taken, it takes only some incremental legislation by anti-gun do-gooders to criminalize some aspects of gun ownership and trigger confiscation. There are already stupid laws on the books regarding whether or not a rifle can have a folding stock, flash suppressor, bayonet lug, bipod, high-capacity clip, etc. These laws were aimed at "assault rifles" which are typically light-weight small-caliber (.223 for instance) guns. Except for cosmetic differences, these semi-automatic rifles are functionally identical to other clip-fed semi-automatic rifles. I'd rather be facing somebody holding an M15 (.223) than somebody using a scoped hunting rifle like a Remington Model 742 (often .30-06 cal, and very accurate). Laws like this were written by well-meaning but ignorant people with no practical experience with guns. Really, is a pre-ban M15 more dangerous than a 742 because it has a baronet lug on the barrel? That's stupid.

If you want to require that people demonstrate proficiency before being allowed to buy or own guns ( a noble-sounding goal) you should consider that there will be repercussions for NOT getting that certification, creating a whole new class of criminals, likely prompting the seizure of their firearms and entailing civil or criminal charges and fines. Those gun-related charges would probably have the Catch-22 effect of not allowing the person to ever own a firearm even if he or she subsequently obtained the certification. Not every perceived problem can be "fixed" with another law.

the laws [2nd A] is about the need for citizens to be armed to defend the nation
now if we are ever invaided or have a take over and need to fight in the streets I sure would want our side to be armed with full auto "assault rifles" and other hi-teck stuff like rockets and other full military spec equipment
all of which our dear government has banned making the 2nd A a bad joke
we are not going to put up much of a fight with hand guns and semi-auto's
against tanks and jets
while I do favor my having guns, I am not so sure I want the nut down the street to have a tank or AAA batterys

so this is not a simple question

 

[mormonator_rm]

There's no reason that a "reasonable" and "responsible" person should be barred from owning a gun. It is the responsibility of the state to set some guidelines for determining who is "reasonable" and "responsible", but with proper authority and funding and support they should be able to get it right.

 

[denverdoc]

In what county and state if I might ask? Normally real cops aren't gung-ho on vigilantism. I have a couple of cops on my ex-wifes side, they emphatically agreed this is nutso advice.

 

[denverdoc]

the laws [2nd A] is about the need for citizens to be armed to defend the nation
now if we are ever invaided or have a take over and need to fight in the streets I sure would want our side to be armed with full auto "assault rifles" and other hi-teck stuff like rockets and other full military spec equipment
all of which our dear government has banned making the 2nd A a bad joke
we are not going to put up much of a fight with hand guns and semi-auto's
against tanks and jets
while I do favor my having guns, I am not so sure I want the nut down the street to have a tank or AAA batterys

so this is not a simple question

Defended against what. The odds of occupation by another country are close to nil. this is indisputable. So unless you're worried about the uppity niggers or anarchists, just who we defending against. Our greater concern should imo be about a rogue government that in an attempt to still civil unrest as it did in the sixties with the nat'l guard and real bullets, take aim on its own citizenry. That would be the only plausible argument, and as I mentoned a few posts ago perhaps one of the reasons the loophole was left in place.

A related but greater danger than shadow invaders is that Bush recently made it possible for the US military to assist in what heretofore was off limits--domestic matters. Thats scary!

 

[drankin]

In what county and state if I might ask? Normally real cops aren't gung-ho on vigilantism. I have a couple of cops on my ex-wifes side, they emphatically agreed this is nutso advice.

What? Nutso advice to tell a threatened couple to carry a gun? How is that "Nutso" advice? I would love to meet these LEOs you speak of. That is not the attitude of LEOs that I know and have talked with. In most states a citizen (without a felony record) can be licensed to carry a concealed pistol. There are some basic Federal guidelines specified by ATF and then further requirements by each state but it is a protected right and not "Nutso" to advise someone that is threatened to exercise that right.

