Alright, Gun Control Advocates...

You may note that my previous thread was locked. After posting in the "ask the admins" section, EarlG said that he thought I should repost the questions, without mentioning any names. So, I would ask the PGC (Pro Gun Control) folks to answer these questions.

Are you for the banning or confiscation of all firearms? If not, what are your opinions on gun-control in general. Could you please tell me what you think of various programs? What guns should be illegal, what should be legal. Should all be banned and confiscated? As you might have been able to tell from my few posts, I am a new guy who is also pro-gun. I am quite interested in getting your opinions.


I further ask that we (all the JPS participants) keep this thread civil. Let us "dialogue" in a civil manner. Remember, we can disagree without being disagreeable. Additionally, how about the PIFR (Pro Individual Firearms Rights) folks post your opinions on gun control too? Let's find out where everybody stands.

I don't believe in Gun Control....but, there really ought to be some kind of background check to make sure that the people buying guns are mentally able to handle owning a gun without doing harm to themselves or others. Don't ask me how that can happen, I just know that it makes me uneasy to have so many mentlly/emotioanlly unbalanced peopel running around with firearms.


It's really an issue that makes me nauseous: I've never owned a gun and I HATE them, and I abhor violence of any kind. But if you want to own a gun, go ahead.

Good reply!

You have already set up a barrier that can be quite political. These days tons of people are under psychological treatment and psychiatrists (and certainly their lobbying arm) might argue that anybody who feels the need for a gun is paranoid and shouldn't have one.

This is hard to police.

The latset mental illness handbook, DSM IV can be seen in various views to preclude gun ownership. Everyone is unstable to some degree. That alone should put a stop to civilian gun ownership. It must be up to the government to use any means even lies to disarm the populace. Remember the greater good. Treader

Surely you can't say that with a straight face! Read current events. Read history. We're a long way from Brigadoon.

of firearms after a NICS background check has been completed. I also support extending the NICS to private firearms transfers.

I do not support "may issue" concealed carry laws. I marginally support "shall issue" concealed carry laws. I wholeheartedly support "no restrictions" concealed carry laws like those found in VT and AK.

I do not support the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and I do support its demise this year. (yahoo!)

I support prosecuting crimes committed with firearms at the federal level. And, I support that people convicted of firearms crimes must serve their entire sentences without the possibility of early release or special programs.

At the risk of being labeled something unsavory, all I can say to your post is, "Ditto!".

on edit: One addition. If we're going to do the NCIS check we should do away with the inter-- intra- state restrictions on sales. You should be able to purchase in any state, regardless of your state of residence (assuming that you are otherwise legally allowed to purchase).

The government needs to have control to make the system work. Private armies cannot exist. Weapons are for killing PEOPLE. Dont you see the harm in that. The rights once thought defended by gun ownership are no longer applicable. AK-47 have no place in a kind world. Violence, even in the home invasion senario can be worked out through peaceful means. Greater good at all costs. Treader

where is it?

Here's a tidbit for you, never, in the history of the human species, has there ever been a "kind world". And never, ever will there be one as long as you have people who prey upon others through criminal activities.

A home invasion, by definition, is a violent act. A person who brings violence into my world will be met with as much violence as I can possibly muster.

Yes, I believe in unrestricted access to firearms. When you can tell me that there will never be another criminal act committed anywhere in the world and that deer and ducks will fall onto my dinner plate of their own free will, then I will surrender my firearms.

Brian

You are obviously hoping for a utopian society that will likely never exist. Oops. I forgot. Utopia would need no government.

Wake up and smell the coffee! As long as there are humans in the equation, there will be those willing to prey on others through criminal activities. Omnipotent governments simply practice crime writ large.

Ever heard of Libya, Iraq, Russia (USSR), Bosnia, etc.?

And I found that out the hard way after my robbery a few months ago. I can still feel the cold barrel of the gun being pressed into my ribs and then my neck, and the total and complete powerlessness and helplessness I felt because he had the weapon and all the power over my life at that point and I had NOTHING!

