I own four firearms. For the protection of the house and my mutts and my life I sleep with a double barreled twelve gauge shotgun beside my bed. At close range there is no weapon that is superior to this one as far as knowing I am going to kill someone. If I fire the shotgun in this house I mean to kill someone. That is the only reason I have that gun. The gun is there to kill other people.
I belabor that point because technically the shotgun could be used for hunting, sport fishing, and driving nails. That isn’t why I have it sitting beside the bed at night. I live at least twenty minutes away from any sort of law enforcement and that’s if they’re geared up and ready to go when they get the call. If the one deputy on duty at night in on another call or on the other side of the county then I better be able to either charm someone breaking in or kill them.
This is what gun ownership is all about when we get down to the bone. Hunting isn’t something protected in the Constitution. Sporting shooting isn’t protected in the Constitution. The Second Amendment is all about having enough guns to kill the people we think need killing, and people, let me be the first to say that we are not going to run out of those kind of people anytime soon.
The problem is this; guns kill people.
Where ever there is a high incident of gun ownership the incident of gun related deaths will be higher. Simply put where there are guns there will be people shot with guns. The answer to gun related violence is not more guns any more than the answer to rape is more penises. We cannot arm ourselves into peace. We cannot shoot our way into security. We cannot kill enough of the bad people to make the good people safe.
But I am not giving up the shotgun, oh hell no.
For once I am going to say something that is totally without exaggeration or hyperbole; I haven’t the first clue what to do about this problem. After Newtown, it is clear there are too many guns, too many high power large clip guns, and too many people in the gun industry who are buying too many politicians. After Newtown, we have to admit the gun culture is wrong and dangerous and getting worse.
But I am not giving up the shotgun, oh hell no.
I do not have an answer just a lot more questions.
(1) Would you support a total ban on all guns?
(2) Would you support a ban on assault rifles and large capacity clips?
(3) Would you not support any sort of gun control?
(4) Something else not listed (Leave a comment)
(5) No Strong Opinion
Take Care,
Mike
Take the poll below
Mike writes regularly at his site: The Hickory Head Hermit
+14-16
I think you should be able to have shotguns and rifles for hunting and protection, but all other guns need to be strictly controlled. My suggestion is to make the penalties for gun violence, including suicide, by the owner or anyone using the owner’s gun to be so severe that you’d have to be rich or determined to keep one. There should also be buyback programs to get as many guns out of people’s hands. The business about mental health is a distraction. As long as mentally healthy people can bring home legal guns for the mentally unhealthy to use then we’ve still got a problem.
This morning I saw Newt Gingrich saying that one step toward gun control leads to another step and another, toward total gun elimination, which sounds like the marijuana-leads-to-heroin argument, but what direction are we taking by making guns so ubiquitous. More guns, as you say, means more gun violence.
That is a fairly reasonable argument, Grog.
We punish people for what their dogs do so we might as well punish people for what their guns do, even when those guns are stolen from the owners.
The mental health issue isn’t a distraction as long as we have crazy people getting guns. We could make it easier for people to get treatment or have a better idea of why people seem to be getting more crazy more often.
Leave all the guns in the hands of the Rich? I don’t think that’s so smart of an idea.
Surface-to-air missiles don’t kill people – People kill people. Grenade launchers don’t kill people, People kill people. That’s why we all can have a surface-to-air missile and a grenade launcher in our backyards… ops… there goes my argument!
Yeah… I guess laws are there for GOOD REASON.
a pic of my AR15
Why do you have a grenade launcher?
How many ex-wives do you have?
its really a flare launcher its just for looks,and I am thankful I have no ex wives
So the flare launcher might be a little too much?
well there are buckshot shells for it ,that would put a person down but I dont want their atoms/blood/guts all over my walls so yeah that might be a bit too much
40 mm with 00 that would make a mess.
And a truly nice video if you were shooting watermelons with it.
I think you should be able to own and use a howitzer if you want. However, I see nothing wrong with proving you are competent and capable of the responsibility with each kind of gun. Much like pilots have to do with different types of aircraft and recurring flight reviews.
Although I agree with you, we could all be proven incompetent in some way. I have thick glasses that could be used as an argument against me. Others have essential tremor.
Seems to work for pilots. Don’t see where this would be a limiting issue for guns.
It works for pilots and even for car licenses because there is a perceived need. Once a government decides that no one should have fire-arms they can disqualify anyone they want. They can stack red tape so thick that it reaches the moon and eventually people will give up.
The problem with the comparison is that the death by an incompetent pilot is not the intended consequence. Death by a gun is the design of the gun so they are not truly (I don’t agree with this) needed.