 

[drankin]

Defended against what. The odds of occupation by another country are close to nil. this is indisputable. So unless you're worried about the uppity niggers or anarchists, just who we defending against. Our greater concern should imo be about a rogue government that in an attempt to still civil unrest as it did in the sixties with the nat'l guard and real bullets, take aim on its own citizenry. That would be the only plausible argument, and as I mentoned a few posts ago perhaps one of the reasons the loophole was left in place.

A related but greater danger than shadow invaders is that Bush recently made it possible for the US military to assist in what heretofore was off limits--domestic matters. Thats scary!

Uh, you used the "N" word. You might get slapped by the forum police for that.

 

[mormonator_rm]

In what county and state if I might ask? Normally real cops aren't gung-ho on vigilantism. I have a couple of cops on my ex-wifes side, they emphatically agreed this is nutso advice.

Vigilantism? Well, I don't go around waving my gun in peoples faces or trying to enforce rules that I have no authority to enforce, if that's what you mean. I mostly keep it in a hidden lock box in case of emergency. Imagine if you saw or heard some thief or general intruder breaking into your home... wouldn't you want to have the ability to defend yourself? Wouldn't you want to have the ability to defend your family, your property, and your home in the face of a threat? What if the attacker also had a gun? Wouldn't you sleep better at night knowing that you have the ability to stop such a person, however probable or improbable their entry may be, from doing harm to your family and/or property? I consider myself prepared for any eventuality. I grew up in Boy Scouts, so I still go by the old motto.

There are times when the police cannot make it to you in time or cannot be contacted quietly enough to prevent the attacker from doing their worst. I know one family, close to my parents, who were in just such a situation and saved their own lives by being prepared with a gun at the right time to prevent their own murder from occurring. So I do not try to get guns out of the hands of families that have a right to own them, and I'm not giving up mine. You can call me a nut all you like and it won't change my mind or my experiences...

 

[denverdoc]

Hey I have a demerit plus a warning. I'd hate to be censored for the best use of language in a particular instance. I've been kicked off a number of forums for being too outspoken--here I'm blending, or at least was trying too. But the phrase in question was intended to capture the mindless antipathy towards others of different race, and reminded me so much of a a post I made on another thread, when I starkly recollected the year 1968, when racial violence tore asunder many big cities and left rural communities fearful of an invasion,

 

[denverdoc]

Vigilantism? Well, I don't go around waving my gun in peoples faces or trying to enforce rules that I have no authority to enforce, if that's what you mean. I mostly keep it in a hidden lock box in case of emergency. Imagine if you saw or heard some thief or general intruder breaking into your home... wouldn't you want to have the ability to defend yourself? Wouldn't you want to have the ability to defend your family, your property, and your home in the face of a threat? What if the attacker also had a gun? Wouldn't you sleep better at night knowing that you have the ability to stop such a person, however probable or improbable their entry may be, from doing harm to your family and/or property? I consider myself prepared for any eventuality. I grew up in Boy Scouts, so I still go by the old motto.

There are times when the police cannot make it to you in time or cannot be contacted quietly enough to prevent the attacker from doing their worst. I know one family, close to my parents, who were in just such a situation and saved their own lives by being prepared with a gun at the right time to prevent their own murder from occurring. So I do not try to get guns out of the hands of families that have a right to own them, and I'm not giving up mine. You can call me a nut all you like and it won't change my mind or my experiences...

Actually, I have considered owning a Glock and almost bought one. I fired bigger hand guns and love rifles, rockets and golf. Theres a small riddle. In the end I took a more Eastern approach and determined that you reap what you sow, and a protective handgun was more likely to turn into a unanticipated casualty, my own or a family members. As opposed to defending my property, I took a different approach--have no property worth defending. Very liberating if u haven't tried it. Now family, sure I would defend with all my heart, but the likelihood of an attack on them randomly is pretty small. One can live in fear or just close the circle.