I'm against firearms registration. I am for 3 or 4 day waiting periods, hell make it a week if you want who cares, and federal background checks on all gun purchases, not just handguns (close those loopholes). I am for closing whatever loopholes gun shows provide that bypass background checks (though I am aware that most gunshows follow the law to the letter and make background checks mandatory.) I believe that Concealed Carry laws are a state's rights issue, as are the rights to possess a weapon in a vehicle, but that the right to possess firearms in the home should be considered the intent of the 2nd amendment.

Oh, and I am for ending the Drug War. This will keep our prisons relatively vacant for violent criminals who should never see the light of day. If you use a handgun in the commission of a violent crime, or the threat of a violent crime - you should never be considered for probabtion - you should spend the rest of your life in prison with others who cannot be trusted with the liberties (responsibilities) provided by the constitution.

"I am for 3 or 4 day waiting periods, hell make it a week if you want who cares, and federal background checks on all gun purchases, not just handguns (close those loopholes)."

FYI: Background checks are done on all gun purchases done with an Federal Firearms Licensee.

don't even get me started on that bullshit!

The 2nd amendment is not good at all. If only the army and swat teams had guns criminals would not. We need to round up ALL GUNS and imprison anyone who would try to keep one. If we had no nations we would not have the foolish notion of gun ownership. Guns are too dangerous for regular people. Only trained government servants should have access to firearms. Governments need to possess the power to force its will on the people to keep our future system going. People need to be seen as a resource. Resources should not be free to resist. We need to work to a greater society. The outdated personal freedom aspect of the US just fractures us up. We must unite onder one power. Rebellion cannot raise its head in that system. It upsets the powerstructure. Treader

IMO personal freedom will NEVER be an outdated aspect of anything.

Unite under one power? We've seen how well that works; Czarist Russia, absolute monarchies in Europe, the Dynasties of China, etc.

I do have a question. Whose power structure are you concerned about upsetting? Also, are you advocating a return to an absolute monarchy or theocracy?

Please tell me that I need more coffee and have mistaken your darkly humorous post as being serious.

Treader supports Dictatorial Communism, if I read his post correctly. He'll learn eventually what a poor system it is. He'll just have to read the history books.

... treader was a disruptor trying to make people whose views s/he was pretending to share/represent look very bad.

Oh look! I was right!

I'm always amazed at how easy I find it to figure these things out when others seem to find it so difficult. I mean, why would anyone bother responding to such things otherwise?

.

So much to laugh at.

We need to round up ALL GUNS and imprison anyone who would try to keep one.

You must be saved, EVEN IF IT KILLS YOU! Clearly treader is so committed to peace, love, and non-violence that use of force is justified to make it happen.

Guns are too dangerous for regular people.

Yes, we ordinary folk are just too dumb and shiftless to have weapons.

:eyes:

Governments need to possess the power to force its will on the people to keep our future system going. People need to be seen as a resource. Resources should not be free to resist.

OMG, I can't breathe. If I don't finish this post someone please call 911...

The outdated personal freedom aspect of the US just fractures us up. We must unite onder one power. Rebellion cannot raise its head in that system. It upsets the powerstructure.

Thanks for the belly la..., uh, civics lesson, Treader!

ALL GUNS and imprison anyone who would try to keep one?" Umm, does that include the criminals who prey on law-abiding citizens and who will always be able to get access to firearms no matter what, yet the law-abiding citizen can't do the same?

BTW, have you ever heard of a little document called The Constitution?

Am I really the only one who can spot a provocateur at 100 yards? Even without clicking on the profile and observing the tombstone?

Perhaps there are those who really can't distinguish between this tripe and a genuine expression of opinion.

Perhaps there are those who see it as in their interests to treat tripe like this as if it were a genuine expression of opinion.

Far be it from me to speculate as to who might be whom.

.