Any regulation there is can be worked around to make anyone not eligible to own a firearm.
Buckwheat, you’re right. I have a positional tremor in my hand, so I don’t have any handguns because of it (my choice). And it doesn’t prevent me from using other weapons.
I like this analogy, Mike. Let me simmer on it for a while.
I’ve got to say that the firesmith has seemingly missed the point of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is in place to make sure we keep our current (or former) republic in place. Self-defense is a close second, and hunting is third. The only thing keeping our government, and other governments from turning tyrannical is the bloodbath that would occur if there were ever an attempt to remove our current government. I know this looks like a long-shot as far as someone or some entity trying to usurp the power, but we live very short lives, and things change over time. For the past 40 years the government has continued to try to take arms from law abiding citizens. I don’t think there are any involved in taking away guns that want to push us to a tyranny, but I don’t think they think it’s a possibility either.
I have been asked then why it is not lawful to own a nuke or an F-16 privately. There is a very simple answer for this. A private company or citizen owning a weapon capable of overthrowing our current government is just as dangerous as our government trying to change from a republic to a dictatorship. Thus there is a limitation to what we should own as a people. Should there be limitations to who can have a gun? Yes, but we have that already. Should there be training required? That one is up for debate but I think it is a good idea. Should everyone with arms know how to keep them secure? Yup. Now we know why we can have what we can have. This should make it easier to set limitations on what arms private citizens should have. I have no problem with large capacity magazines, or “assault” (scary looking) rifles. Properly regulated I have no problem with fully automatic weapons.
My final argument is that if we are putting weapons bans in place due to loss of life then we would have to apply the same rule to other non-useful practices that kill just as many or more. I am talking about alcohol in this case. If we pass a weapons ban then we must pass a ban on alcohol containing more than 3% alcohol because it will save lives. I don’t really advocate an alcohol ban, this is just something to chew on.
Rest assured, when it comes to the Constitution, I do not miss the point. In fact, you merely repeat exactly what I have said if you had left out the part about hunting.
You just wrapped pretty what I said. You said the Second Amendment is there to keep us safe from the government while I said it’s there so we can have guns to kill people.
Hunting isn’t covered by any language in the Constitution. The spirit of the law, in the time that it was written, was all about us having guns for killing other people, or to keep other people from killing us, however you want to phrase it.
If I had an answer to this question that would involve the elimination of guns I would make that argument but as it stands, for the reasons you bring up, Buckwheat, I cannot.
” Properly regulated I have no problem with fully automatic weapons.” – Buckwheat at 8:57 A.M.
“Once a government decides that no one should have fire-arms they can disqualify anyone they want. They can stack red tape so thick that it reaches the moon and eventually people will give up.” – Buckwheat at 12:50 P.M.
So, what changed in a period of four hours? Are you in favor of “properly regulated” firearms or are you against the government getting in the way because “…They can stack red tape so thick that it reaches the moon…”? Or, in the alternative, are you suggesting that there should be some private entity that has the right to “properly regulate” firearms so the government doesn’t get involved? Please explain and show your work.
I’ll field that one. The first comment was in context of regulating individuals to all firearms. I admit that it would be a good idea to have some kind of firearm safety license, but how the government regulates things is differently than “properly regulated”.
I admit that my dividing line here is murky as everyone has a difficulty defining every contingency unless you go extreme no guns or extreme all arms. I hold that there is a pretty big dividing line between semi-auto and auto weapons that is easy to define, and thus easier to regulate, thus my comment. I am open to suggestions on this though.
What I ultimately want to avoid is being limited to a pointy stick because of bureaucracy and my threshold for that as of right now is automatic weapons.
“The 2nd amendment is in place to make sure we keep our current (or former) republic in place.”
I guess I look at all the amendments differently. The Bill of Rights did give us the people anything. What it did do is put limits on the federal government and the federal government alone. Everyone has read the Preamble to the Constitution, but how many people have read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights?
“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
If you read the decision United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), you might see the point I’m trying to make.
The Court did not incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states and found that the First Amendment right to assembly “was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens” and that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.”
My 50 Cal. ’1830′s’ Hawkin single shot muzzleloader will kill something just as dead as my AR clone SEMI-auto.
Please note,
1) Clips hold cartridges and are used to load Magazines
2) Usually, clips hold 10 rounds (not high capacity) three are used to fill those evil Magazines.
3) Laws don’t stop criminals… How many did the slug in Newtown break?
4) Honest gun owners don’t kill good people.
5) Guns are tools, tools do not kill, the operator of the tool kills.