 

[drankin]

Hey I have a demerit plus a warning. I'd hate to be censored for the best use of language in a particular instance. I've been kicked off a number of forums for being too outspoken--here I'm blending, or at least was trying too. But the phrase in question was intended to capture the mindless antipathy towards others of different race, and reminded me so much of a a post I made on another thread, when I starkly recollected the year 1968, when racial violence tore asunder many big cities and left rural communities fearful of an invasion,

Personally, I'm not offended because I understand your context. But, some people freak out when the word is used at all. It will be a long time before people can use that word without assuming it's an absolute racial slur.

 

[mormonator_rm]

Hey I have a demerit plus a warning. I'd hate to be censored for the best use of language in a particular instance. I've been kicked off a number of forums for being too outspoken--here I'm blending, or at least was trying too. But the phrase in question was intended to capture the mindless antipathy towards others of different race, and reminded me so much of a a post I made on another thread, when I starkly recollected the year 1968, when racial violence tore asunder many big cities and left rural communities fearful of an invasion,

Well, I have never had any "mindless antipathy" towards any race. And my wife's crazy ex is the same race as me anyway, so I don't think that my gun ownership has anything to do with racial prejudices. And you know what, the finest professor I ever had in college was muslim, and I still talk to him and am good friends with him and his family. They are great Americans. So I would say I not a predjudiced person.

As for the vigilante remark, well, I had a funny thought cross my mind...

"... What do you think of my new gun case? Isn't it wonderful! Its made of mahogany and is well polished, so it looks great... What? What did you say you found in my gun case? A... A gun! Oh my gosh, I have a gun in my gun case? I must be a vigilante! Oh, no! I have just become a vigilante because I put a gun in my gun case... how horrible! The police are going to hate me now because I own a gun, and I stuffed it in my gun case."

Yeah... I'm a vigilante because I own a gun, even though I was told it was a good idea for my protection and I still don't carry it anywhere (except to Freedom Armory for practice... oooh, they must be vigilantes too). And the county judge said I should get one too. Wow, maybe he's a vigilante, too... lolololol...!

So:

1) if you own a gun and keep it anywhere in your house, you are a vigilante...

2) if you own a gun, you must be racist because racists are the only ones who are scared enough to think they need a gun...

Woohoo! I'm a vigilante!

Sorry, I got carried away with my sarcasm... but it was soooo fun...

 

[drankin]

Actually, I have considered owning a Glock and almost bought one. I fired bigger hand guns and love rifles, rockets and golf. Theres a small riddle. In the end I took a more Eastern approach and determined that you reap what you sow, and a protective handgun was more likely to turn into a unanticipated casualty, my own or a family members. As opposed to defending my property, I took a different approach--have no property worth defending. Very liberating if u haven't tried it. Now family, sure I would defend with all my heart, but the likelihood of an attack on them randomly is pretty small. One can live in fear or just close the circle.

It's my honest opinion that if you purchased a pistol (even if it were a Glock ) and became familiar with it, maybe went to a range a couple of times a month for fun, took a safety class or had some instruction, your attitude would be much different about gun ownership. It's not a fear thing for most people, it's a preparedness thing. In the statistically highly unlikely event that it was ever required to defend yourself or another you would be prepared for the worst. I'll look for some stats but responsible, licensed, armed people find themselves in those life and death situations every day. 9 out of 10 people (so I've been told) never have to pull the trigger to defend themselves. Simply drawing the weapon and being prepared to fire has ended the attackers assault.