Great job, iverglas! You think more clearly on your feet at 4:30 AM Pacific time (whatever time that is where you live) than I do.

:toast:

Kudos to you, congratulations, and pour yourself a cold one, eh?

:D

I have to admit I was taken in, but my excuse is that the troll was not very far afield from attitudes I have occasionally seen in genuine DU posts.

I want some recognition for my riposte joke. ... Oh, I'd thought that was about one of yours, but it wasn't you. Oh well, you may laugh uproariously anyway.

A little more recognition for my loaded snowball joke wouldn't go amiss, either.


"I have to admit I was taken in, but my excuse is that the troll was not very far afield from attitudes I have occasionally seen in genuine DU posts."

Mm hmm. I guess that if I saw someone making such bizarre and unsophisticated "argument" against a position I held, and I actually thought s/he was serious, I'd be more likely to just figure that s/he was quite capable of, er, shooting him/herself in the foot without my assistance.


And now it's just about time for Scrubs. And perhaps a Trailer Park Boys rerun.

Speaking of which -- I strongly advise everyone to make sure that s/he is subscribed to BBCAmerica by April of this year. That is when it will start airing the first season of Trailer Park Boys, the funniest half hour of television ever broadcast. And never mind the expurgated prime-time version you'll be getting -- stay awake for the real thing. As Ricky told the judge, when he was conducting his own defence on charges of illegal (siphoned) gasoline-vending, telling him he can't smoke and swear is a violation of his rights under the People's Choices and Voices Act ...



.

on my opinions regarding gun control. I am now in favor of almost a total ban on gun ownership. Guns aren't necessary and are much more harmful than good for the society at large. I used to think that we needed guns in order to protect ourselves from the right wing whack jobs, but with the facists in charge, no weapon would be of much use, anyway. Now, all we are doing is killing and maiming each other for no damn good reason - it's pointless.

Criminals can be redirected. I will lay down my life and the lives of my kids for my beliefs. If an armed thug enters my house to kill or rape he can take what he wants. I also can speak kindly to this persons softer side. It is a good bet we will be left alone. Guns cannot save you from violence in the home, they only make it worse. Even if you did kill a rapist, you would have to live knowing that YOU KILLED A HUMAN BEING. BUT..... If my wife were raped because we couldnt fight back, she would still be alive and I would not have to deal with my part in a death. Rape is just an act, guns take lives. Thats the way it is. Treader

Have your kids voted and said yes dad we are willing to die for your beliefs? You have my total support in believing in anything you want. You have no right at all to try to force your beliefs on others.

I am sure there are some possessions of yours that I wouldnt mind coming over to pick up.

And you won't even resist or try to deter me! Your such a wonderful victim. If only all people were like you.

You're absolutrly correct in that portion of your post. They can be redirected to prison, or in the case of a criminal assaulting my friends, family, or me or breaking into my home; I'll gladly redirect him/her to the morgue. No charge for the ride.

I find it hard to believe that you could live with knowingly allowing your wife to be raped without giving your all in her defense.

Having worked in a penitentiary I can tell you for certain, folks with your attitude are exactly what criminals dream of.

leave it to the states

They can't decide to limit the 1st Amendment any more than they can the 2nd.

Are you for the banning or confiscation of all firearms? If not, what are your opinions on gun-control in general?

In general, I am opposed to the banning or confiscation of all firearms. I feel that reasonable gun control measures should be enacted to allow access to firearms to anyone who chooses to own them, providing they do not have criminal records, histories of mental illness, or have been convicted of violent acts (such as domestic violence).


Could you please tell me what you think of various programs?

Eddie Eagle is worthless. Project Exile seems to be working.


What guns should be illegal, what should be legal?

I believe that the assault weapon ban should be extended.


Should all be banned and confiscated?

No, they should not.

Could you please elaborate a bit on what reasonable measures are? Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

melding previous post with this reasonable response.

I can retain fire arms and you dont object.

How does this thread maintain energy?