6) Anything used to assault someone is an assault weapon, lets outlaw golf clubs and baseball bats.
“Honest gun owners don’t kill people” but sometimes (Newtown, Albuquerque, and Webster, NY among others) their lunatic family members do. How would you handle those cases?
Only My wife, 13yr old daughter and I can get into my (Commiefornia Legal, Rapist approved) safe. Before you ask, Daughter outshoots Mommy every time and the ‘safe’ by the bed opens quickly to allow my wife fast access to her .357 Taurus M65 with the Laser site – at 30 feet [Bedroom door to front door] the dot becomes a bullet hole. Would she shoot, yes. Does she want to, no. Our daughter is more important to us than anyone BREAKING IN. I can not speak as to the sanity of your family but my family is healthy.
Jim, your argument is by far the strongest when it comes to ownership. Can I, or anyone else for that matter, assure the safety of your daughter, and if someone did, would you trust them with your daughter’s life?
Also, your gun safe, regardless of who approved it, makes certain your guns stay with you.
I might add that a .357 fired inside of a house makes a noise guaranteed to impress. Even if she misses the sound of a hand cannon going off will certainly ruin the pants of a would be criminal.
This is one of those cases where I agree with someone’s plan for gun ownership and as far as the health of your family, mental or physical, you convinced me it is sound.
Jim, like you and Mike I am a gun owner and keep a weapon close at hand while sleeping. I am interested, however, whether your wife has considered that an intruder might not be standing in a straight line between your bedroom door and your front door. What might she do, half awake and seriously rattled, if the intruder were in a direct line between your wife and your daughter’s bedroom wall? Let’s just say that she misses with one or two of her first shots (policemen who qualify at the range repeatedly have been known to miss in broad daylight and while wide awake). I’m guessing a .357 could be pretty deadly even after going through a wall. I suggest your daughter, at the minimum, should wear a tactical vest to bed.
(Haven’t *really* read the article yet, just been contemplating this on my own.)
The best “solution” I can think of is a mandatory yearly (ideally, more frequently — like three months, but that’s more of a bother than anyone would ratify into law and would also get more expensive) inspection of all weapons you are licensed to carry, including a check of their serial number and your ability to handle the weapon (strip, clean, reassemble, load, fire a full clip or more, and unload).
In my eyes, this keeps the owner of the gun slightly more responsible and aware of it’s presence and capabilities.
It does not solve other people gaining control of your weapon, but hopefully having to take it out every year (at least) reminds you it’s there, in turn reminding you that you need to keep it secured as safely as you are able.
The overhead for this might be expensive, but it should *not* cost the gun owner *anything* but time, convenience, and ammo.
It would give gun owners a great (…mandatory) excuse to hit the gun range!
It would not prevent corruption in the inspection process. (…more expenses for random oversight…)
Unregistered/contraband guns will still exist. But if they aren’t registered, licensed, and kept up to date annually (*just like a car!… we already have this system!… and yes, you get a Year/Month sticker to put on your gun*), then penalties for possession can be much stronger.
Like vehicle registration, your address should be on file — unlike vehicle registration, but kind of like jury duty, if you fail to show up and you were capable of doing so, you can be fined and the cops will be at your door.
I do not and will not personally *ever* own a gun (other than my paintball markers), but I definitely don’t support a full ban of guns either. A full ban is impractical, and someone with enough desire to own one will always get their hands on one anyway. They are amazing pieces of equipment, but fairly simple, and it would be easy enough to crudely manufacture one on your own if guns ever *were* actually banned.
Thus far… this is the best solution I can come up with. It doesn’t solve everything, it might even be prohibitively expensive, but it doesn’t abuse anyone’s rights and could hopefully increase gun owner responsibility.
I don’t know how it would apply to collectors’ (theoretically non-operable) weapons.
I’m not sure about all of this gp, but it is sound reasoning as far as control goes. No one has ever advocated taking our cars away from us because we have them registered and I doubt having oversight on guns will lead to the Great TakeAway some more rabid gun owners seem to think is going to happen next Tuesday at noon.
How what you suggest could be done, I cannot say, but I’m willing to listen.
Mike,
there are many people who lived in Germany just before WWII that thought the same thing
There are many more differences in the time and people, Mitchell, than there are similarities. I am not saying that it could never happen again or here but I am saying the differences are greater.
Jim said it best……
Infidel, your AR-15 and your carpet need a thorough cleaning…..
the rifle does need a cleaning but the carpet has different colors in it and I have my own carpet shampoo cleaner and I use it,its time to remodel anyway
I won’t give up my guns, yes plural, I know how to shoot, I enjoy shooting at the range. I live alone, I keep guns within reach of my bed, again plural. I hope I never have to use one in the middle of the night, if someone comes into my home uninvited they mean harm to me obviously, and I will use one.