 

[denverdoc]

Well it is soohoo to defend against. IF you believe America would be more safe by having everyone slap a holster to their side, enjoy the fantasy and wish the consequences don't bite you on the butt. The stats are pretty clear on this issue. One can always engage n some fantasy warplay. Wish you well. Have you tried negotiaiation of any type?
\

 

[mormonator_rm]

Well it is soohoo to defend against. IF you believe America would be more safe by having everyone slap a holster to their side, enjoy the fantasy and wish the consequences don't bite you on the butt. The stats are pretty clear on this issue. One can always engage n some fantasy warplay. Wish you well. Have you tried negotiaiation of any type?
\

I tried negotiation already... I was nearly strangulated by the guy in my own car, and I escaped death by pulling the clip out of HIS gun and spreading HIS bullets all over the place in the back seat of my car... My comprehensive coverage covered the repair of bullet holes in the ceiling of my car, fortunately, so I didn't have to pay anything out in cash to fix my baby, my '97 Mazda 626 LX. So, um, negotiating with madmen doesn't work. And I don't like the idea of negotiating with terrortists, theives, rapists, or anyone else of that sort.

 

[mormonator_rm]

Well, I'm off to bed. I wish I could stay up and debate with you all about this, its been fun. Gotta catch some shut-eye. Have a nice night you all, and watch the roads all you east coasters... its a slippery one out there.

 

[denverdoc]

better in bed than trying to figure out why a criminal assault left both the police and victim suggesting he take up arms. Absurd BS.

 

[Anttech]

What an amusing thread, we have argued about gun ownership here before. IIRC the conclusion was that it makes you less safe from being attacked with a firearm, the data is there for everyone to use as they wish, but you can't really spin the huge murder rate by firearms you have in the states compared to other western countries.

As I said before its just an extension of capitalism, the selfish right of 1 to endanger everyone else. There is no good, or sensible argument for allowing people to have firearms, apart from *I want I want I want*. So be it.

America is a Nuclear nation, with MAD on its side, there is absolutely no possibilities that it will be invaded, it a moot point.

I do however understand that there is no way back for America now, this bed can't be unmade, it will appease the extreme capitalists, and they can continue "protecting there property" and just live with a high murder rate.

 

[drankin]

What an amusing thread, we have argued about gun ownership here before. IIRC the conclusion was that it makes you less safe from being attacked with a firearm, the data is there for everyone to use as they wish, but you can't really spin the huge murder rate by firearms you have in the states compared to other western countries.

As I said before its just an extension of capitalism, the selfish right of 1 to endanger everyone else. There is no good, or sensible argument for allowing people to have firearms, apart from *I want I want I want*. So be it.

America is a Nuclear nation, with MAD on its side, there is absolutely no possibilities that it will be invaded, it a moot point.

I do however understand that there is no way back for America now, this bed can't be unmade, it will appease the extreme capitalists, and they can continue "protecting there property" and just live with a high murder rate.

You are right about one thing, there is no way back. Because there never was a "back". There is a relatioinship between the our people being armed and the fact that the US is a world super power.

People get murdered by gun toting criminals everyday in the US. But people do not get murdered by gun toting licensed citizens everday. The mass murders that have occurred in the US, in our schools, in our workplaces (the US Post Office, hence the term "going postal") have been in "Gun Free Zones".
In our country, if our right to own a gun is restricted the murder rate goes thru the roof. Washington DC, California, New York are prime examples.

 

[denverdoc]

You are right about one thing, there is no way back. Because there never was a "back". There is a relatioinship between the our people being armed and the fact that the US is a world super power.

People get murdered by gun toting criminals everyday in the US. But people do not get murdered by gun toting licensed citizens everday. The mass murders that have occurred in the US, in our schools, in our workplaces (the US Post Office, hence the term "going postal") have been in "Gun Free Zones".
In our country, if our right to own a gun is restricted the murder rate goes thru the roof. Washington DC, California, New York are prime examples.

Thats a new one--world superpower because we are armed?! If talking about the decimation of the indegenous people so we could take their land, maybe.
But I should think that part of the eqn involves a vast landmass with "weaker" neighbors on both sides, a brilliant constitution, unfettered capitalism, and abundant natural resources all combined with yankee ingenuity has more to do with matters now than winchester or colt.

 

[mormonator_rm]

better in bed than trying to figure out why a criminal assault left both the police and victim suggesting he take up arms. Absurd BS.