It seems short sighted to allow the possession of any guns at all. The components of a bullet can be separated and used in explosives. Lead is toxic too.
They do house to house searches in Iraq, why not here? Collect all the guns and destroy them. Jail the owners if need be to set an example.
Patriots are zealots and terrorists. Mcviegh and Waco for examples. Nuff said. Treader

I believe in the easy access of firearms for the law abiding. I support the NICS. I support S659 and Concealed Carry. I believe that Eddie Eagle works, Project Exile works, and that that AW Ban is stupid. I believe that any man-portable conventional firearm should be obtainable by the general public. I support the denial of rights to felons, the chemically dependent, and the insane.

<rant=on>

While I can understand some need for certain restrictions on firearms ownership (background checks, among others), I will continue to oppose any pending or proposed legislation and will fight to repeal current legislation... even if I happen to agree with it.

The reason is a simple and direct one (some would say selfish); the more gun control advocates, groups and legislators push for more restrictive and outlandish anti-gun laws, the more I feel I have an obligation and justification too hinder and stonewall their every move... Never.. ever allow the enemy an inch of ground. I will never compromise or retreat on any 2nd amendment issues until the anti-gun caterwaulers wake up and cease proposing useless and obscene restrictions against myself and others to responsibly own firearms.

For starters...

Defeating any attempt at renewing the AWB would be a crushing blow to the Brady/VPC/MMM types. The AWB is a legislative priority for them; it's their crowning achievement and one of the few victories they can claim. Even then it was a muted victory because the "sunset" provision was added and manufacturers were able to produce "post-ban" style configurations.

As much as I'd like to put a collapsible stock or flash suppressor on my post-ban AR, it's not a priority or "must have" (it won't improve my marksmanship <:)>). I'm reasonably certain the vast majority of AW owners could get along just as well. I have more 10+ mags for my firearms than I can really use (although it would be nice to be able and purchase newer ones at a more reasonable price); there's still plenty on the market to go around for a long time.

The resulting mental anguish and hand wringing of having the AWB expire would be worth more than being able to reconfigure my "post-bans".

Likewise, I fully support relief from litigation against firearms manufacturers, distributors and dealers. This sort of legislation wouldn't be necessary if the anti-gun people hadn't gotten greedy, over zealous or in over their heads. I will admit that there are a few bad-egg dealers that need a bitch-slap or prison time. If they (anti-gunners), had focused themselves on the dealers and/or persons breaking the law, then I could sympathize with them. But, blaming distributors and manufacturers? Sorry, Charlie... try again. There is no 'design in safety problem', distribution, nuisance, recovering costs or "disproportionately effecting blacks" issue... "Move along". "There's nothing to see here".

Again, while I see this sort of legislation being worthwhile on it's merit alone (as both an injunctive relief to manufacturers, distributors and gun owners), I see it more as an opportunity to deny the anti-gun people a legislative victory.

American gun owners, regardless of their needs, opinions or preferences, need to join together, put aside their differences, and work to break the back bone of the anti-gun forces... (kind of an oxymoron since they have no spine to begin with). That should be our goal!

</rant>

My "anti-gun" side.

I see no real problem with NICs checks, safe storage and trigger locks laws, a prohibition for substance abusers, mentally deficient and persons convicted of certain felonies.

Permits and training standards for CCW are a wise move.

A reasonable number on the amount of firearms purchased per month. What that number should be, I really can't say, but at least "bulk" purchases should be regulated. In this regard, I'm only concerned with the "car trunk" dealer. Some collector or person who happens upon a 'good deal' or luckily found a firearm they've been wanting shouldn't be penalized just because they bought another firearm a few weeks ago.


My "pro-gun" side.

I support shall issue and national reciprocity for CCW. I do not support a reciprocity bill that only includes LEOs. Vermont style carry would be preferable, but I don't think it's workable or wise.

No registration, under any circumstances.

An expiration of the AWB.