And you should do just that, Chick.
Personally I thought the constitution was meant to be pretty rock solid, not something that is so easily debatable. People don’t argue other parts of the constitution or bill of rights. I’ve yet to hear that the first amendment was only envisioned by direct communication and by the press with moveable type and flat bed presses. Yet somehow we think that the first amendment applies to radio, television, internet and modern assault-style printing machines.
Anyhow, sidetracked there a little bit. Personally I might be ok with additional required steps to take to get a firearm if there were also additional protections put in to strengthen the 2nd amendment and stop this arguing over it. I’d like the discussion to not be about firearms, but what to do to about violent crime. Personally, I feel that if you did get all the guns, you would just see people move to explosives to kill numbers of innocents. Just how we see suicide vests in other parts of the world.
I also feel like gun ownership is kind of like a vaccine as in not everyone has to get vaccinated to enjoy the benefits of it. If you don’t own a firearm, that’s fine, but you enjoy the benefit of people thinking you might if they were to consider committing crimes against you.
Without firearms I’d feel pretty vulnerable to groups committing crimes, which would likely be where things move to if the people were disarmed. If a group of criminals showed up to hurt myself, my children or even kidnap them, I’d be helpless. I feel it would be far to easy for a group of 6+ to go about without fear of harm while robbing and assaulting. Right now they’ve got to think, even if they are armed; ‘there might be one guy in there, with a rifle, and he could take us all out if we break in’.
I’m as baffled as you seem to be my friend. I keep looking for a rational argument on one side or the other but “rational” does not seem to be applicable even in the remotest! There is no shotgun by my bed but it is on the list of things I need to feel safer in my neighborhood which has become a relatively modern ghetto. On the other hand, there’s a 50 cal flintlock sitting in the other room. Think of me as a sniper with an attitude.
Reading everybody’s comments I have to say that it’s weird how people live with fear. Or that somehow a gun can alleviate it in any meaningful way. I have many guns large and small. None that would be considered an assault rifle but surely I own guns that could do as much or more damage than that AR-15 listed above. I don’t take comfort from any of them.
In my service days I was qualified expert Nine years straight with my M-16, and my Colt .45 sidearm. It was fun, and I enjoyed using them. I don’t think it made me feel better about my chances should I need to use them. I did take comfort from the good men in my unit that we had each others back. I slept soundly knowing the guy sleeping next to me would look out for me just as I would look out for him.
I still feel that way. I have neighbors near and far that stop by if they see smoke. That will call and check on each other when somebody is sick. When I see a car I don’t recognize at my neighbors house I will look twice at it. If I know they are on vacation I’ll stop in and see whats going on. I don’t live in fear. I live in a community. A rural community.
I tell you that the argument about a gun making you feel safer is silly. Statistics sure don’t back you up. So I’ll keep my guns and you keep yours. I don’t want to take them away from you. But all of you that live in fear – you people scare me. If your answer to a world that scares you that much is to put your faith in a gun, well I don’t want your world and my world intersecting.
I don’t live with fear either, one of those reasons is because of firearm ownership. You don’t have fear because you slept with a bunch of men in the military, that’s great, strength in numbers. Now you don’t live in fear because of your neighbors. I think it’s silly to think that your neighbors will always be there right when you need them. If there’s no fear, then why do you even bother to look twice at that unknown car. If there’s no fear why bother stopping in when you see smoke (“I’m sure they’re fine, nothing to fear”).
But fear is why there is a discussion on this, people fear guns, and school shooters. That’s why there is talk of gun bans.
I’d say most people have fears, even us. People fear losing their job in tough times. People fear the dark, that is why there are so many street lights and security lights. People fear walking to their car along at night. Someone might fear walking in the dark, so they bring a flashlight. Someone might fear losing their job so you have a savings account. You might fear an unexpected injury so you have insurance or a savings account. Some people have religion. Everyone has their things that make them feel safer and better, I’m glad you have yours. Maybe you can dismount that high horse of yours before you act like you’re the one that has all the right answers and people who feel better with a gun around are scary and you don’t want to ever come into contact with them.
LOL I’ll get off the horse when you take off the asshat. Simply put if you are in that much fear you need to do something more about it than hide behind a gun. It (to me) is an intellectually lazy position to argue from. I (personally) don’t accept that the best way to change a hostile world is to make it more hostile. Certainly, if you feel the need to lash out with deadly force at a moments notice, then I am saying I couldn’t live like that. And I don’t want to live with people that are so emotionally unhinged that they do want to live like that.