Good morning doc... the vigilante is back!

 

[Anttech]

People get murdered by gun toting criminals everyday in the US.

Will you except that there is a direct correlation between the amount of firearms in the US, and the murder rate? Will you then accept that the reason for the amount of firearms is because of your pro-gun laws?

 

[drankin]

Will you except that there is a direct correlation between the amount of firearms in the US, and the murder rate? Will you then accept that the reason for the amount of firearms is because of your pro-gun laws?

Yes, Anttech, I accept that. The problem here is that we have always been an armed society for hundreds of years. Every other home in America has at least one firearm (I don't have actual stats but for the sake of argument). To now disarm everyday citizens simply puts us more at risk from criminals that will always have arms available on the black market. The UK on the other hand has always had gun control from the onset (as far as I know). So it works there.

To actually be invaded by another super power is not likely anytime in my lifetime. The odds that history shows us is are that it is an inevitability that it will happen someday. I would just as soon that our people are somewhat prepared or the fact that we are prepared be a deterent.

 

[Anttech]

Yes, Anttech, I accept that. The problem here is that we have always been an armed society for hundreds of years. Every other home in America has at least one firearm (I don't have actual stats but for the sake of argument). To now disarm everyday citizens simply puts us more at risk from criminals that will always have arms available on the black market. The UK on the other hand has always had gun control from the onset (as far as I know). So it works there.

Although you have different reasoning, you have come to the same conclusion, that its too late to disarm. That being said, will you now not attempt to use the "sensible persons" argument, because we know it isn't sensible to arm society because it increases violent crime in that society.

To actually be invaded by another super power is not likely anytime in my lifetime. The odds that history shows us is are that it is an inevitability that it will happen someday. I would just as soon that our people are somewhat prepared or the fact that we are prepared be a deterent.

That isn't a deterrent, nor will it ever be. Half of Afghanistan is armed, yet they continuously are being invaded.

The only argument that is water tight is the basic, *we want to have guns so we will have guns*

It isn't possible with the current data we have to use any other argument.

 

[drankin]

Although you have different reasoning, you have come to the same conclusion, that its too late to disarm. That being said, will you now not attempt to use the "sensible persons" argument, because we know it isn't sensible to arm society because it increases violent crime in that society.

That isn't a deterrent, nor will it ever be. Half of Afghanistan is armed, yet they continuously are being invaded.

The only argument that is water tight is the basic, *we want to have guns so we will have guns*

It isn't possible with the current data we have to use any other argument.

Now that we agree that it would not be practical to disarm US citizens what is the issue? What is the argument?

 

[drankin]

I would like to add that I would not feel like I needed to carry my firearm on the streets of any town in the UK. I'm pretty confident that most of the thugs over there are not armed with a firearm. But from what I've heard, knives are a common weapon of choice for the criminal type in the UK.

And I do want to go over there someday and get in touch with where my ancestors came from.

 

[tehfrr]

victory in DC! In the US, cops are not required to protect us. http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/CopsDontProtect.htm

 

[Astronuc]

I agree with BobG's views expressed in Post #57. I believe that guns should be treated like cars - that one needs to demonstrate responsibility and competence as part of owning and using guns.

The second amendment was written in a different time, when guns were necessary for hunting and defense. I suppose guns or 'arms' should be limited to single shot flintlock muskets or pistols, which were the arms in the context of the 1789. Or perhaps 'munitions' should be regulated and licensed, which would be like owning a car, but needing a license to put gasoline in it.

I have used pistols, rifles and shotguns in the past, mostly for target practice. I was pretty good at hitting small targets at long distances. However, I have no desire to own a gun nor have one in the house.

As for security, if one gets to the point of owning a gun in order to defend one's home, then one should consider additional security measures like a motion sensor which activates lights and extra locks on the doors and windows. Hopefully this would disuade on intruder or at least give one time to prepare.