Rescind the Executive Orders on imported firearms and sales of mil-surp ammo to the public.

No ballistic fingerprint database.

No ban on .50 cal firearms.

Passage of a bill to protect gun manufacturers from bogus lawsuits.

The 1934 NFA is BS, however, at least do away with the $200.00 tax.

School education of all children about gun safety (I really don't care if it's the NRA or not, as long as it's unbiased).

Enhanced sentencing like "Safe Neighborhoods".



There, I think that about covers it. <:)>

I proposed this program a few months back. Now that the wedding is over, I'm working on letters to the legislators about this:

(Originally posted back in November)

After wading through the crap thrown around the Dungeon, I have distilled the arguments on both sides down to two core issues (as I have seen them):

1) firearms should be available for self-defense, for a host of moral and ethical reasons, with reasonable restrictions. Hunting is not important enough to be a "core reason" for firearms ownership.

2) firearms should be kept out the hands of those who misuse them, especially handguns, which are the true "firearm of choice" for criminals. Criminal threats to law enforcement should be abated.

I looked at various state and national laws discussed here in the dungeon, and have come up with what I consider a workable set of laws to address these two core issues. I am probably going to send these to my fed senators (Mikulski & Sarbanes) and rep (Wynn) after seeing the feedback I get here.

Yes, illegally owned firearms are used to cause much misery in the U.S. But the answer is not to impose further restrictions on the legally owned firearms when those restrictions do not address how and why illegally owned firearms are misused.

Instead of posturing about "assault weapons," concrete things should be suggested to ensure firearms safety above the current federal laws (minus the "AWB"):

- Require all firearms transfers to go through at least a state-level background check. You should show proof of ID and state residence. MD has a good system where the state police, instead of a licensed gun dealer, can do the background check for private sales. Failure to show proof of sale or report of theft means that the last owner is on the hook when a crime gun is recovered. Right now, the first person to purchase a brand-new gun is on file with ATF. My system will allow the chain of custody to be traced to the last owner, without the danger of a "Gestapo round up list" of registered firearms owners.

- Handguns transfers should have a minimum 3-day waiting period. This could help with suicides, some "rage" crimes, and maybe gun-running to some extent. If you need a gun NOW, and you don't have one, well that's piss poor planning on your part, now isn't it?

- Keep a state registry of all handgun sales (like MD does). This is not a "gun registry," where you have to keep a registration certificate with you at all times, like you do your car. This system merely keeps track of the last purchaser once, and only once, and until that purchaser transfers that handgun to someone else. This will address the handgun-running and straw-purchaser problem we have in this country, which is the real "gun problem." At the same time, this does not go overboard and keep Joe's shotgun or target rifle info in some 1984-style database.

- Mandatory safety training for all firearms purchasers. This addresses the need for safety training for all firearms owners, without the formation of a "Gestapo roundup list" of those firearms owners (aka "licensed owner registry.") MD again has a good system where the local police have to offer a free course (for handguns and certain rifles) once a week. Once you attend the class you get a "diploma" that you have to show before you can purchase a firearm.

- A concealed handgun permit system that allows any citizen, who meets the screening standards for armed security guards in their state (background check + training), to receive a permit allowing them to carry a concealed firearm for their personal protection. If a person can hire an armed security guard for their protection, it makes no sense to bar the person from passing the same standards as the guard and doing the job themself. Society gets (1) better trained firearms owners, and (2) more citizens actively protecting their ability to keep contributing to society, which ensures that more contributing citizens remain breathing and contributing to society. This permit would be valid in all 50 states, national parks and forests, and U.S. territories (i.e., DC); if you can hire armed security guards there, you can do the job there yourself.