Hahaha, I’m saying people don’t live in “that much fear” (however much that undefined imaginative amount is) because they do things about it, just like you have your buddies sleeping with you, or having nice neighbors around. It’s like saying your so emotionally unstable that you hide hide behind other people to quell your fears.
It amazes me that you think that if someone feels an amount of comfort for having a firearm it makes them hostile, emotionally unhinged and likely to lash out with deadly force at a moments notice.
May I call you uhm? I’ll ask you the same question that I asked Buckwheat: Just out of curiosity, how many times have you shot an intruder while protecting your family? I know that your answer will probably revolve around “it could happen” but you could also win the next Powerball drawing. Gun advocates (and again let me assure you that I am armed) like to point out that gun control is unnecessary because “only” 30,000 people in America dies from gunfire while there are something like 3 Million guns in circulation. Let’s look at it a different way. If all of those deaths were of bad people (no six year old children or battered spouses) then the efficiency of gun ownership would be about one tenth of one percent. You wouldn’t buy a headache pill if it promised only to work one tenth of one percent of the number of times you bought it.
Why is there a class of people who feel so impotent if anyone gets to regulate how they use lethality?
I will say that I’ve never had to shoot an intruder. I will add that when they were trying to break in through the garage door, it felt really nice to have it ready and pointed that direction. They were coming in the back and a car was out front, I really didn’t know what direction was safe. At that time I was thankful for the fast response of the police (once the sirens were heard in the distance they ran off), I really do not want to shoot anyone. I’m glad I noticed them before they even got into the garage, if I noticed when they were at the door it might have not been soon enough.
So yeah, it did make me feel safer, and does. I’m not sure why that means that feeling that way makes me silly, that I’m hostile, emotionally unhinged, or quick to lash out with deadly force.
I’ve had two different homes where someone attempted to get inside while it was occupied. The second time he just ran off once he realized I was there, unlike the 1st time.
It’s a tool like any other, I’ve got jumper cables that I’ve never used, I’ve got a spare tire that I check it’s air pressure in occasionally also unused, there’s a car jack somewhere back there as well. I keep water and snacks in the car in case there’s some huge wreck on the interstate and my kids need something to eat while I’m stuck there for hours. I like to keep a good amount of gas in my car in case I need to go somewhere in a hurry or at a time of night the gas stations are closed. I’ve got car insurance and health insurance and accidental insurance just in case, all unused. I’ve never needed an airbag or a seat belt, but I use those. I don’t live in fear of flat tires, dead batteries, accidents, or empty fuel tanks, or injury but I do think it’s comforting to know those things are there. So maybe I’m a crazy to feel safer having my kids in a seat belt, or maybe feeling safe with a gun doesn’t make me crazy.
I pretty much staying out of this discussion because I don’t have strong feelings one way or another but I certainly like the way you expressed your feelings. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
uhm You obviously live in a place and/or fashion that makes you a target. Tell me besides the gun what have you done about it?
I can tell you that I to have had my old house robbed. They got away with some stuff. My old garage was broken into. I have had generators and tools stolen from outbuildings. I own hand guns, rifles and shotguns. Whats the difference between us that keeps my guns in my safe and yours ready for use?
Thanks Jonco.
Apparently I cannot reply directly to Mike’s post, so I’m replying to my own to reply to him:
I’m not sure what makes it obvious that it’s me or where I live. There’s 500+ miles between those two instances. What is it about you that makes people rob your out buildings? My property has always remained mine. Should I leave things out for other people to take so they wont bother me in my house?
I’ve moved, I’ve put up lights, I’ve even installed a security system and put up those signs in the yard at one of my homes. I’ve installed really good locks and strike plates with some giant screws.
I don’t know what else to say about why I have a gun available, I’ve mentioned that I keep plenty of things available and ready to use for different situations, many of them never used. One of those things that I have available is a firearm, I don’t see how that is scarey or unhinged.
Sigh, I said if you use the gun as the solution to the problem of being fearful rather than doing anything else about it. You took that statement and owned it and took offense. Frankly this has become so personalized its not worth continuing.
So good luck to you and yours. I’m happy you have piece of mind and I’m sorry you have to have a gun to get it.
Well I’d like to apologize Mike, I honestly thought I was answering your questions about what else I had done (ie. moving, security, lighting etc,). You then asked what makes us different, and I said I didn’t know what else to say, I don’t know you.
I too should of stepped out long ago, when you started using parenthesis to illustrate your deep personal and unmovable feelings about the issue.
Americans should be able to own, possess and carry any properly registered firearm if they are properly and legally licensed. Legal ownership is not the problem. If anyone is convicted of illegal possession, they should be given a minimum sentence of ten years in prison. If a firearm is used illegally, life in prison. If someone is shot give them the chair. Make it a federal crime, and then create a program rewarding people who turn in anyone who might be committing illegal possession. If you ain’t on the cops registered list, you going to jail.
“Where ever there is a high incident of gun ownership the incident of gun related deaths will be higher.”
Is this just your opinion, or can you point to studies where this is the case? Logic would say that if the bad guys know you have a gun and can defend yourself, they are less likely to target your house. So I would think that a high incident of LEGAL gun ownership would mean that gun related deaths would be lower (well, assuming that the deaths would be targeted victims, and not including the death of the criminal. Although overtime, criminals would start thinking twice about attempting crimes if their life was in danger). This is why Washington DC and Illinois, where there are bans on guns, have the highest rates of gun related crimes in the nation: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/18/gun-ownership-up-crime-down/
I am guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms, just I’m guaranteed the right to free speech. Banning guns is not the issue. Teaching individual people to take responsibility, and stop expecting on the government to be our savior is the answer.
Adam,
That is logic. No guns at all means no guns deaths, right?
I’m not talking about legal versus illegal guns, I am talking about guns. Where there are guns people die because that is what most guns are designed to do.
No where in anything that I have ever written at any time in my life have I or will I, advocate banning all guns.
Washington and Chicago are awash with illegal guns and that is why the death rate there is so high. Now, the solution to that problem cannot be more guns, can it?
We cant however eliminate guns. Even if we shut down all manufacturers in world, someone would make guns. Just like moonshine or illegal drugs. You ban guns, then all that happens is only bad guys have guns.
If we could hypothetically get rid of guns, then next is knifes, baseball bats, tire irons, etc?
No where in anything that I have ever written at any time in my life have I or will I, advocate banning all guns.
Adam, I hope you are not smoking around that strawman. It could catch fire. “If we could hypothetically get rid of guns, then next is knifes, baseball bats, tire irons, etc?” In a similar discussion I had last week with my Ex-Army Ranger buddy, I asked whether he was more lethal at 75 feet with a gun or a knife. He allowed as how he would be more lethal at a distance with a gun. He is, I’m pretty sure, pretty good up close with a knife. The point of this discussion should really revolve around all of those wannabes who think that packing iron makes them more manly and safer than their unarmed friends. Look back to the wounds suffered at gun shows during “I need my dick stiffened firearms day” and you will see that it is not so simple a question. Just out of curiosity, how many times have you shot an intruder while protecting your family? I know that your answer will probably revolve around “it could happen” but you could also win the next Powerball drawing.
I do not own a gun and do not anticipate ever owning a gun. I do not object to others owning guns.
Collateral damage. The term is used often to report deaths of innocents in a war situation. We accept collateral damage in non-military situations, too, we just don’t call it that. The rare massacre is “unacceptable” collateral damage for gun ownership. The extremely common daily death rate caused by automobiles (much higher than gun deaths, btw) is “acceptable” collateral damage. Why? The easily preventable death rate by NYC subway is “acceptable” collateral damage. Why? Death rates from medical malpractice are higher than gun deaths. Why is this collateral damage more acceptable than gun deaths?
We have virtually eliminated deaths from what were once common diseases via vaccination, and now we have people complaining about the relatively minuscule collateral damage from this vaccination policy. Why?
Personally, if I were in charge, I would work to eliminate the most egregious preventable causes of death, not the rare causes of death.
Well said, but the argument against what you say (that I don’t agree with) is that all of the other things you mentioned are necessary or have a purpose other than death. The thought is we could eliminate 100% of the collateral damage due to guns by removing them and we won’t miss that cold steel in our lives.
Because I disagree with this sentiment my rebuttal is that the guns serve us a purpose to defend ourselves against the government and from criminals.
Buckwheat, I know I’m getting into dangerous territory by trying to resort to logic, but what color uniforms were Obama’s agents wearing when they came to take away your guns? If the Obama Administration wanted your guns it wouldn’t have waited to see if he could get re-elected to go after them. It would have happened, oh maybe, three years ago. The same is true with the Clinton, Carter and Truman Administrations. Guys in camo or ninja suits aren’t going to rappel down from black helicopters to disarm Americans if they haven’t already done so. This “it’s going to happen if we don’t stop it” mentality has fired all manner of paranoid fantasies for as long as I can remember. Back in the 50′s it was about all of the Communists in the (then Republican) Administration. In the 60′s it was that the Hippies were going to steal our daughters. Now it’s gun grabbers and gays turning us into something if they get married.