- Handgun safety standards: all new commercial semi-auto handguns should have an integrated safety lock (so the gun itself can be locked), a magazine disconnect that prevents the gun from firing once the magazine is out, and a loaded chamber indicator so anyone can see that it is loaded. These features are old-art technology (HK, Steyr, Walther, S&W, even Taurus) in handgun design, meant to cut down on "oh sh**" accidents, suffered by even well-trained firearms owners as well as novices. John Browning got a patent for a mag disconnetct back in 1907!! In addition, a 9lb minimum DA or DA/SA trigger pull could be added to this list to cut down on negligent discharges or weak little kids shooting themselves. My G27 has a NY1 spring and I still hit the black; My p239 has a similar double action pull and I hit the black with that, too.

- Handgun safe storage: all handgun owners should be required to buy a gun safe of some sort to store their handguns when they are not at home actively supervising them. A quick-open fingerpad gun safe can be purchased online for $77. Too many stolen handguns are fed into the black market, which leads to the "handgun problem" I talked about earlier.

All of these things can be tied to the federal grant money given to the states for law enforcement (like the "over 21" laws were tied to federal highway money). That way, there is no federalism problem like when the feds impose something on states.

esp. the info on the $77.00 safe. I'm getting one for the nightstand. Excellent post. Is anybody else impressed that us in the Dungeon have gone to 17 posts and stayed nice to each other?

:thumbsup:

Why you mother-bleeping bleeps!!! guns....ahhhhh! Anti-guns....ahhhhh! Asswipe lunatics, all of you! Bleep!

Edited to add one more bleep.

I'll settle for a hearty "You smell like a bus and have the mental agility of a small soapdish, you ignorant lunatic asswipe!"

Boy! I feel better now. We can't afford to tarnish our image by having civil discussions in the Gungeon.

then raise a tankard of ale with you. :toast:

I went ahead and had a Oban, neat, in your absence.:evilgrin:

I resolved to only drink one day a week and jog the other 6. I need to give my liver a vacation.

...right now I'm having one for February 3rd, 2007!

Your program doesn't work. Very few criminals use legal firearms.

All firearms must be banned, even for the police. Then nobody, especially criminals, will have firearms and society will be much safer.

Most European nations have done this. When a gun crime is committed in Europe, the police know right away that it was done by a criminal as they are the only people who still have guns.

Allow me to paraphrase...

"When a crime is committed in Europe, the police know it was a criminal who committed the crime."

You don't say!

I guess it does sound dumb but Europe has much better control on firearms than we do. They never had the gun culture we have over here so it was much easier to get rid of their guns.

Every time this country tries to reduce the number of guns in society, the NRA types claim that only criminals use guns to commit crime and that gun control does not result in reduced crime rates.

Most countries in Europe got rid of their guns because their governments were worried that the citizens would use those guns against the government and not because of any criminal activity. Germany is a case in point, Hitler got the guns out of the hands of the common man and when he was gone, the new government pretty much kept the same gun control laws in effect. Thus, a much safer society.

To start with, this country had few gun control laws except in the South and those laws were aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of freed slaves. It is also true that most of the original gun control laws in the Northeast were aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of the emigrant population because of fears of what that "lower class" would use those guns for. However, just because gun control laws were enacted to protect a certain part of society from a "less desirable" part does not mean that gun control measures shouldn't be enacted.

where the ownership of firearms is banned and gun crime has gone through the roof.

How often are RKBA advocates going to keep trotting ouut this utterly fictional bit of horseshit?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2769569.stm

yep after 6 weeks all is better

Don't worry, the crooks will come out again in the springtime.

America has about four times the rate of violent crime as Britain, as we've seen.....AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN

"Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April across the country"
That's in a country of 80 million people...

Is it the BBC

Or maybe Sir John Stevens

There is no doubt that there are far too many guns in London and across the board, but if you look at the recent figures, use of guns went up considerably in London , but in the last six weeks - in the beginning of this year - the use of guns has gone down by 28%."

Got to love those 6 week statistics, And my assumption must follow that London more severely restricted gun access in that 6 week (Whoo Haa) period.

how many percent the gun crime in Britain would have to go up to match, say, Alabama's level?