It’s only been 40 years and we have lost a lot of gun rights. I don’t think Obama is going to do it, but if you watch the trend it can get to the point where it is the truth. All that is needed is a convenient tragedy to keep it moving in the right direction. There are people currently pushing for 100% gun ban. For some reason when I say the government is coming after our guns they think it will be tomorrow. Nope, line upon line. They will inch their way and convince us until a majority oppose the public having guns. There are currently countries which used to allow private citizens to have firearms that today do not. There is no reason that it cannot also happen here as well.
Well, actually there is a very good reason that it cannot happen here. The Constitution prohibits it. But before you fly off on a “look how much we’ve lost” response. Consider this: The Constitution does not say nobody can touch my guns! It says that a well-regulated militia is necessary to protect your gun rights. When that serious gun advocate in Tennessee (where I live) went on YouTube to shout “If they go one inch farther, I’m going to start killing people” he failed to mention which “well-regulated militia” he represented. If you (and I don’t accuse you personally of this) believe that the government cannot regulate anything that isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, then you’ve never boarded an airplane. My father worked for the FAA and they had a lot of regulations regarding airplanes long before he died in 1960. Nobody was shrieking about their constitutional rights to fly just because the Founding Fathers hadn’t conceived of an airplane. Regulation is not confiscation. Just as you cannot own and fly an airplane in a manner that will likely cause an innocent bystander to be killed, maybe the Founding Fathers didn’t think there would be anything more efficient at killing than a muzzle-loader. They didn’t consider the killing power of an AR or the rapidity of being able to spray death around with high capacity clips. Times change.
Money, the problem is money. There’s big money in promoting the idea that the “government” wants to take away your gun(s). There’s big money in selling you the latest in high tech weapons gadgetry. There’s big money in convincing people their AR-15, with all the bells and whistles, will be victorious over those Apaches, Warthogs and Drones.
But there’s no money to enforce the shit-ton of laws already on the books. The same people that are making money promoting fear of confiscation, have lobbied to choke off enforcement funding. Laws that would help keep straw purchasers from arming the gang bangers. Laws that would enable the cops to track the owners of guns used in crimes. Laws that would force people to be responsible for their actions.
I was at the courthouse the first day PA made carry permits available to the unwashed masses. Of approximately 30 people in the room, half got up and left as soon as they said you would have to be fingerprinted. I’ve often wondered if the ones that left were reluctant on general principles, or they had another reason.
I don’t buy the, “if you’re not doing anything wrong, you don’t have to worry” argument, not for one minute. I guard my privacy more than anyone I know, but I think keeping better track of lethal weapons, should be a priority. Although I must admit taking the time to write them all down would take me awhile. ;o(
With stupidity like this, you deserve to be enslaved. Perhaps you’d rather go to a country that already has those laws rather than try to change this one into one of those. Or, lets just throw the whole constitution down the tube, because the 2nd Amendment is the one thing anchoring the rest of our crumbling rights in place…
Virtually every argument for having a gun for “personal protection” is nonsense, you will never have it ready in time when you “need” it.
Put security systems in place, motion detectors that turn on lights, sirens etc. (they can be set so cats/raccons etc won’t set them off).
Any gun that has more than 6 bullets is over-kill.
Stop making ridiculous assertations that all guns should be legal. Just say, “I got a small penis and big guns make me feel like the man I can’t be sexually”.
NRA = Front for Gun Manufactures.
If you support the NRA and don’t own shares in gun manufactures, you are being “owned”.
It’s always about the money.
Funny how every LEO I know would disagree with you. I don’t know any officer that only has 6 rounds. even my riot guns have 8. Get your CCL and carry. Then it will be with you when you need it
Nothing to do with masculinity or confidence. You don’t want a gun, fine. Don’t own one.
I would really like to hear your argument the day after you have been held at gun point
hopefully your family will not be with you when you are at someone’s mercy
been there, done that. It will not happen again.
So, when you were held at gunpoint, you are confident that you could have successfully drawn down on this person without being shot first?
I was mostly referring to having a gun “under the pillow”. Too many tragedies in the home by a lose loaded gun versus anyone that “protected” their families by safely having a gun locked up.
Certainly not referring to law enforcement people while on the job.
Anyone that thinks having a gun to “save the day” have a sever Walter Mitty complex.
Bad guys kill way more innocent people than vice-versa. Cops are not “innocent people”, they are doing a job and need whatever they need.