Alabama has a 20th of the population as Great Britain but has more gun crime by itself in a year.

Are not on your list of approved sources. I get that,but what part of the linked article was a lie?


how many percent the gun crime in Britain would have to go up to match, say, Alabama's level?

Alabama has a 20th of the population as Great Britain but has more gun crime by itself in a year.

And how can you compare a nation several thousands of miles away from the single local governmental body of Alabama? I understand that comparisons That are not of close geographical proximity and/or nearly indentical in population, and the mix of population rural/urban don,t hold sway on this site

Although I did not do that. I just linked a BBC article that states 'even though gun related crimes were sky rocketing' everything is ok now because of the new 6 week numbers

My imagination does not allow me the ability to think what you would do if anyone tried to quote the statistics over a 6 week period to try to form a logical argument

and the US does not is a big fat honking lie.

By the way, you will notice that the "gun nuts at the BBC" are not demanding that pistol permits be handed out like candy and that assault weapons be put back on the street, unlike gun nuts here.

"how can you compare a nation several thousands of miles away from the single local governmental body of Alabama?"
Tell us that wasn't what you were trying to do.

I did not imply anything.

I did not bring Alabama into the discussion and try to compare it to London

I never implied that Great Britain has a gun violence problem.

I did use the BBC article to point out that even with Laws that restrict the ownership of guns so stringently that even uniformed police do not carry guns, gun crimes were sky rocketing, according to Sir John Stevens, but all is better now after looking at the six week numbers.

And the comment


By the way, you will notice that the "gun nuts at the BBC" are not demanding that pistol permits be handed out like candy and that assault weapons be put back on the street, unlike gun nuts here



Given that by their own admission 'gun crimes are sky rocketing', doing the exact same thing and expecting a different result, is a sign of delusion, and a different tack may be worth a look

"I did not imply anything."
Yeah,, surrrrrrrrrrre.....you just suddenly decided to wrench the thread into a new direction for no reason at all.

Hitler gave weapons to the common people. He allowed no-permit over-the-counter sale of long guns and relaxed the rules to get handguns.

The Nazi-law was kept in part, that's correct, but the part about getting a gun was hardened (either a Sportsman , a hunter, or a field of work where one is needed).

anymore. I used to be very pro-gun-control, Brady and Million Mom member and all of that. Not against ownership by law-abiding citizens, mind you, (my stepfather, brother-in-law and ex-boyfriend, with whom I'm still friends, are all gun owners) but for everything the Brady Handgun Control, Inc., stood for. And when I became a parent (my son is now almost thirteen) I was even more so, the thought of losing him to gun violence like tens of thousands of other children each year was just unbearable. And I'm still horrified at the horrendously high number of gun deaths, particularly teenagers, every year, most of them totally preventable and unnecessary.

Then I was robbed in my work parking lot in early August. There's nothing like the cold barrel of a gun being shoved in your ribs and then your neck to give you some perspective. There he was, and he looked like he could have just as soon shot me as look at me, with all of the power (just one flick of his trigger finger, and it would have been all over) over my life at that moment, and there I was with nothing. He had all the power and I had nothing.

So, here I am, considering what was once, to me, the unthinkable, taking a firearms training class and getting a firearm. I live in Ohio, which is about to pass a concealed-carry bill. I feel that if that psycho thug was able to have a gun that he could have easily used to snuff out my life and leave my son motherless and having to be raised by my parents, then I should be able to have something to protect myself with as well.

OTOH, there's still enough of the gun-control advocate in me to feel some qualms at this change of heart, and there are times when I honestly don't know how I feel. I don't ever want to feel that powerless and helpless again, though, and the law gives me the right not to have to feel that way.

These incidents, unfortunately, happen far too often. It is not the way someone should convert to the gun-rights side, but sadly it frequently is.

Remember in your training that you must absolutely know that you are willing to take another person's life to protect your own and your loved ones. If you think you may hesitate in that moment of truth, then carrying may not be for you.