Grumpy,
My dogs let me know way ahead of time when someone gets close. They act as a buffer and a distraction until I can get up and get armed which takes about a second.
My argument for person protection is based on experience. Here, in this place and this time, three dogs and one gun, is all that there is.
It can be argued and argued well that I have better odds of dying in traffic than out here by violence but I wear a seat belt and I sleep with a gun three feet away from my bed and I have very large dogs.
Your argument is historically specious. I find your remarks to be spurious at best and at worst, I feel you may have take your position merely to find some method of inserting language offense for the sake of shocking.
Without doubt, you have now inserted a new and totally unrelated argument into what, up until this point, had been a rather civil one despite the many and widely ranging opinions on the topic.
You might have introduced your point of view in any one of other ways but instead stooped to a level everyone else had the decency and civility not to do.
This thing you have about proving you can be as unlikable as someone can possibly make themselves is a detriment to everything you believe. You might want to examine this habit of yours and see if it reveals some species of self loathing or a lack of self esteem.
Without doubt that is the most ignorant and embarrassing thing anyone has written here to date.
Take Care,
Mike
Shouldn’t have added that last line, Mike. Sounds like a challenge.
“Take Care, Mike”?
You’re right! How dare anyone be polite and sign their name.
Who are you talking to, Mike? Mitchell? Ron Larson?
Bruce – A comment was deleted just above Mike’s. I saw the comment very early this morning, and it was by [someone] (from outside the US) who intended to completely derail what was a civil discussion with inflammatory and offensive language. We can cuss a little here on B&P, but this went far beyond. Jonco gives a lot of leeway for all opinions, but that one was way over the line. Most people here are better than that, and I can assure you, would have done the same thing.
Jon nuked the original and rightfully so, Bruce.
There was a fight just about to break out with that one. Some people do not know when to say when.
If this is seriously a public safety issue, then they need to look at the numbers.
More people are killed and maimed by cars. But we no debate about banning cars. We still hand out drivers licenses. Worse, we still have bars, sell alcohol in stores, outlaw drunk driving, but we still have the problem. I see more near misses by idiots on mobile phones in one day than I will see gun accidents in a life time.
Obesity contributes more to our deaths than anything. Yet we still subsidize the production of cheap junk food. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US.
The Newton massacre is a symptom of a failed mental health system. We don’t take care of our mental ill people, and we don’t help the families that need help dealing with them. There are plenty of ways a crazy person can kill people. Yesterday it was an assault rifle. Tomorrow it is a bomb.
Gun laws and reason don’t apply to criminals and crazy people. They are the problem, not the guns.
As much as I appreciate a sound debate and taking in a different perspective I have come to accept that gun rights should be added to list with abortion and religion that despite how sound an argument is, there are many more emotional factors that temper views than statistics.
most – yes a majority – of gun related deaths are intentionally self inflicted
requiring doctors to report potentially violent patients will stop people from seeking help
violent crime rates are highest where legal firearms are prohibited or strongly regulated
writers of the second amendment never imagined machine guns
we will, most likely, never need a standing militia to put down a tyrant in our own government
and pop culture glorifies violence and parents allow their children to participate in this culture
all valid arguments
all I would ask is that we respect each other’s views and opinions
no one is going to be right or wrong
congress will decide that and you have your opportunity to influence your representative or vote for a different one.
I like the voice of reason thing, Mitchell.
You do it well. Thank you.
I wish the idiots WE keep putting in congress would stop passing broad stroked not well defined bills. I collect old military guns all of which will fall in the assault weapons ban because my 1903 enfilde has a bayonet lug. and is a military type weapon. as well as a 200 year old Brown Bess musket. If I did some research I would be willing to bet the Brown Bess in the hands of the British empire killed more people in this world then m-16/ ar15 combined.
done ranting. on a calmer note…
As a gun owner I train all my kids how to handle firearms we go to a friends house that has 200 acres to play on we drill on gun safety and proper technique as well as have fun. but it doesn’t stop there when they get home we strip them down and clean them as well as learn how they work. with great respect for their guns my kids do not play with then or act stupid with them.
my kids will never be standing on a street corner holding there 9 sideways at the 5-o. because I took the time to teach them and be a parent.
Anthony
‘The answer to gun related violence is not more guns any more than the answer to rape is more penises.’ Penises don’t rape anyone. people with them do.
a medical background check and a competency test should be required to at least make it more difficult to get a gun. no guns if you’re on mood altering drugs
I agree with the last half of what you said, iamevilhomer
Oh OK, your reply didn’t make sense so I suspected something was missing. Keep calm and carry on.
)
Jon is a reasonable man. If he removes a comment you can bet it needed to go.