Again, best of luck to you and your family. It's good to know that you are able to protect yourself if you so choose, many of us in other states are not given this "privilege" by the government.

I don't know if I can do that, if I could really pull the trigger when it came right down to it. I know that sounds wishy-washy and wimpy, but I don't know if I could. Maybe if I were actually in that situation, and someone was actually threatening my life or my son's or friend's or family member's life, I could do it. We never really know what we're capable of until it happens, I do know that.

It's been ingrained in our minds all our lives that it is wrong to kill another human being. Of course, we also know that shooting in self-defense is justifiable homicide, but it isn't something we think about that often in our day-to-day lives.

Have you started your training yet? I'm sure that once you do, you will become more comfortable knowing how you would act in that situation. Remember that the other person does not care a whit about your life and you must do everything you can from having that person take away your son or keep your son from growing up without a mother.

When it gets right down to the short hairs, you don't have time to contemplate the issue. Hesitation usually equals injury or death.

think that you would learn that in training, because it seems to me that most people wouldn't be able to do it naturally.

...in regards to: "I was even more so, the thought of losing him to gun violence like tens of thousands of other children each year was just unbearable."

A more accurate figure would be "In 1999 there were 1776 gun deaths in the 0 through 17 age group".

From: http://www.tincher.to/deaths.htm

but that's still too high! It's not the fault of the guns, I know that, it's the idiot parents who don't do what they're supposed to do to keep the guns safely locked up and who don't teach their kids gun safety and handling.

Nothing involving live firearms or shooting, just the basics of how to clear (unload) a few of the most common types of firearms e.g. revolver, semiauto pistol, one or two rifles, and a shotgun)?

A lot of parents, including ones who own guns, are not competent to teach safe handling. I was fortunate to have a former military firearms instructor as a parent.

years thought I'd say something like this, but that might not be a bad idea. You never know when your kid will come into contact with a gun no matter how much you try to keep guns from them, and it's better that they know basic gun safety and handling measures if and when that happens.

It's the same principle, I suppose, as the rationale for sex education in schools. And parents who really, really, really don't want their kids in such classes would have the option to withdraw their kids from it, just like they do now with sex education in a lot of schools.

never know when your kid will come into contact with a gun no matter how much you try to keep guns from them...

Improperly stored guns should be regarded as a sort of environmental hazard much like improperly secured medication, toxic household chemicals, dangerous tools, etc. (Personally I consider weapons to be a subset of tools.)

Anyone who objects on moral grounds to their kids learning about guns or sex or drugs or safe driving should have the option to keep them out.

Thanks for the reply.

...conservatives who don't want their kids knowing about sex and liberals who don't want their kids to know about guns run into each other.





(I think the baby represents the repubs)

Hoo, boy, what an image that presents! Kinda gives new meaning to the phrase "shotgun wedding", now, doesn't it?

Total mayhem will ensue.

:evilgrin:

new meaning to the phrase "riding shotgun!"

The county conservation officer came to the school and taught the class. As I recall, it was hands on with nonfiring replicas.

What would you have done when the gun was already pressed against you? Use some kung fu to kick it away and then draw your own gun? You'd have been shot dead. It is good that you did NOT resist.

And you have a child in the house. No matter what you say, eventually that child will think about your gun and want to pick it up and show it to his friends. Another fatality.

You had long standing beliefs and convictions. You were victimized and are now looking for an easy solution to prevent vicitimization in the future. A gun is not the answer. Instead, I would urge you to redouble your efforts with the Brady Campagine and MMM to get ALL these weapons of war off the streets.

We're talking about sporting and self-defense firearms. Citizens of the US (as well as most other countries) are not allowed weapons of war.

fuck trials just kill them, Barbara Graham.

As the term assault weapon is defined by US law, or any of the alternative definitions used by a few states.

On edit: To clarify my comment, I am not aware of any firearm that is defined as an assault weapon in the US being employed as as standard-issue weapon by any military force in the world.